‘Deceitful’ implies lying

In a recent letter to the Chronicle, Rabbi Mark H. Levin, used the word “deceitful” to describe those who have voiced concern about the sincerity of President Obama’s promises of continued support for Israel’s security. Obama recently asked a gathering of Jewish Democratic Party donors to side with him in the coming months if he encounters friction with the Israeli government. He repeated his commitment to Israeli security, stating that he knew what was best for the Jewish state.
If that doesn’t send chills down your spines and cause you to check to see if the luggage is intact, nothing will. I would be the last to besmirch the integrity of the esteemed rabbi by suggesting any participation by him in what may prove to be the second most deceitful chapter in the history of the Jewish People.
I hope that Obama does not use similar tactics against Israel as he has used in Libya. A United Nations vote to establish new borders, and then threatening to use UN or NATO forces to implement may well be his back-up strategy if Israel does not accept the UN plan. We may never even know if such coercive tactics are employed.
I would never accuse someone of deceit in a public forum without having seen undisputed proof. Being deceitful implies lying. What could be worse than being called a liar by a widely respected rabbi? Opinions, observations, and conclusions are not lies. Perhaps the rabbi responded in haste or anger or was simply mistaken by his choice of words. Perhaps he was just lacking in clarity that day. Words can be used and taken in unintended ways.
Regardless, what can be considered to be blind political allegiance is evident in the continued acceptance of Barack Obama as a fair arbiter of the long conflict between Muslims and Jews over the mere existence of the State of Israel. That is my opinion based on observations that resulted in that clearly stated conclusion. To call it shilling for the Republicans or labeling it as deceitful would be inaccurate.

Leonard M. Moss, M.D.
Scottsdale, Ariz.

It’s almost Independence Day. And in surfing the Web, I came across this small snippet by Ariela Pelaia that talks about a Jewish connection to this uniquely-American celebration.

“Many Jews came to the New World following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. By the time the War of Independence erupted some 200 years later there were more than 2,000 Sephardic Jews living in America. Two of the most famous Jews who played a role in the revolution were Francis Salvador and Haym Solomon.

Francis Salvador was the first American Jew to die in the revolution, fighting for his country on the South Carolina frontier. A representative to Congress who was one of the earliest champions for Independence, his involvement on the battlefront began when the British started encouraging Indians to attack frontier families as a diversionary tactic. The first attack took place on July 1, 1776, and Salvador sounded the alarm by racing his horse to Major Andrew Williamson’s doorstep 28 miles away. He then took part in the battles that followed, fighting bravely until he was shot and scalped by Indians at 29 years of age.

The son of a rabbi, Hayim Solomon was a Polish Jew who coordinated the majority of the war aid that revolutionaries received from France and Holland. He also supported members of the Continental Congress, including James Madison and James Wilson. There are a number of unsubstantiated legends about Solomon, including the claim that he designed The Great Seal of the United States and that he placed the Star of David above the eagles head.

President George Washington later remembered the role Jews played in the Revolution in a August 1790 letter to the Touro Synagogue of Newport, R.I, writing:

“May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in the land continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants. While everyone shall sit safely under his own vine and fig-tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

As we celebrate the Fourth of July, not only should we remember the Jewish connection, but let us pause and give thanks to all those — past and present — who risk(ed) their lives so we might live in freedom.

We know a story of a circumcision scheduled, as is traditional, on the eighth day after a Jewish boy is born. This bris was planned for the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, on the West coast. After the events on the East coast became known to the friends and family members preparing for the bris, the grandmother of the baby called to see whether the circumcision would be delayed or canceled.

“Of course not!” was the resounding response, “circumcision happens in the Jewish tradition on the eighth day. It cannot and must not be delayed.”

The only way to counter an act of hatred, violence, and sadness was to proceed with the welcoming of new life into a sacred covenantal relationship with God. The only way to highlight the gravity of the international loss and devastation was to celebrate a cherished tenant of America: the right to freedom of religious expression.

As the director and the chair of the Berit Mila Program of Reform Judaism, we are deeply troubled by the initiative in San Francisco to criminalize circumcision. If the ballot measure passes, performing a central tenant of our religion will become a misdemeanor, punishable by law.

For thousands of years, Jews around the world have practiced this ritual; circumcision is fundamental to the practice of Judaism.  Muslims also consider circumcision central to their faith.

Federal law protects parents’ rights to direct the religious upbringing and education of their children. In Jewish tradition, the eighth day of a boy’s life is when he is welcomed into the covenant of Judaism. A circumcision (or, berit/bris) is performed by a physician or a mohel (a trained expert in performing circumcisions) as a physical sign — a daily reminder upon the body— of this everlasting covenant with God.

As such, the proposed ban against circumcision is an attack on religious freedom. Passing this bill would turn back the clock on a right so fundamental to this country that its paramount valuation dates back to the very roots of colonial America.

Our Constitution does not permit government to restrict the free exercise of religion without a showing of overwhelming compelling social interest, or the saving of life. In this case there is no such justification. Though supporters of the ban claim that circumcision is comparable with female genital mutilation, this is a blatant misrepresentation.

Female genital mutilation is rightfully illegal here, as it is performed for the explicit purpose of preventing female sexual satisfaction, and often impedes the very functioning of the reproductive and urinary systems. Yet the American Medical Association is clear that there is no credible medical evidence that male circumcision is similarly impedimental to proper function of the penis, or that it prevents male satisfaction. Individuals properly trained provide a safe surgical procedure that benefits both the medical and religious purposes for which it was intended.

That said it is also endorsed by many major medical institutions and physicians because of proven health benefits, including reduced risk HIV transmission, reduced chance of urinary tract infection, and diminished risk of penile and other cancers.

People of all religions, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds have sought new lives in San Francisco to advance the very frontiers of liberty — including religious liberty. The proposed ordinance targets a well-established religious practice of Jews and Muslims and denies parents a right to make a fundamental decision about the religious, cultural, and ethnic upbringing of their children. It is not only un-American, it is profoundly un-San Franciscan.

Dr. Michael Blum is a board certified pediatrician and mohel  practicing in Overland Park, Kan. He is the chair  of the Berit Mila Board of Reform Judaism.                  Rabbi Julie Adler received her master’s degrees from the University of Judaism and from Harvard Graduate School of Education and was ordained as a rabbi by Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. She is the director of the Berit Mila Program of Reform Judaism.

When They Come for Us We’ll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry by Gal Beckerman (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010) $30

Beginning in the 1960’s the American Jewish community, the Soviet Jewish community and the Israeli government all focused on the need for free immigration from the USSR for the 3 million Jewish citizens of the Soviet Union. In the United States, it was an era of protest. The civil rights movement captured the country’s attention, the anti-war movement galvanized the country’s youth. In the USSR Jews began rediscovering their lost heritage. Stalin was dead; and although his persecution of the Jews resulted in the decimation of the Jewish intellectuals, and indeed Jewish culture on all levels, small groups throughout the vast country were coming together surreptitiously to celebrate their culture and religion.

In Israel surrounded by hostile neighbors, the government looked upon the Soviet Jewish community as a massive immigrant group whose numbers would almost double their population of Ashkenazi Jews. As all three groups came together for this cause, the story of this movement was, as the book’s subtitle implies, epic in scope.

Beckerman begins in Riga, Latvia, in 1963 where a group of Jews are meeting in the forest of Rumbuli to reclaim the bodies of 25,000 Jews who were murdered when the Nazis marched into Latvia. These weekly meetings begin to take on the aspect of a Jewish revival with songs and dancing as well as the grim task of locating the bodies and giving them a Jewish burial. The author then focuses on the United States where two Jewish activists in Cleveland began lobbying for human rights in the Soviet Union, particularly for Jews.

Back and forth the narrative goes from the United States to the Soviet Union and back to the United States again. The actors in this drama are larger than life. Beckerman chronicles hardships and bravery of the Soviet refuseniks like Anatoly Shcharansky and Ida Nudel, and he brings to life American activists like Meir Kahane and Senator Henry Jackson — a cold warrior who made human rights his mantra in his quest to defeat the USSR. As the author points out, the movement to free Soviet Jews brought the American Jewish community together in a way that has not again been equaled.

This was a cause everyone — Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, the unaffiliated — could support. For anyone who was involved in a Bar or Bat Mitzvah pairing with a Soviet twin; for the people who protested by sending packages of matzah to the Soviet embassy or participated in a rally; for anyone who attended a Safam concert and sang “We are Leaving Mother Russia”; for everyone who sponsored a family from the Soviet Union when they arrived in the United States; and most of all for all those Russian émigrés who are now members of our community — brave individuals who risked so much in order to emigrate from the USSR: this book is worth reading and enjoying. It brings back a time, not so long ago, when we were all idealists, determined to do right, and believed in a righteous cause.

Andrea Kempf, a librarian at the Billington Library at Johnson County Community College, has reviewed books for many publications, including Library Journal and The Jewish Chronicle.

QUESTION: Can you tell me something about why, generally speaking, Jews do not name their children after their living relatives?

ANSWER: This is a complicated but very interesting subject. It has been a tradition for many years in the Ashkenazic world or Western Europeans Jewish world to name our children after deceased members of our family. One does not have to do so. However, it has been traditional not to name after the living. By the way, Sephardic Jews have never had that tradition. The only thing that the Talmud actually dictates regarding naming of a child is that one should not name one’s children after sinners or evil doers. Just to further strengthen this opinion, the rabbis go on to say “any person named after someone infamous or wicked will not be successful.” I do not know anybody who would want to name anyone after someone wicked or an evil doer anyway!

The uniqueness of these views is that one is introducing an element of mysticism and fear into the ordinary functioning of naming a child.

In Europe the custom developed, as I mentioned above, to refrain from naming children with the names of living persons. There are several reasons given.

According to Jewish law it is not deemed proper respect to call one’s own parent by his or her first name. That is actually Jewish law. I have always felt that parents who let their children call them by their first names are just asking for problems further on in life. Giving a child the name of a living parent or grandparent would generate confusion and limit respect given to parents. There is also a superstitious ingredient in this as well. To name a child after a living person gives the impression that one wishes that they are no longer alive. Let me explain. When a child together with his or her father or grandfather or grandmother have the same name and the time comes for them to “pass on,” we want to make sure that the older rather than the younger is the one who goes. I know that sounds silly, but that is a superstition also attached to this tradition.

Therefore, to forestall all such issues, Western European Jews, which includes most of us, simply did not name children after a living person. Concern for proper respect for parents, mysticism, coupled with the fear of “evil eye” serve as a basis for this tradition. There has never been an actual law to outlaw naming a child after a living person. However, tradition is very strong not to do so. It is a custom, but it has prevailed for well over a thousand years.

This Shabbat will be our oldest daughter’s Bat Mitzvah. When we asked her what she wanted as a special gift to remind herself of this special occasion, she answered without hesitation: a Star of David! This got me thinking of how pervasive the Star of David is in Jewish life.

The Star of David can be found around people’s necks, on the Flag of the State of Israel and in almost all imaginable Jewish ritual objects. A yellow Star of David is a symbol of the infamy of the Holocaust, whereas a Red one reminds us of the Jewish equivalent of the red cross: the Magen David Adom. The MDA is Israel’s national emergency medical, ambulance and blood bank service.

Where does the Star of David come from and is it really connected with King David? What is the origin of this six-pointed star?

The six points of the Star of David symbolize God’s rule over the universe in all six directions: north, south, east, west, up and down. It personally reminds me of the way we shake the lulav during Sukkot. We do it in all these six directions, again to symbolize God’s all-encompassing presence everywhere around us.

Originally, the Hebrew name Magen David — literally “Shield of David” — poetically referred to God. It acknowledges that our only empire maker and greatest military hero, King David, did not win by his own might, but with divine guidance and support. This is also alluded to in the third blessing after the Haftorah reading on Shabbat: “Blessed are you God, Shield of David.”

Curiously, the Star of David is not mentioned in the Bible nor in the Talmud, so it is evident that it only gained preponderance later in Jewish history. A prevalent theory is that the Star of David originated in the first century during the Bar Kochba rebellion. It was the outcome of a new technology developed for shields using the inherent stability of the triangle. Behind the shield were two interlocking triangles, forming a hexagonal pattern of support points.

The symbol’s association with King David comes mostly from Jewish legend. There is a Midrash that says that when David was a teen he fought his enemy King Nimrod. David’s shield was composed of two interlocking triangles attached to the back of a round shield. At one point the battle became so intense that the two triangles were fused together. David won the battle and the two triangles were henceforth known as the Shield of David.

The Star of David is not mentioned in rabbinic literature until the middle ages. It was during the latter part of this era that Kabbalists began to associate the symbol with deeper spiritual meaning. The structure of the star, with two overlapping triangles, has also been thought to represent the relationship between God and the Jewish people. The star that points up symbolizes God and the star that points down represents the Jewish people on earth. Yet others have noticed that there are 12 sides on the triangle, perhaps representing the Twelve Tribes.

Among the many meanings ascribed to the Star of David is that a six-pointed star receives form and substance from its solid center. This inner core represents the spiritual dimension, surrounded by the six universal directions. Similarly it would be the Sabbath, the seventh day that supplies balance and perspective to the six weekdays.

When Denisse and I place the beautiful six pointed star that we picked out and purchased for our first born daughter, our hope is that she will wear it proudly as a reflection of her own Judaism.

Rabbi Jacques Cukierkorn is the spiritual leader of Temple Israel and the proud father of Raquel who becomes a Bat Mitzvah this Shabbat.

I appreciate Marvin Fremerman’s positive references to the Unity Coalition for Israel in the June 3 edition of The Chronicle. UCI has long been outspoken on the issue pertaining to the radical Islamic threat to both the United States and Israel. It had become a matter of deep concern to us ever since 1994 when we first viewed “Jihad in America,” the PBS video directed by investigative reporter Steven Emerson.

Once this startling documentary film was aired on PBS, it was never shown again; nor was it available for purchase. One can only speculate as to why this was true. Possibly because it graphically depicted the radical Islamist threat that Emerson had discovered existed in the Midwest even then, and loomed as a potential danger elsewhere in the United States.

In 1995, months after the film was shown on PBS, UCI received a grant to distribute this alarming video to 535 members of Congress. We worked closely with Steve Emerson to accomplish this; but that was before Sept. 11, 2001, and no one at that time was paying much attention to the imminent danger. After 9-11 the film was in great demand by those seeking answers to explain the reasons for that surreal surprise attack on innocent Americans. I mention this only as background to explain the early awareness of members of UCI to what lay ahead.

This early knowledge of the Muslim incursion led to our rather intense inquiry into the nature of Islam, not only as a religion, but also as a structured culture that required a commitment to terrorism and jihad and adherence to a barbaric legal system built on Shariah law, one that completely controls every aspect of daily life.

In October, the month after 9-11, we held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to reveal our findings. We featured Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, Elwood McQuaid of Friends of Israel, Itamar Marcus of Palestinian Media Watch, JoAnn Magnuson of Bridges for Peace and Dr. Labib Mikhail, a pastor, journalist and author of 60 books on Islam in Arabic and nine books in English.

Most of what we learned pertained to targeting the United States as the big Satan and Israel as the little Satan. This includes an Islamic goal of establishing a caliphate and eliminating both Christians and Jews who are required to forcibly accept Allah and Muhammad or suffer dire consequences of living as second class citizens (dhimmis) or, worse yet, be sentenced to torture or death.

Islam has proved itself to be an equal opportunity oppressor, not terribly concerned with whether its victims are Democrats or Republicans, as you have suggested might be an ulterior motive for UCI. They seem to follow a non-partisan approach. I can’t imagine them inquiring of a victim before a beheading to determine if they were murdering a liberal or a conservative. More likely they would want to know if you are a Christian or a Jew.

Israelis in Judea and Samaria building housing or adding extra baths or bedrooms in “the settlements” do not really qualify as “obstacles to peace.” The far bigger issue is the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Historically Israel is not “occupied territory.” Israel tried “land for peace” appeasement in Lebanon, in Sinai and again in Gaza and was rewarded with thousands of rocket attacks, and empowering Hezbolah and Hamas terror organizations.

I seriously dispute your inference that UCI perspectives are politically motivated. It is important to understand that UCI is a non-partisan coalition of autonomous organizations dedicated solely to the safety and security of Israel and the United States. To attribute a party-based political motivation is simply wrong. We are definitely concerned with the survival of democracy and the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. We feel strongly that nothing less than western civilization is at stake.

I personally am confounded by the lack-luster support of the Jewish community for the state of Israel. To my thinking it represents the Stockholm syndrome. To reduce support of Israel to politics is disingenuous.

Innuendos and slurs

The past three weeks of the Obama and Israel arguments have made Israel once again a political football. It does not make any sense to say that President Obama “adopted the Palestinian stand,” as the headline for Shoula Romano Horing’s editorial (June 3, 2011) states.

What do Hamas and Hezbollah bring to the table? Only Iran, Syria and other suppliers of arms for the destruction of Israel. What future economics do they bring to make themselves and their world self sufficient? Their leaders show self interest by absconding with billions of dollars for their personal bank accounts while their masses suffer.

To quote Ms. Horing, “By now, most objective observers would agree that Obama’s heart and sympathy lie with the Palestinian cause.” How fallacious! The Palestinians’ cause has not produced even one uplifting social, economic or military victory — only defeats time after time. Their positions have been given to the press and the media creates their victories against Israel.

What do Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinians have to show the world that they are the “peace parties?” Have we forgotten the two wars of Kuwait and Iraq that Israel was warned by the two Presidents Bush to “Stay Out!” Marvin Fremerman’s letter to the editor of June 3, 2011, sums it up: The Republicans want to see President Obama fail. Ms. Horing, are you implying that Israel wants him to fail also?

Scott Brown, in his letter to the editor May 27, 2011, also assumes that Obama is acting against intelligence, that “the White House doesn’t read the world press.” Asinine comment! Donald Trump questions Obama’s intelligence and how he was accepted at Harvard — equally silly!

The acceptance of Obama as a black president seems to be the underlying cause of so much vitriolics, innuendos and slurs. Today we accept blacks in football, basketball and of course, Oprah. I ask, would Rep. Eric Cantor, a modern day Mordecai (of the Purim story), if he were running for president, be more acceptable with his entourage of John Boehner and the Tea Party?

Ms. Horing, it would seem you believe that President Obama can’t lead, only a WASP can. I have heard various remarks from Jews who also support these very thoughts. Thus, these WASPs politically want to slant the field for your dollars and your vote — not voting Democratic. But America was built by the Democratic party and the middle class. Since 1964 Democrats rallied for liberal causes and it changed the face of America. Jim Crow was changed to Affirmative Action and black Americans and Jews found new freedoms.

Again, I ask, what does President Obama or any black person in American have in common with the Palestinians? Is it football? Basketball? Religion? Soul food? Music? Jackie Robinson? Colin Powell? I think not.

So, I close with your saying only that a white Republican will be pro-Israel first. Shame on you, Ms. Horing. I disagree.

Jesse C. Newman
Overland Park, Kan.

Deceitful claims

Letters and articles attacking President Obama’s suggestion that the basis for Palestinian-Israeli negotiation begin with the 1967 borders with mutually agreed exchanges are at best ignorant of the current situation and at worst attempts to mislead and misinform the Kansas City community. All daily Israeli newspapers, Yediot Ahronot most prominently, published in January 2011, and the New York Times Magazine published Feb. 13, the peace agreement that will be the basis for any future deal. Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas concluded most of the agreement more than two years ago. Most of the borders, with a few small exceptions, have been decided. The Palestinian Authority, for instance, has given up their claim on the disputed Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheik Jarrah.

The problem is no longer the boundaries, but the political will and ability on both sides to obtain the agreement necessary among the populace. It is not clear whether the current Israeli leadership is actually interested in concluding a peace agreement, particularly with Yisrael Beiteinu so prominent in the coalition.

Letters claiming that somehow President Obama’s goal is to destroy Israel are disingenuous and deceitful.

Rabbi Mark H. Levin, D.H.L.
Congregation Beth Torah

The power of the Jewish community

I loved the column about the power of Jewish preschools! (The power of Jewish preschool, May 27) While reading the column it really struck me that all the Jewish experiences, which were, at times, hard to work into our busy schedules, have paid off many times over.

This year my youngest daughter, Rebecca, went off to KU. Although she is the youngest, she is the first to live out of the house. I worried about friendships she might make (or not) and if she would be nervous in classes ... Because of her strong Jewish affiliations, she had so many friends. Her roommate was a friend from Virginia she met at a BBYO convention. She knew so many people in her dorm and in her classes because of her many Jewish experiences at the Hyman Brand Hebrew Academy, March of the Living, BBYO, Barney Goodman Camp and yes, JCC preschool. Also, because she felt safe with and welcomed by Jewish organizations, she reached out and went to Chabad and Hillel.

In the last few years we, as a family, have needed help in so many new areas and Jewish organizations have been there to aid us. My son, Daniel, needed help with a resume and he turned to Jewish Vocational Service for guidance. After my mother fell, my parents needed help around the house and we turned to Jewish Family Services.

I believe that the example we set by taking our kids to Jewish organizations will continue to help our kids throughout their lifetimes. I hope they will join (and support) many Jewish organizations — and in turn those organizations will always be there to support them, too!

It is fantastic to see all the new ways Jewish organizations are developing programs to help at all stages of Jewish Life. I believe getting involved will guarantee your children, your parents and even you can find lasting friendships. Those affiliations will always give you a place to go when you want to learn, need help or just want to have fun!

Karen Berger
Overland Park, Kan.

Defend religious rights

I would like to thank you for printing the recent article by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency regarding the proposed circumcision ban in San Francisco, Calif. This issue should be of concern to Jewish people all over the country, as it attacks one of the basic tenets of our religion — circumcising a son on the eighth day after his birth. A growing number of “intactivists” have been spreading their views on circumcision and have been working to have all circumcisions, including those done for religious purposes, banned across the country.

As Jews, we need to be able to defend our right to practice our religion. I believe we should be aware of the arguments against circumcision that are being used by such people as the proponents of the Male Genital Mutilation Bill which has been proposed in 46 out of 50 states, including Missouri and Kansas. Beyond the debate on whether circumcision has medical benefits (the American Academy of Pediatrics feels that circumcision does not have enough medical benefit to call for it to be done routinely), it is being argued that circumcision first and foremost is barbaric and sexually abusive. Anti-circumcision activists describe severe pain on the part of the infant, and detail a variety of long-term effects that last through adulthood. Male circumcision is also compared to female circumcision, which is outlawed in the United States.

The proposed MGM bills would outlaw circumcision and those performing circumcisions would be fined and/or jailed. The bill does not provide exception for religious purposes, and proponents of the bill argue that a parent’s religious freedom does not extend to their children and certainly does not allow for “genital mutilation.” These people, some of whom are themselves Jewish, argue for alternate rituals to be adopted instead of brit milah. Obviously, for most Jewish people, this is not an option.

In the past when circumcision has been outlawed, wars have begun and Jews have been forced to leave their home countries. We need to protect our religious freedom in this country, and we can start by learning to defend our right to circumcise our sons.

Dara Granoff

Overland Park, Kan.

A real mensch

Congratulations to (Rav) Cantor Paul Silbersher on his announced retirement from the pulpit. I state “announced” because a man with his vision and character finds many ways to work with community members. His calendar might lighten up slightly, but his actions will still leave visible impact. When Romania approved my son’s adoption in 2000, I was excited to bring him back to Kansas City where I hoped the extended Jewish community would help me nurture my child. Wrong. First the Hebrew Academy, which had hired me to teach that fall, decided the adoption was “inconvenient” to them and gave me my two weeks’ notice. School had not even started for the academic year. As a single parent, that created a huge problem because I would not have income to support us.

The Federation and JFS agreed there was a special fund to help children like Seth adjust into the community, but were adamant Seth was not eligible because he was not in Jewish daycare. A number of synagogues welcomed him into their six to 10-hour a week preschool, but those limited hours would not meet the hours of my full-time employment. The JCC had a waiting list. Although every Jewish agency turned us away, he enrolled at the local Presbyterian daycare/preschool, and I found another job within a few months. The church helped us with compassion, and gift cards for food and his medicine until I found employment.

So how does this connect me to Cantor Silbersher? For a number of reasons, it was important to me that my son be given his Hebrew and English names in a ceremony within a certain time period and no other member of the Jewish clergy I contacted would help. The cantor listened to my reasons and arranged for us to have the ceremony at Village Shalom (before Kol Ami was organized). Some community members might say the cantor is a mensch. Just as important, he found a way to resolve an issue that gave meaning and hope to a critical foundation of a young Jew’s life in America. We agree: the cantor is a mensch. He is also one of the best-hearted souls anyone has ever met. Good luck to you. I know our paths will continue to cross. Thank you for helping me and my son, and every other person with whom you have guided on their journey.

M. Lerner
Overland Park, Kan.

With September, and the possibility of a U.N. vote on the creation of a Palestinian state nearing, the issue of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is becoming increasingly prominent. Many American Jewish groups are urging world leaders to block such a declaration. A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state certainly should not occur before key issues are sorted out in a peace agreement with Israel — such a declaration would launch the Middle East into conflict, something that must be avoided given the fragile state of the region. However, I believe that for Israel’s sake, the declaration of a Palestinian state must happen soon, which means that Israel, along with the international community, must do everything in its power to quickly establish a peace accord that is agreeable to both sides (not an easy task, I know).

Living outside the United States for the past nine months has given me a new perspective on the Israel-Palestine issue — that is, it seems to me that even though Israel still has strong support in the diplomatic community, the same cannot be said to be true elsewhere. Yes, it is true in the United States that support toward Israel seems to be waning, but here the sentiment is outright anger with Israel and support of the Palestinians, which I do not feel is the case in the United States. This sentiment is not based on a bunch of anti-Israel propaganda nonsense, but legitimate and concrete arguments that are hard to counter. Out of my peers and teachers at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who come from a wide range of backgrounds, I have found that for the most part, the only people who support Israel are American, American-educated or Israeli. There were others who used to support Israel, but over the past few months I have noticed that even their opinions have changed. What is frightening about this is that these students and educators developed their opinions based on an in-depth understanding of the situation and that many of them will become, if they are not already, leaders in government, think tanks and media in their home countries. The longer the peace process takes, the more likely it seems that these people, who have no respect for Israel and fully support the Palestinians, will be the ones helping to develop international policies toward Israel, and the less likely it will be that a peace agreement will emerge that is at all favorable to Israel.

It is true that this sentiment is representative of a certain group of people (academia) at a university known for its boycotts of everything Israel. Yet, even my experience with people outside of the LSE suggests the prevalence of anti-Israel sentiment. From a British fitness instructor, who attributed all blame for violence in the Israel-Palestine conflict to the Israelis, to a Norwegian bus driver who advocated for giant bulldozers to turn a part of Israel into an island so that the Israelis would stop causing so much trouble, it is clear that support for Israel outside the United States  is rapidly declining, if not already almost non-existent.

As the possibility of a September vote in the U.N. General Assembly on the creation of a Palestinian state has been widely publicized, efforts to halt or push back that process are likely to be viewed as another attempt by Israel and its all too willing allies to deny the oppressed Palestinian people the chance to acquire the rights that they deserve and are due under international law. The longer Palestinian statehood is pushed back because a peace agreement cannot be reached, the more people will start to view Israel as the source of the problems in the region. With this as the prevalent view, how can Israel ever hope that the international community will help to negotiate a favorable peace agreement?

There are several ways in which Israel, the United States and the rest of the international community can negate or slow the spread of such anti-Israel sentiment that will likely result from the postponement of the September vote. First, the instability and violence that would result from the declaration of a Palestinian state without a peace agreement with Israel should be highlighted. This will show that postponement is beneficial to more than just Israel, and in doing so, will hopefully convince the Palestinians to engage in the peace process seriously and not just press for a U.N. vote. It will also hopefully prevent undue resentment from the Palestinians toward Israel and others who campaign against a unilateral declaration, for as I have been told by people who recently met with Palestinian leaders, there is currently much excitement that a Palestinian state will be created soon. In the face of this expectation and excitement, postponing the declaration is likely to lead to resentment that could cause problems in future negotiations.

Second, Israel and the international community should not appear to be indefinitely postponing the creation of a Palestinian state —such indefinite postponement will only feed into the view that Israel wants to forever suppress the Palestinians. Along with this is the third suggestion — a clear process for the creation of a Palestinian state, with defined steps and goals, must be outlined, and the contentious issues between the two sides must be clearly stated. Finally, both sides, as well as the international community, must realize that there will never be a perfect time to negotiate an agreement nor a perfect agreement. Both sides will have to make major concessions and the leaders who do so are likely to lose a lot of political support, but it’s something that must be done sooner rather than later, for the sake of both sides. The longer Israel waits, the more likely it seems that the international community will present it with a solution that fails to resolve its major concerns.

Maggie Fried earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Colgate University and is currently earning a master’s degree in Global Politics and Global Civil Society from the London School of Economics and Political Science. The article originally appeared on the Global Voices blog of ACCESS, a program of the American Jewish Committee. She is the daughter of Sandi and Ed Fried.

Better representation needed

I was shocked and disappointed that Kansas Rep. Kevin Yoder signed Congressman Joe Walsh’s letter lying about what the president said concerning Israel’s borders.

The President did NOT call for a “return to 1967 borders” as the letter claimed.

In fact, he announced his support for the same plan supported by Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni, and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (1967 borders adjusted by mutually agreed land swaps and security arrangements to give Israel safe, easily defensible borders).

Does Rep. Yoder understand that the president did not call for Israel to return to its 1967 borders?

Did Representative Yoder know that the allegations in the letter he signed came from an article Congressman Walsh wrote in which he slandered Jewish Americans by saying that “too many American Jews aren’t as pro-Israel as they should be”?

As an American Jew and life-long supporter of Israel, the last thing I need to hear from an official of my secular government is that I am insufficiently Jewish or pro-Israel because I (and most American Jews) don’t march in lock-step with all the policies of the Israeli government. The current Israeli government has taken numerous actions and steps that undermine the peace process and the hopes of achieving a real two-state solution. The Palestinians haven’t always bargained in good faith, either, but that doesn’t excuse the Israeli side for doing the same thing at times.

With the momentous changes sweeping across the Arab world, it is more important than ever for this conflict to be resolved soon, so Israel can live in peace with all its neighbors and begin taking its place as a leading democratic state in the Middle East. Congressman Yoder’s attempt to score cheap (and false) political points against President Obama doesn’t help achieve the goal of peace in any way.

I hope Jewish voters on the Kansas side will remember this in November 2012. Kansans need responsible and centrist representation in Washington that reflects the real values of the 3rd Congressional District, and not the extreme right-wing views Rep. Yoder has been promoting since he was elected last year. We deserve better representation than this!

Rob Montague
Overland Park, Kan.

An obstacle to peace

In 1991, Esther Levens invited me to be one of six charter members of a group called “Voices United for Israel.” Its goal was to combine the efforts of both Christians and Jews in creating support for Israel. I told Esther at the time that she had a tiger by the tail and since she was planning to solicit members through Assembly of God churches that it wouldn’t be long before she would have 40 million members and that when Israeli prime ministers would come to the United States they would, in addition to meeting with the president, also ask to meet with Esther.

Today the organization is called “Unity Coalition for Israel” and she does, in fact, have more than 40 million members. Israeli prime ministers (not to mention U.S. senators and congressmen) do want to meet with her and have their photos taken with her.

There’s just one problem. The UCI organization has become an obstacle to peace since it does not want to give back land to the Palestinians and believes settlements should continue. In addition, it has become a voice for the right-wingers in this country and if one reads the editorial comment on the UCI website they will see articles attacking President Obama such as “Obama’s innate hatred of Jews and Israel,” “Obama’s Neville Chamberlain speech,” and an article referring to him as “An Anti-Israel President.”

Shame on you, Esther. You know as well as I that Israel’s security is of the utmost importance to President Obama. It seems to me that you should let people know that you are a staunch Republican who would love nothing more than to see President Obama fail.

Marvin Fremerman
Ridgedale, Mo.