In a piece dated January 13th, 2012, Adler decried the endless terrorist activity of Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the United States government’s malaise in view of the ever-increasing threat of a nuclear Iran. To solve Israel’s problems, Adler offered the following solutions:

“One, order a pre-emptive strike against both Hezbollah and Hamas […] Two, go against Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s wishes […] and order the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities at all costs.”

While it is certainly possible that Israel is considering these options, Adler’s third option (the one he favors) stirred up some controversy:

“Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice-president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

In case the reader could not believe his or her eyes, Adler reaffirms his brilliant diplomatic maneuver by continuing, “Yes, you read ‘three’ correctly. Order a hit on the president in order to preserve Israel’s existence.”

Even if the authorities decide that Adler’s moronic recommendation does not represent a credible threat to homeland security, he will not be appointed to any foreign policymaking posts any time soon.

Andrew Adler, former owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times

Adler’s piece was not published in his newspaper and might have gone unnoticed had the popular website Gawker not picked it up; instead, it has turned into an international scandal. Almost immediately after the article went viral, various Jewish advocacy organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, issued statements condemning Adler’s incendiary words in an attempt to demarcate Adler as an isolated case — an unwelcome blip on the radar.

However, despite the efforts of these Jewish institutions, an inordinate number of comments on articles about this disturbing incident call for an apology from the entire Jewish community.

It is obvious that the Jewish people are often seen (and see themselves) as an extremely cohesive group — a long history of stereotyping, discrimination, violence, and attempted genocide has brought Jews together in a very unique way. To put it simply, Jews stick together, and they stick by each other.  The vast majority of American Jews are concerned with Israel’s well-being, and therefore scrutinize the foreign policy of every president when it comes to the Jewish State. Adler’s ideas are outrageous, but their mere presence suggests that a significant segment of the American Jewish community is dissatisfied with its government vis-a-vis Israel (see “Why do some Jews see Obama as so sinister?”).

However, this “group” image can lead to the dangerous misconception that the entire Jewish community abides by a homogeneous, collective mentality. Holding the entire Jewish community responsible for the actions of one misguided journalist is simply absurd.

Unfortunately, Adler’s article is harmful to Jews in more ways than one. In addition to exposing Jews to unfounded anger (the Atlanta Jewish Federation wrote that “the damage done to the people of Israel, the global Jewish people, and especially the Jewish community of Atlanta is irreparable”), it draws the world’s attention away from the pressing issues at hand.

We should not take Andrew Adler seriously by any stretch of the imagination; but more importantly, we must ensure that the issues he mentions remain at the forefront of our minds. American Jews do not collectively owe the country an apology. Nevertheless, relying on the childish “It wasn’t me!” excuse will do nothing to ameliorate the situation. Missiles from Hezbollah and Hamas continue to threaten the lives of Israeli civilians, and Iran continues to flaunt its complete disregard for international pressure in its quest for a nuclear weapon. Adler’s article sent shockwaves through the global community, automatically superimposing his blasphemous suggestions onto the real problems; Israel’s enemies have not disappeared, but the imminence of their threats can easily be eclipsed by the global outrage.

In response to Andrew Adler’s calamitous blunder, the Jewish community must redouble their efforts to publicize Israel’s chief concerns and propose solutions that preferably do not involve assassinations. When Adler’s article appeared, the world momentarily stopped caring that Iran wishes to see Israel destroyed — it only sees a single Jewish journalist seemingly speaking on behalf of Israelis and Jews all over the world, and his treacherous betrayal. Even though Adler is a single voice, his words are deafening to those unfamiliar with the reality of Israel’s vulnerability. Therefore, the onus is on the Jewish people to make sure that the world sees the Jewish community as a unified yet multidimensional group with diverse opinions — a group working together to solve its problems, not create more of them.

Related articles

• Obama assassination column raises question: Why do some Jews see Obama as so sinister? (jta.org)
• Is there a bigger message in the Atlanta Jewish Times fiasco? (blogs.jta.org)

Observant Judaism and the modern world are not always seen as a completely cohesive pair; people often equate the relationship to that between water and oil. However, last Wednesday evening, the Jewish Awareness Movement (JAM) and the Jewish Leadership Network (JLN) joined forces to give some Jewish Bruins the opportunity to hear two prominent Jewish businessmen speaking about their experience as Orthodox Jews in a competitive, capitalist world, followed, or course, by the usual challah baking and merriment.

Shooting a quick game of pool before the festivities officially began, Rabbi Jacob Rupp of JAM at UCLA, commented, “One of the main premises of Maimonides (JAM’s Jewish learning program) is that we want to expose students to professionals in the community both for professional networking and to show that you can be a passionate, observant Jew and still be highly functional in the western sense of the word. These men have been particular supporters of JAM in the past and are therefore a natural choice for leaders.”

Shortly before the speaker portion of the Maimonides Program, students began to arrive, filling into the smaller of the two communal JAM rooms, this one lined with bookshelves containing everything from Talmud Yerushalmi  to a assortment of Jewish novels.

After the chairs were filled, Rabbi Moshe Zaret (who founded JAM along with his wife, Bracha) stood up to say a few opening words.

He described Steven Spira, president of Worldwide Business Affairs of Warner Brothers, as one of his favorite people.

“He is a deeply remarkable person who cares about people and also happens to be extremely successful.”

Spira is responsible for overseeing the business aspects of the studio’s worldwide operations as they pertain to development, production, and distribution of theatrical films for Warner Bros. Pictures.

Next, Rabbi Zaret motioned to Paul Cohen, a sports agent for many of baseball’s great players, including Evan Longoria, Troy Tulowitzki and Robinson Cano.

Paul Cohen & Steven Spira (photo by Tessa Nath)

Rabbi Zaret admitted to not having known Cohen for very long; however, he observed how “in addition to being humble and special, he is enormously successful as a sports agent.”

After much applause, Spira took center stage and began telling the story of his career and his Judaism.

He began his career at the New York-based law firm Monasch, Chazen and Stream, but he soon realized that the demanding life of a lawyer was not for him. After writing various articles and exploring new avenues, he was picked up by Twentieth Century Fox, before finally going to Warner Brothers.

Spira enjoys his career, observing how he gets to “be in a fun business where no one will ever die on the table.”

He recalls how during a business meeting, a Jewish colleague of his checked his watch on Friday afternoon, stating: “We’ve got two choices. We can either close the deal in five minutes or get on a plane and get out of here because the sun’s going down and this man’s going home.”

Spira comments how for him, his Judaism had always been widely accepted, and he experienced few conflicts with his business.

For Cohen, however, coming from a less religious background, the road to observance was riddled with potholes.

Cohen recalls how he had an epiphany his second year at the University of Southern California, during the time when the university was plagued by antisemitism, and swastikas and dead fish lined the buildings. Realization struck Cohen when his fraternity, Sigma Alpha Mu, obtained tickets to a basketball game on Yom Kippur.

“I stood up and said ‘guys, if you want to watch the game on TV that’s between you and God. If you want to go to the game, that’s between you and God. But for a Jewish frat to go together as a group is just feeding into what everyone is doing.’”

“Almost in unison they responded: ‘Cohen, you’re a religious fanatic.’”

Shocked at being called a religious fanatic, Cohen reevaluated his outlook on life.

“The threshold question,” he said, “is either God runs the world or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, then I don’t need this. If a person comes to see that God runs the world, if that’s true then what does that mean for me?”

Years later, after Cohen established himself as a sports agent, his business was “about to blow up and go through the roof,” when he realized that he had a rogue employee. The non-Jewish employee figured out that the business shut down on Jewish holidays.

After coming in from a three-day holiday in honor of Rosh Hashanah, Cohen called up and was told that he didn’t “represent so and so anymore. This person does.” The man had spent the three days of Rosh Hashanah photocopying files and talking on the phone to clients, convincing them to leave Cohen.

Then, close to Sukkot, Cohen recalls how “more bombs [were] coming. I just couldn’t daven. I was going through the words but I just kept thinking that everything we’re building is being destroyed.”

Cohen went and spoke the matter over with his wife, to which she responded, “I’m not telling you what to do, you’re a grown man and you can do what you want.”

With a guilty conscience, Cohen went into a separate room and shut the door behind him as he called his lawyer on Sukkot, not wanting his children to see him as a “conveniently observant Jew.”

Unfortunately, Cohen recalls how “about a week after Yom Tov ended, the lawyer backfired. Now I couldn’t just say ‘now I’m religious again.’ I needed a bigger test. However, halakhah says that you’re not supposed to ask God for a test (I didn’t know that at the time). So I told my wife if I don’t get a test I’ll go to my grave not knowing who I am.”

A couple years later, Cohen got a call at his home: “Paul, I can’t say anything, but Disney is going to buy the Angels.”

As important as this deal was to Cohen, the fact of the matter was that the meeting was called for the first night of Passover. After explaining his conflict, his partner pleaded, “Please do me a favor and get a grip. We’re not talking about buying a 7-Eleven, this is Disney!”

After several tense phone calls and nail-biting intermissions during which Cohen urged his associates to accommodate his religious preference by avoiding the first two nights of Passover and Shabbat, they finally agreed on a day.

Cohen says that God tested him, and he passed. He notes how some people ask: “How can you be a religious Jew in the real world?” He responds that it “all goes back to if you believe that God rules the world. This is it; I’m in the hands of God right now.”

Cohen emphasized that in his experience, his non-Jewish clients and coworkers were always extremely supportive and understanding of his beliefs.

When one of his clients in the major league got married, he sent back the response card without filling out meal options for his family, instead wanting to provide their own kosher food. The wife of his client insisted that they would organize the kosher food, and that they would be happy to have the Cohens at the reception, understanding that the ceremony conflicted with Shabbat. When the Cohens walked in late, his sons marching in with their kippot and his daughter and wife modestly covered—in stark contrast to the cocktail dresses other guests sported—they received a warm reception, despite entering in the middle of the best man’s speech.

Later, on a conference call that threatened to run over into Shabbat, Jim Edmonds, former Angels player, spoke for Cohen, saying: “Guys I don’t know how to tell you this, but until you see three stars in the sky tomorrow night he’ll be out of business.” And with that, they wrapped the deal up quickly and Cohen returned home to his family.

Both Cohen and Spira spoke of their success in business and in their personal lives with Judaism, despite being prominent breadwinners. They stress that an adherence to Judaism does not mean giving up what you love about your life; there are always kosher options and people willing to help you along the way.

“It depends how you hold yourself,” Cohen ended as students wait to throng the pair with questions, “If you’re comfortable with yourself, it’s a non-issue.”

Israeli expatriates living in Britain, France, Australia, and other countries felt targeted by the video campaign that was launched in September. Criticism from Jews around the world provoked the withdrawal of these advertisements, while Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., asserts that the prime minister’s office was unaware of the ads before they surfaced on the web.

Advertisement titles such as, “It’s time to return to Israel before Abba becomes Daddy,” demonstrate subtle messages concerning the notion that to some, raising Jewish/Israeli children in America is less desirable than raising them in Israel.

Are the children of diaspora Jews assumed to be at higher risk of relinquishing their Jewish identities? If that is the case, do the costs of endangering one’s sense of Jewishness by emigrating outweigh the benefits of moving to a country to pursue personal opportunity?

The nostalgia-invoking nature of these advertisements touches on a bigger issue than prompting Israelis who have left Israel to return home.

These Israeli ads recognize that even within a minority there is division. There is a distinction between Israeli Jews and Jews living in the diaspora. Israeli and American Jewish children are exposed to different arrays of challenges, experiences, and situations that may shape them into unique followers of the Jewish tradition.

But these differences should not necessarily insinuate that Jewish life in the diaspora is inferior. Diaspora Jews are often belittled for their lack of understanding of the struggles that are unique to living an Israeli life.

Does this then disqualify the Jewishness of diaspora Jews? Are diaspora Jews any less Jewish than those Jews living in Israel?
Israel is meant to be the homeland for all Jews — not just those Jews who embrace Israeli nationalism by living in or supporting the state of Israel. This is also evinced by the ubiquity of Israelis, who live in Israel, who vocally repudiate the policies of their elected government.

Judaism and Jewishness are unique and beautiful in that they can manifest themselves in an immeasurable number of ways. Jews can be Jews because they identify themselves as culturally Jewish, or religiously Jewish, or Jewish for the opportunity to celebrate Shabbat, or Jewish by history and ancestry.

Jews will continue to debate about the definition of Jewishness, each deriving authority from his/her own preferred theories of identity. The criteria of this particular office of the Israeli government, which subordinate Jews who don’t happen to have a mailing address in Israel, is only one way of looking at Jewishness.

• Israel pulls ads wooing expats after Jewish criticism (CNN)

Ben-Ami, who has familial ties to Israel and has lived there himself in the past, articulated J Street’s pro-Zionist, pro-peace position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Commenting on the tendency of American Zionists to “check liberal values at the door,” he argued for a Zionism based upon humanist values.

Ben-Ami’s recommendations come at a time when, he says, “time is running out.” He explained that Israel currently needs to make a “terrible choice” between democracy and Jewishness. If a two-state solution is not achieved soon, Israel would find herself in a situation in which a minority of Jews rules over a majority of non-Jews. Israel would then have to either preserve its Jewish character at the expense of its democracy, or embrace democracy at the expense of its status  as a Jewish State. To avoid this paralyzing crossroads, Israel’s best option is to solidify her borders based on 1967 lines. The creation of a Palestinian state would allow Israel to preserve her Jewish majority and her democratic values, avoiding the “one-state nightmare.”

Students, faculty, and staff listen to J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami speak at Hillel

The urgency of Israel’s responsibility is accentuated by the ongoing Arab uprisings. Israel, along with her neighbors, must take the opinions of the people into account. Israel’s security is no longer guaranteed simply by signing treaties with heads of neighboring states. The voice of the people has become a force in the region to which Israel will now have to answer.

The American Jewish community, Ben-Ami said, needs new rules of engagement. Responding to a question about how pro-Israel UCLA students should address anti-Israel rhetoric at the annual Palestine Awareness Week, Ben-Ami asserted that antagonistic advocacy on the part of Jewish students is useless. Students should not be afraid to be vocal about their support for the two-state solution, which is currently (officially) endorsed by both Israeli and American policy. Jewish students seeking to engage productively with Israel’s detractors should replace the impulsive “No” with “Yes, but…”

Touching on the responsibility of American Zionists and pro-Israel students, Ben-Ami expressed disapproval of the convergence of Zionism and hawkishness. According to him, Republican presidential candidates and others are under the false assumption that only the most  absolutists defenses of Israel will appeal to Jewish voters. The existence of J Street and its growing popularity and success in Washington illustrate that the “tent” within which viable Jewish political positions are included is broader than many American Zionists are aware.

A 101 year-old man died on December 28th, 2011 in his bedroom in the early hours of the morning. His daughter, a phone call away, expected the inevitable. This man was Leon Weinstein, the oldest survivor of the Warsaw ghetto uprising in 1943, and he was a hero.

Weinstein was a ghetto fighter who participated in an act of revolt against Nazi Germany that few people survived. After participating in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in the spring of 1943, he managed to escape through a sewer tunnel, and embarked on the journey to rescue his infant daughter from life as an orphan.

Before entering the Warsaw Ghetto, Weinstein and his wife Sima set their eighteen-month-old daughter on the doorstep of a lawyer and his wife with a cross around her neck and a note falsifying her Christian heritage. After the war, Weinstein found out that his wife and all extended family had been murdered; his only hope lay with his small daughter.

After six months of searching, Weinstein passed a convent, catching a glimpse of a bony four-year-old being carried by a nun, and recognized the child as his own. Ultimately, Weinstein achieved what tragically so few managed: to reunite with his child after the war.

In an interview with Los Angeles Times journalist Kurt Streeter, Weinstein whispered, “Thank you for telling my story. Nobody should forget what happened. Thank you.”

Weinstein expressed his gratitude that someone cared about the story of his struggle, his life, and the life of his daughter for whom he fought so determinedly to preserve. And it was Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation that first gave Weinstein, among countless other Holocaust survivors, the opportunity to share and preserve the stories of their experiences. In fact, during his lifetime, Weinstein donated a considerable amount to the Shoah Foundation for the purpose of documenting the stories of child survivors, so close to his own heart.

Former Shoah Foundation Holocaust historian Christian Nath observed, “To [survivors] personally, [telling their story] matters a lot; their own personal survival is an act of resistance and defiance — or at least to many. Most survivors who shared their stories were only able to do so after a significant amount of time, only after decades had passed.”

Nath goes on to recognize some of the factors that may have contributed to survivors finally sharing their tales in the late nineties.

“It seemed a combination of the fact that they were in the later stages of their lives, the sudden public interest in the U.S. in the Holocaust after Schindler’s List, and the opportunity provided by Spielberg to give testimony primarily for their own families which led many to speak about their experiences for the first time since the war. Many children of survivors only learned about their parents’ experience through the testimonies.”

A common trend Nath noticed was that one of survivors’ main purposes was to speak for those who could not speak anymore.

“There is always the generic scene of a handful of prisoners and one who manages to escape and survive,” Nath remembers. “The others will encourage him to do so knowing that they won’t escape, but at least there is someone to tell others what happened.”

Nath recalls Weinstein’s story in particular.

“What was special about [Leon Weinstein] was his sheer willpower, and when you listened to him you had to feel that he survived because he had wanted to survive.”

Weinstein’s drive was fueled by the hope that somehow his baby girl would manage to live against all odds, the same struggle for survival he was hoping to win.

In light of Weinstein’s dramatic story of reunification with his daughter, Nath advises people to “take a moment to learn about their experience and then turn around and cherish the relationships we have and look at them with different eyes of appreciation.”

Although the survivors’ stories were received with open arms of anticipation, each of the historians who participated in compiling the archives carries deep emotional scars from the terrifying truth survivors had to share.

“They say the more you know about the Holocaust the lonelier you are. That is the common fate of Holocaust historians. It changes your outlook on everything — in a positive sense though: you become more introverted,” Nath reflects. “If you also know what survivors went through and what tragedies they had to experience — true tragedies of loss and death and separation and you see their resolve and strength today you have to take that as an example for the sheer source of energy for humans who want to be active and achieve something.”

As is the case with many survivors in the Shoah Foundation, they wanted to participate in the spread of education.

“A good friend of mine, Sidonia Lax, likes to teach people about her experiences, and it’s the first time some Latino or black kids would hear about the Holocaust at all,” Nath ruminates. “Many survivors have a mission to inform the world of their experience and teaching tolerance.”

The hope of the Shoah Foundation archives was that one day they could be used in classrooms to teach children of corresponding ages what survivors’ experiences had been as children, teenagers, or young adults during the Holocaust, so that contemporary students could better relate to their plights.

Pictured above is an image of one of USC's Shoah Foundation interfaces, allowing students to interact geographically with survivors' testimonials.

“What this shows very strongly, what any teacher can teach in the context of the archives, is that this is what humans do to humans and only humans can prevent it,” Nath states. “That’s what this archive lends: the human face to the utmost horror.”

In keeping with the original hopes of participating historians, the archives are now housed at the USC Shoah Foundation Institute, providing opportunities for students to interact with the material and learn from the testimonials.

One opportunity given to students is participation in the Student Voices Master Class, sponsored by HBO as an introduction into the work of the foundation and as a tool to help students obtain the skills necessary for creating a film for the Student Voices Short Film Contest “shaping the conversation about genocide and human rights.”

First-year USC Creative Writing major and USC Shoah Foundation Institute intern Orli Robin comments on how “the film competition was called ‘Student Voices;’ it wasn’t called ‘Survivor Voices.’”

“What I loved most about that name is that the purpose of the film competition is for students to not only learn about survivors but to hear their stories and form a connection and a bond and retell their stories in a film. One of most amazing things about preservation is that a spark is lit within students. I think that is one of the sure-fire ways to preserve survivor voices since as they pass on their stories can still remain alive.”

Each semester the USC Shoah Foundation Institute accepts around 15 to 20 interns who complete a variety of tasks: from translating testimonies into secondary school curricula to working with survivors to transcribing Holocaust or genocide related lectures.

Robin says of her experience: “It’s more than what I expected. I’m not only working on what we think of as stereotypical Holocaust material, we are working on Rwandan genocide material, there’s a Lithuanian DVD project, etc. It’s a global job.”

When questioned about the personal significance of the Holocaust as opposed to other yet frequently bundled together genocides, Robin responds: “To me as a Jew and as a Jew with a lot of family that passed away in the Holocaust, I can most closely relate to the Holocaust and in my mind it has somewhat of a more elevated status. That is not to say it’s more important than other genocides. Genocide is genocide.”

In 2007, at a benefit dinner featuring Spielberg, among other Shoah Foundation notables, Douglas Greenberg, executive director of the Shoah Foundation Institute at USC, announced a similar goal.

“Our work on the Holocaust will continue. But we plan to join it now to work with others around the world. Our commitment is to combat (violence and racism) wherever and however we can — no matter who the victims are.”

From a historical perspective, Nath disagrees slightly as to the flattening of global significance when it comes to the Holocaust compared to other genocides.

“What marks the Holocaust’s significance is the fact that it erupted in the middle of civilized and educated Europe, solely promoted and executed based on political calculation.” Nath elaborates: “It was executed in a seemingly seamless fashion by a highly organized technological country, Germany at the time, which made the outcome so comprehensively devastating. The significance of the Holocaust is based on the fact that German occupying forces led and initiated a widespread disease that spread over the entire European continent, producing collaborators and perpetrators in almost every country. Thus, an entire continent ended the European Jewish epoch. The disease is antisemitism, or the more generic version: ethnic or religious hatred, which is the common denominator of all genocides.”

Nath agrees that genocide is genocide, and that there is no ranking or judging genocides. Nevertheless, he asserts that “the combination of the fact that all European Jews were persecuted and in all territories occupied by Nazi Germany all Jews were killed, that is why historians speak of not just two theaters in WWII (the Pacific and European) but the war against the Jews as well. That is the war Germany wanted to win the most, and they did. In the sense of the shear scale of an entire industrial nation allocating resources, energy and effort to eradicate who they had defined as Jews, marked a completely different scale in comparison to any other mass killing based on ethnic hatred. Due to its sheer magnitude the Holocaust should always be referred to as a unique event.”

Nonetheless, it is also valuable to incorporate people from different cultures so that they may too share in the remembrance of humanity’s horrid past.

Robin repeats the commonly upheld notion that “all Jews have a responsibly to care. The Holocaust is an integral part of every Jew, every Israeli, every Zionist and we have a responsibility to care because it happened to the Jewish people.”

She goes on to explain that “part of the reason why the Shoah Foundation is expanding their coverage of genocides is to develop new emotional connections to people who share those particular national and religious identities, as well as families and survivors of these events. It’s so that greater and larger groups of people can feel the way that I do [about remembering genocides].”

Robin remembers a Shoah Foundation sponsored film screening of The Mexican Suitcase about the Jewish photographers who were at the frontlines of the Spanish Civil War.

She asserts, “There were people in the audience who truly cared who did not have any national or religious relationship with the people involved.”

This idea of pure compassion for others is similar to the legend of the Lamed-Vov from the time of the prophet Isaiah. Dr. Rachel Naomi Remen, acclaimed pioneer in the mind/body holistic health movement and Clinical Professor of Family and Community Medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, wrote in her book Kitchen Table Wisdom: “In this story, God tells us that He will allow the world to continue as long as at any given time there is a minimum of thirty-six good people in the human race. People who are capable of responding to the suffering that is a part of the human condition. These thirty-six are called the Lamed-Vov. If at any time, there are fewer than thirty-six such people alive, the world will come to an end.”

The Lamed-Vov are like the compassionate people who care even when it isn’t expected or required of them. Such people make the world possible, both physically and metaphorically. Thirty-six is the minimum number of compassionate individuals, and the Shoah Foundation’s efforts to include diverse people in the learning experience are an attempt to cultivate even more.

The stories of these survivors help to tie people together with the most basic feelings of human compassion. Narratives are all that tie generations together, not the raw history of facts on a page.

Nath ponders how “as historians, we were most intrigued and enthused to implement the groundbreaking approach of combining the two schools of history: oral history and traditional, research and document based history. We developed a cataloging system by which catalogers applied precise documented historical context to a very personal memory of a Holocaust survivor. As a result, the sum of the oral statements did not just fit into the documented context but also filled it with all the emotions of a human experience over and over again in each testimony.”

This is precisely what is happening today — the integration of historical media to preserve the human experience.

“Now it’s more about what we do with the testimonies that’s important,” Robin acknowledges. “Part of the film competition is for students to directly interact with survivors’ stories and preserve them in new ways in new digital mediums. Without human interaction, the testimonials are nothing; they’re like books on a shelf.”

It is most important to develop an emotional connection with the material, to realize that each person has a unique story to share with the world. The Shoah Foundation performed a mitzvah by giving survivors the means to tell their stories and express their pain, but also to reinforce their steadfast Jewish connection. Not only is it about the survivors leaving an archive for research about the events; more importantly, the men and women (like Leon Weinstein) got to tell their stories. Stories are all we have to bind us to one another.

“It’s an overused topic, but what is six million?” Robin asks rhetorically. “We become lost in the numbers, but if you watch testimonials you become overwhelmed with the need to tell this person’s story. There are no words. It’s something quite incredible. The whole purpose is to de-generalize, to create a greater emotional experience and to create a spark in students who realize that these stories need to live on. It’s all about creating a passion for preservation.”

____________
To get an idea of what true heroism and human spirit involves, go to the USC Shoah Foundation Institute and gain access to testimonies like Boris Brauer, Leon Weinstein or Peter Hersch, Darius Gabbai, Henry Rosmarin, and Sidonia Lax to name a few. Their testimonies carry the combination of the unbelievable depth of their experience, the multitude of confrontations or places of incarceration, and insurmountable situations that they not only survived but they are able to describe in such detailed pictures that they bring these moments back to life.

For a more personal experience, check out UCLA’s Bearing Witness program at http://ucla.hillel.org/home/studentlife/social/Bearing-Witness.aspx

For more information on Leon Weinstein’s unique story, visit http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/05/local/la-me-survivors-20110805

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, social media developed into the ultimate, universal broadcasting mechanism. Breaking news stories, eyewitness video reports, and instantaneous public reactions crisscross the globe in the blink of an eye, changing the way information is distributed and processed. People no longer get their news from highly reputable, structured and syndicated television channels; instead, laconic, character-limited stories are expected to discharge at a breakneck pace from the effervescent and hyperactive world of unrestricted tweets and posts. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have blanketed humanity with an impenetrably dense, pulsating lattice of connections on every imaginable personal and social level. There is no doubt that social media has revolutionized our existence, but we are only beginning to discover its effects.

On December 30th, 2011, a CNN article entitled “Twitter lawsuit threatened over alleged Hezbollah aid” directed our attention to an issue with potentially enormous implications for social media and internet freedom. The article focuses on al-Manar, a Hezbollah-controlled television station which has an active Twitter account with approximately 7,500 followers. CNN reports that the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center has warned Twitter of potential legal implications should they refuse to forbid such organizations from using their website.

In a letter to Twitter, Shurat HaDin director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner wrote that “it has come to our attention that Twitter Inc. provides social media and associated services to such foreign terrorist organizations. Please be advised that [doing so] is illegal and will expose Twitter Inc. and its officers to both criminal prosecution and civil liability to American citizens and others victimized [by terrorist organizations].”

However, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Aden Fine notes that the United States government cannot impose selective censorship on private companies (such as Twitter) or force them to remove content posted or sanctioned by “unsavory” organizations. Over the past few years, instances of controversial material posted on social media websites have been approached with extreme caution, since it is not yet clear how to detect genuinely illicit activity while upholding the all-important right to free speech and freedom of information. Freedom of speech applies to any person or medium of communication, unless the speech is marked by libel, obscenity, or incites a crime. Nevertheless, making judgments of whether speech is libelous or incendiary often falls into a vast gray area — perhaps the biggest shortcoming of free speech as a broad philosophy. Case in point, Shurat HaDin managed to convince Facebook to remove a fan page created by Palestinian activists calling for a “Third Intifada” against Israel. While this is certainly a victory, Facebook made the decision to delete the fan page autonomously (mostly as a result of sharp user backlash) — it was not censored by law, even though the fan page clearly encouraged violence and conveyed a murderous intent.

In the same vein, what if Twitter refuses to suspend terrorist-sponsored accounts simply because many people disagree with their message? According to Darshan-Leitner, allowing terrorist organizations access to a powerful mass media tool is equivalent to providing a form of virtual aid — which is (of course) illegal in the United States. The CNN article aptly references social media’s role in the Arab Spring: the online services enabled anti-regime demonstrators to rapidly disseminate information about the protests, transforming ostensibly harmless social media websites into the driving force behind the uprisings. It is safe to say that social media played a key role in the coup d’état against former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in early 2011 — a clear indicator that virtual interaction can manifest itself within the real world to great effect. Even so, it is not incontrovertibly clear that a single terrorist-sponsored Twitter account poses a credible threat, so it is very difficult to either confirm or deny any wrongdoing on Twitter’s behalf.

While Shurat HaDin would like Twitter to change its policies without litigation, a single formal ruling in favor of compulsory censorship on social media platforms would send shockwaves through the public sphere and set an extremely dangerous precedent. If the government starts to decide what can or cannot be posted, tweeted, and streamed, censorship can quickly spiral out of control (see the Great Firewall of China). However, is it appropriate to stand idly by while organizations with explicitly malevolent intentions rally support through incredibly convenient, universally available virtual channels? This question is emerging as one of the most impermeable quandaries of a 21st century overwhelmed by the social media revolution.

The world has acquired an instrument of astonishing influence and limitless possibilities, but social media has also proven to be a double-edged sword. It has empowered people to rise up against intolerable oppression, spread vital news stories to millions at the speed of light, and connected the world with more unity than ever before. However, it can easily be harnessed to promote malicious causes. Indeed, free speech is far from perfect, since it allows for its abuse barely within the bounds of legality. For this reason, it is unrealistic to effectively censor all “bad” free speech while leaving “good” free speech unscathed — such superficial categorizations have become impossible to make in our rapidly evolving era of free information.

Instead, we should focus on utilizing social media to uphold our own values and messages. Facebook could not remove the “Third Intifada” page without sufficient basis, but the tremendously hostile responses from Facebook’s users gave the organization ample reason to reevaluate its decision. Social media is unique because it is almost entirely user-driven and exists solely because of its customers. Slightly altering a familiar quote from the popular film “V for Vendetta” gives us the following principle: users should not be afraid of the producer; the producer should be afraid of the users. If the customers are vocal enough, the company will respond. Therefore, the federal government should not determine what is or isn’t allowed to remain public — it is our responsibility to police the massive virtual world and discredit what the law cannot expose. Evil intentions will always exist, and we should not be afraid to use social media to channel our own right to free speech. So post, tweet, blog, tag, upload, and stream away, because ultimately, it is up to us to make our voices heard.

Related articles

• Israeli law firm threatens to sue Twitter over alleged Hezbollah accounts (thenextweb.com)
• Call for Twitter to crack down on terrorist tweeters (thejc.com)
• Law firm threatens to shut Twitter down for supporting terrorist group (venturebeat.com)

This quarter, we had readers in countries as distant as Libya, Rwanda, Kenya, Egypt, South Africa, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, India, the Philippines, Germany, Russia, France, the Netherlands, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, Australia, and New Zealand (and obviously Canada and Israel)!

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 7,700 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 6 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

The RCA website has previously listed an organization called JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing) as a therapy resource for Jews with unwanted same-sex attraction. Goldin’s statement comes as a response to JONAH’s claim that the link and a blurb in an RCA newsletter from 2004 are an endorsement of JONAH’s services.

JONAH is an organization that denies that genetic factors play any role in determining sexual orientation and asserts that the “free will” granted to humanity by God guarantees the possibility of conversion.

As the widely accepted umbrella organization for centrist Orthodox rabbinical authority, an RCA endorsement of JONAH would, to many, be tantamount to an official Orthodox position in favor of reparative therapy. Many in the Jewish and LGBT communities strongly advise against reparative therapy because of the psychological harm and abusive methods they believe to be involved and the theological precedents upon which those methods are based.

“We want it taken down. [JONAH] said it was a letter of support, but if you read the letter it is not. They took an informational statement and reprinted it, and the use of that as an endorsement is an error,” said Rabbi Goldin.

In fact, the RCA’s official policies of homosexuality and reparative therapy were articulated earlier this month on the rabbinic organization’s website.

“On the subject of reparative therapy, it is our view that, as Rabbis, we can neither endorse nor reject any therapy or method that is intended to assist those who are struggling with same-sex attraction. We insist, however, that therapy of any type be performed only by licensed, trained practitioners. In addition, we maintain that no individual should be coerced to participate in a therapeutic course with which he or she is acutely uncomfortable.”

Mordechai Levovitz, co-executive director of JQY (Jewish Queer Youth) — a social support group for “frum/formerly frum” LGBT-identified Jews based in New York — lauded Rabbi Goldin’s clarification, declaring it “indicative of a shift in consciousness, sensitivity and understanding that Orthodox rabbis have about gay people growing up in their communities.

“People are going to be comforted by the RCA dealing with this community in a welcoming way; that’s what was missing. I applaud the RCA and Rabbi Goldin for their courage in standing up against pressuring gay youth into these kinds of therapies.”

Last year, on the same day the forest fires began ravaging the Carmel region of northern Israel, the Haifa municipality erected a Christmas tree sculpture comprised of over 5,000 recycled water bottles in honor of the Christian holiday. The tree, designed by Israeli artist Hadas Itzcovitch and her father Ernest Itzcovitch, is 38 feet tall and is lit using energy-efficient LED lights and is meant to raise awareness about environmental issues. The tree was erected once again in 2011, as Haifa expects an estimated 90,000 visitors this holiday season.

Haifa is the third largest city in Israel and is home to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Baha’i, and Druze. People of all backgrounds came together to collect bottles and contribute to the monument that now stands in the city center.

Yuval Ben-Ami at +972 Magazine points out that unlike the mayor of Nazareth Illit, Haifa’s mayor Yona Yahav placed this tree right at the crossroads between the Jewish and Arab neighborhoods (and perhaps even a bit further into the Jewish neighborhood).

Related articles

• VIDEO: Haifa’s Christmas tree made of recycled bottles (Daily Telegraph)

Last week, The Guardian told the story of the Qubrsi brothers — two of approximately 1,400 Christians residing in Gaza today. Brothers Karam and Peter are currently the only members of their family still in Gaza. Their sisters Rani and Mai fled to Bethlehem in 2007 after the manager of Gaza’s Bible Society Bookstore, where their husbands worked,  was shot dead by radical Islamists; their parents are in Israel, where their mother receives treatment for pancreatic cancer.

Like every Christmas since the Hamas takeover in 2007, the Qubrsi brothers are prohibited from celebrating the holiday openly. When Hamas took control, Christmas lost its status as a public holiday, and public displays of non-Muslim worship were banned. Peter tells the story of having been harassed and threatened with arrest by a Hamas official for wearing a wooden cross around his neck. The city square that once was home to a large communal Christmas tree is now empty. The brothers celebrate quietly in their living room.

Although Karam and Peter hoped to travel to Bethlehem — the traditional birthplace of Jesus — for the holidays, Israel limits the number of exits from Gaza at 500 people, and only those below the age of 16 and above 35 are eligible to leave. They hope for a day when the Palestinian Authority will return to power to “take revenge” and put an end to the religious persecution.

Religious intolerance in Gaza also causes hardships beyond a doleful Christmas.

Peter told The Guardian, “This is not a Christian environment. There are no good universities, there is no opportunity to work, no apartments to rent and so no way we can get married. We have no future here.”

Nazareth Illit

Shimon Gapso, mayor of Nazareth Illit

Nazareth Illit — or Upper Nazareth — is a Jewish town in northern Israel that overlooks the larger Israeli Arab city of Nazareth proper. About one third of the 70,000 inhabitants of Nazareth — the city in which Jesus grew up — are Christian; the rest are Muslim. In recent years, the heights of Upper Nazareth have attracted more Christian Arab residents, who now comprise about fifteen percent of the population.

This Christmas, Mayor Shimon Gapso of the mostly Jewish Upper Nazareth has declared that there shall be no public displays of Christmas trees or any other non-Jewish symbols in his town.

“Upper Nazareth is a Jewish town and all its symbols are Jewish,” said Mayor Gapso. “As long as I hold office, no non-Jewish symbol will be presented in the city.”

Gapso was approached by Arab members of the city council, including Muslim members, who pointed out that Christmas trees serve no other purpose than to spread happiness and that Jewish Chanukkiyot (Menorahs) are displayed is numerous American cities that are not designated as Jewish. Gapso’s response was, “Let them go down to Lower Nazareth.”

Gapso’s ban on Christian worship in his town seems to fly in the face of Israel’s Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, which guarantees religious rights to people of all faiths in Israel.

The mayor’s actions have incensed Arab and Jewish Israelis alike.

Yuval Ben-Ami, a writer for +972 Magazine writes, ”By declaring Upper Nazareth Christmas resistant, Mayor Gapso exposes the great insecurity and confusion of the Jewish state. If the only way to maintain the Jewish character of his town is by showing complete lack of tolerance and resisting integration of its non-Jewish residents, then Upper Nazareth is in fact a self-imposed ghetto, walled by fear and intolerance and so, by extension, is the entire state of Israel.”

This is not the first time that Shimon Gapso has faced such accusations. Earlier this year, MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz) petitioned Israeli Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to have Mayor Gapso removed from office for having told an Arab newspaper that if he had been present during the October 2000 clashes between Israeli Arabs and police, more Arabs would have been killed.

Related articles

• Gaza Christians long for days before Hamas cancelled Christmas
• Israeli Mayor Bans Christmas Trees
• How the Mayor (of a Nazareth Suburb) Stole Christmas