Opinions

Esther Koontz and the ACLU v. Kansas

The Mennonite plaintiff and anti-Semite, Esther Koontz, should not be employed as a mathematics training consultant or teacher by the state of Kansas! (See page 1, July 5) Her lawsuit against the state of Kansas, in her effort to defend the BDS movement of her church, netted her an award approaching $50,000. It was filed in conjunction with our local ACLU chapter.
Our Kansas education system is already underfunded because of a Republican anti-education budget philosophy. Does Esther Kuntz have our students’ best interests at heart? Apparently not. She is a hater and an avowed BDS supporter. Her anti-Israel platform represents a not so subtle form of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately the ACLU also appears to be obstructive toward the underfunded Kansas education effort. And finally, where is the principle of “separation of church and state” as it pertains to this issue?

Dr. Richard S Gilman
Overland Park, Kansas

Many years ago I watched a video about Israel. The part that remains with me is a scene where a young bearded man with a flowing caftan meets an Israeli secular Jew in the hallway of a government office. The young bearded gentleman approaches the secular Jew. As he comes nearer to him, the other retreats. Then the unthinkable happens. The bearded man begins to chase after the secular one, with the latter running for his life. Finally he raises up his hands in defeat, as the scared secular Jew runs out to the street. The bearded man shouts after him, but I only wanted to give you a hug!

Independence Day is marked by patriotic displays of parades and festivities to honor our nation. We celebrate what American colonists did by joining together to fight against the injustices of their government. We recall that people, who strived together to solve serious problems in American history, created our nation.
Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, top political officials have argued that immigrant groups pose threats to America. These arguments have influenced my thinking, especially on a holiday that salutes rights and freedoms. The injustices against immigrants put my sense of security at risk as a citizen. I was an immigrant to this land; I believed that I belonged here. I have come to fear, however, that my naturalization certificate does not provide me the same security as a native born American.
I have only to watch the news videos to see everyday people fleeing from wars and the repressive regimes of their homelands. In their homelands, water supplies are cut, food-producing soil is left untilled while instead IED (improvised explosive device) bombs are planted into the ground, and citizens find themselves on the wrong side of the people in power. Stripped of the essentials of life and any semblance of safety, citizens grab their meager belongings and start on uncertain paths away from chaos. I worry that countries that can help turn their backs on these everyday people driven by hopelessness.
When people seek safety in America, proponents of immigrants cite various reasons to take them in. New arrivals are willing to take work needs to be done, such as harvesting crops, washing dishes in restaurants, laboring on construction sites and working in meatpacking plants, all at low pay. They argue that American born workers don’t want the same available low paying jobs. For some potential American workers, sadly, being addicted to narcotic drugs keeps them out of the job market.
Critics use the same work characteristics of the new arrivals to keep them out. They argue that newcomers are unmotivated to work. They blame the new arrivals for taking jobs they believe are intended for American born workers. If the critics would accept any new arrivals, they believe only highly skilled workers should be allowed in. Both the proponents and the critics, ironically, point to the new arrivals’ work characteristics. We are a stuck society, with two opposing views on immigration and no solutions. Perhaps by reframing the issue in a third way we can identify workable solutions.
Senator Corey Booker’s interpretation of the Justice Department’s position on “law and order” may be a place to start. He stated that the current Justice Department is targeting the poor and minority groups — essentially attacking the vulnerable. Immigrants, consequently, are viewed as the enemy. What if they are not the enemy? How can we determine what is really happening in society?
A broader context is needed to understand the pattern of behavior that makes the new arrivals likely targets. The broader context can be viewed by using a wider lens to observe groups functioning within society. Groups like conservative voters and like-minded lawmakers often join forces to willfully identify a vulnerable group as the problem and they justify dehumanizing the branded group. The new arrivals are degraded with punishing laws, which restrict their civil rights and liberties. The attacks on new arrivals, however, are not based on their work characteristics.
I believe that the lawmakers’ focus is misdirected away from real problems. Think about it; what equitable policies are being discussed to aid the millions of displaced people? What policies are being considered to bring peace to war ravaged places to make them safe for their own citizens? Some “policy makers” who are opposed to the new arrivals pay no attention to these real problems; instead they use knee jerk reactions to target the new arrivals.
We celebrate Independence Day to honor the colonists who emigrated from Great Britain and fought against the injustices of their government. On this holiday, let us reflect on the actions we citizens can take to hold our lawmakers accountable for solving the real problems of immigration. Real problems are being ignored while new arrivals are being falsely attacked. Let’s put a stop to this unfair situation. New arrivals are everyday people who seek out living in a free land in exchange for working hard, abiding by its laws, paying taxes and being recognized for who they are — good residents. Only by working together, as American colonists did before us, can we be a nation that wins against social injustices.

Mary Greenberg, Ph.D., serves on the State of Kansas Holocaust Commission. Her speaking engagements on preventing anti-Semitism, and the link between anti-Semitism and leadership are based on her research that advances the study of the Jewish people in the Diaspora.

It is difficult to know how to react when we learn that someone has died, whether it’s someone we know or a celebrity, but how we react can have an impact on those around us.
This is especially true when we are talking about traumatic death such as suicide. I lost my brother to suicide in 2012 and was overwhelmed by the number of inappropriate questions and responses I received regarding his death. I tried then and I try now to give people the benefit of the doubt, knowing that they are most likely not trying to be malicious but lack education in what is appropriate to say to someone grieving and what is inappropriate or even harmful to say.
Based on my personal experience as well as my work in mental health promotion and suicide prevention, I have put together a short list of recommendations for how to react or respond when you learn of a suicide.
Everyone is different and their grieving process will be unique, therefore people may disagree on what is appropriate versus inappropriate. Use your best judgment.
Please do not say that someone “committed” suicide. The word commit has criminal connotations and we now know that suicide is not a crime, it is often the tragic result of mental illness. People who have lost loved ones to suicide already feel the stigma around the way their loved one died and insinuating (even unintentionally) that this act was anything but the result of a deadly disease can compound the grief experience. Instead, the appropriate language to use is that someone “took their life” or “died by suicide” or you can even say that someone “lost their battle to mental illness” in the way we often describe cancer deaths. This is more respectful of both those grieving and the person who passed.
Do not ask about the method the person used to end their life. I understand that people are curious, especially about death, but this is inappropriate. This information is incredibly personal to the loved ones of the deceased and it should only be brought up if they choose to disclose it. I was so traumatized by the method my brother used to end his life that I couldn’t bring myself to say it for years. When people, even friends, would flippantly ask me “how he did it” I was appalled and felt retraumatized. Even today, I do not like to share this information because my brother is so much more than the way he died. I believe in honoring him by focusing on his life and the good he did in the world, not the way his life ended.
On the same note, when there is a celebrity or high-profile suicide and the method used is disclosed, don’t share this information on social media and even be aware of mentioning it in public spaces. For one, it is disrespectful to that person’s loved ones (even if you don’t know them) but it can also be traumatic for individuals who have lost loved ones to suicide, struggle with suicide ideation or have attempted suicides themselves. According to a USA Today article regarding the irresponsible news coverage of Kate Spade’s death, “Mental health experts say exposure to media coverage of a high-profile suicide, especially coverage which fixates on the gratuitous details of a person’s death, can lead to more suicides. It’s called ‘suicide contagion.’ ” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/06/kate-spades-death-and-suicide-contagion-how-media-got-wrong-again/678314002/
Never offer platitudes like “everything happens for a reason”, “God has a plan” or “they are in a better place.” It is natural to want to “fix” situations where people are hurting, however, grief is an experience full of pain (and a whole lot of other emotions) that cannot be mitigated with a simple statement. At best, these types of sentiments minimize the grief experience and at worst they are harmful to the mental health and can intensify the grief of survivors of suicide loss. Even if you truly believe that everything happens for a reason or that their loved one is in a better place, there is no need to share that with someone whose world just caved in on itself. It is very hard to find meaning in early grief, don’t make it any harder.
It’s okay not to know what to say.
Sometimes people wind up putting their foot in their mouth simply because they aren’t sure what the right response to someone grieving is. Don’t be afraid to express that you aren’t sure what to say but follow it up with “but I’m here for you” or “I am so sorry.” Those simple words can be incredibly reassuring in a time when predictability has been all but taken from a person. If you need more advice on what to say (or what not to say) the Huffington Post has suggestions about this topic: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-to-say-to-someone-who-is-grieving_us_5a946a4be4b01f65f599365a

If you or someone you know is struggling with mental illness, suicide ideation or suicide attempts and you would like to speak to a therapist, contact Jewish Family Services by calling 913-327-8250 or visiting www.jfskc.org. Also, visit www.itsok.us to view resources on mental health and suicide prevention. If you have lost a loved one to suicide, visit http://www.sass-mokan.com/ for extensive resources for suicide loss survivors. Sarah Link Ferguson is JFS Mental Health Coalition coordinator.

Torah — the bedrock of Judaism

Rabbi Ismar Schorsch reminds us in his book “Canon without Closure” the study of Torah is the bedrock of Judaism and the ballast of a Jewish life. It should start early, be serious, and never lapse. It is this value that made Jews the people of the book and enabled them to overcome the powerlessness that comes with exile. Living largely in their heads, homes and synagogues, they proved time and again that the pen is mightier than the sword.”
We are blessed in our community to have so many teachers and synagogues where we can learn Torah.
Steven Israelite
Lee’s Summit, Missouri

Never again is happening again

I am a 23-year-old Jewish woman who is absolutely appalled with the situation in Texas with immigrants and asylum seekers being kept in concentration camps by the Trump administration. Photographs and recordings of children sobbing after being separated from their parents have been circulating in the media and I am waiting for a response by the institutional Jewish community.
To me, this is a clear instance of ‘Never Again’ happening again. It is up to us as a Jewish community to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves and intervene in a massive, institutional way. I don’t need to tell you how to do that; I am telling you that I am equally as appalled and disappointed that there hasn’t been an institutional Jewish response to this yet.
History will remember us standing silent and complicit as we let this happen. We are uniquely positioned to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Why aren’t we?

Sonia Larbi-Aissa
London, England

Don’t blame Trump

Regarding immigrant children, anger against Trump is horribly misplaced. He is simply following the law the identical way that Obama did. There was no anger then.
If an alien brings a child with him, he knows that if caught he and the child will be separated. He defies our laws and does it anyway. So whose fault is it? Why Trump’s of course!
Of the 12,000-plus children now involved, 10,000 are unaccompanied. They have not been separated from their parents. The overwhelming number are teenagers. Our own tradition makes every teenager an adult. These immigrant teenagers are not “children,” not toddlers, as the media would have us believe.
Of the actual 2,000-plus separated children, according to PBS, 80 percent are teenagers. This means that less than 500 are under age 13.
What sort of parents would bring pre-teens with them on the long, perilous journey to the border, particularly in the heat of the season? This is child abuse. These parents fully knew the consequences of their illegal activities.
Unfortunately, the media will never let you know any of this. Instead, Americans are being manipulated and their compassion exploited by a cynical media attempting to portray all these “children” as toddlers being torn from their mothers’ arms.
Amazingly, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, over half of American voters see through this media sham. They properly blame illegal aliens who defy our laws at the risk of their own children. We all weep for the few pre-teens caught up in all this.
Ironically, now that Trump has issued his executive order, as demanded, the situation becomes worse. The families are reunited — everyone is now jailed in detention.
Is everybody happy?
Lee Levin
Leawood, Kansas

Fascism and Israel

The May 17 and May 24 issues of The Chronicle with Rabbi Levin’s opinion column and letters to the editor a week later by Mr. Sol Koenigsberg and Mr. Lee Levin deserve further commentary. I will not restate a summary of the rabbi’s opinion nor the letters of response. I assume by now these have been widely circulated, read and have generated widespread comment.
I agree with both letters to the editor. I believe Mr. Lee Levin has accurately stated the rabbi’s longstanding position.
Specifically, my additional comments to the rabbi’s letter regard his insensitive and needless use of the word “fascism” in a paragraph that speaks of Netanyahu, Israel and democracy. I have read and re-read this letter several times and urge you to do the same.
Fascism is defined extensively in political science. Fascism is defined more narrowly among most of our Jewish brethren including survivors of the Shoah. It immediately connotes fear, Nazi Germany, 6 million, gas chambers, camps, medical experimentation and the existential threat to the Jewish people.
Especially as Jews, should we not be extremely sensitive to the use of this word in written and oral composition and dialogue? Does the rabbi truly believe a new existential threat to our people should be feared by the Jewish nation-state of Israel moving toward fascism? Is our Jewish nation-state to become an antithesis of “democracy and love of the Jewish people”? How dangerous, disingenuous and sad is such vitriol.

Jerry F. Stolov
Leawood, Kansas

Flo Harris a visionary

Flo Harris was a woman of vision. It was important for her to leave a legacy that would have a profound impact on the future of the Jewish and secular communities. Her special interest projects would include children, young adults and seniors. Her generous contributions to such endeavors are funded through the Flo Harris Foundation of the Jewish Community Foundation.
As a woman of dignity, Flo Harris deserved to be buried in a cemetery that was well kept and would reflect her contributions to the community. She, her parents, and many family members are buried at Sheffield Cemetery. The Flo Harris Foundation has contributed generously to help in the restoration of the cemetery grounds and the renovation of the historic Sheffield Chapel. The chapel was in disrepair for more than 25 years. Due to Flo Harris’s generosity, a magnificent stained glass window was dedicated in her memory in the Sheffield Chapel. It depicts the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Flo Harris embraced her Jewish identity and the need to preserve the past as well as the future.
I believe it is an honor for us to have meaningful contributions to help in keeping Sheffield Cemetery in pristine conditions for future generations. We greatly admire Flo Harris for her foresight, and the Flo Harris Foundation for realizing how necessary it is to keep the cemetery from falling back into unfavorable conditions.
We are still in need of funds to keep Sheffield Cemetery beautiful. To make a donation to Friends of Sheffield Cemetery, make check payable to Jewish Community Foundation-Friends of Sheffield. Send it to Jewish Community Foundation, Attention: Antoinette, 5801 West 115th St.  #104, Overland Park, KS 66211.

Rickie Haith
Chair
Friends of Sheffield

Our beloved Israel, the democratic homeland of the Jewish people, lacks a constitution. Instead, Israel has 11 Basic Laws, meant to lay the groundwork for a future constitution. It also has a Declaration of Independence, which has been used by Israel’s Supreme Court as a guidepost for Israel’s fundamental values.
Israel’s Declaration of Independence states:
“THE STATE OF ISRAEL … will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture …”
Israel’s present government has proposed a new Basic Law, called the Nation-State Law in English, Hoq Ha-L’om in Hebrew. Here’s its purpose as set out in the law:
“Purpose 1. The purpose of this Basic Law is to secure the character of Israel as the National State of the Jewish People in order to codify in a basic law the values of Israel as a Jewish democratic state in the spirit of the principles of its Declaration of Independence.”
Please note the State’s character is the National State of the Jewish People, “in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.” How does the government interpret the “spirit of the Declaration of Independence?”
The proposed Basic Law opens with this provision:
“Basic Principles 1. The State of Israel is the National Home of the Jewish People; wherein the Jewish People fulfills its yearning for self-determination in accordance with its historical and cultural heritage. 2. The Right of national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People. 3. This Basic Law and all other laws shall be interpreted in conformity with this provision.”
The right of national self-determination is uniquely a Jewish prerogative in this newly redefined State. All other laws are to be interpreted in accord with this principle. No other people in the State has the right to self-determination. It is fair to anticipate that future laws in Israel will be interpreted with this idea in mind: Does this law further the self-determination of the Jewish people? If so, even when the law does not treat all citizens equally as the Declaration of Independence promises, it is nonetheless constitutional.
Tzipi Livny, founder of the Hatenuah Party, in an article in Haaretz newspaper on April 30 called this Basic Law “legislation to dismantle Israeli democracy.”
Already in Israeli law smaller towns may exclude Arabs, even citizens of Israel. It is well-known the army frequently watches passively while settlers deny the rights of Palestinians on the West Bank.
With this Basic Law, Israel stands on the verge of judging all laws not on the basis of their equal treatment of citizens of whatever background, but on the basis of the “self-determination of the … Jewish people.”
It is well-known Israel currently faces a demographic challenge: If Israel keeps the West Bank, the Jewish and Arab populations may soon be equal. Democracy means one person one vote. If Israel’s Arabs, including Judea and Samaria, become a majority, democracy means they would have the votes to replace the government with an Arab majority government.  
But not if this Basic Law passes. This is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s solution to the demographic dilemma of “greater Israel”: Do not treat the Arab population as equals.

My article two weeks ago in The Chronicle referred to the coming fascistic tendencies in Israel if this Basic Law passes. No one actually knows what the Likud government will do. But Tzipi Livni and the editorial board of the Haaretz newspaper, and many others who can read the writing on the wall, understand Netanyahu’s intentions. It’s not a matter of simply declaring Israel what it already is. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed Israel the national home of the Jewish people 70 years ago. No, it’s about degrading and delimiting the rights of the Arab minority and preventing them from ever having full rights in an Israel declared to be the State which fulfills the promise of this Basic Law, that “… national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People.”
Will American Jews continue to support an Israel in which Arabs, de jure, are denied equal rights?
I am not declaring the problems associated with the Arab minority in Israel to be entirely Israel’s fault: far from it. But we are watching the Netanyahu government turn Israel into a legally repressive regime in which, contrary to Israel’s purpose as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, Israel will no longer be based on freedom, justice and peace for all of its inhabitants. Rather, it will be the Nation-State of the Jewish people if the government deems an oppressive law to be needed for the “Self-Determination of the Jewish people,” then democracy be damned.
The Netanyahu government expects the support of American Christian evangelicals and Orthodox Jews. Netanyahu already proclaimed liberal Jews no longer matter, “because in two generations they will all be assimilated.” My question is: Will American Jews who care about democracy support an Israel that has abandoned democracy and decency in its quest to be the so-called Nation-State of the Jewish people, but which oppresses Arabs?
Admittedly Israel’s Arabs may well enjoy better lives than the same people would in other nations in the Middle East. But that’s not the question we’re discussing here. Rather, will a non-democratic Israel be the nation of the Jewish people, or just another Middle Eastern theocratic leaning state that ignores the fundamental rights of a large proportion, possibly a majority, of its future inhabitants?  

Will our beloved Israel, the “hope of 2,000 years,” remain a democracy among the democracies of the world, or a regime that requires more and more oppressive measures to control its minorities? I pray for democracy, because only a democracy will survive as the Jewish state for all the Jewish people.

Rabbi Mark Levin is founding rabbi of Congregation Beth Torah.