Kampeas reports that Daroff has ruffled some feathers (no pun intended) with his regular Tweets on events as they happen, even when that means taking a small part of a lengthy speech and sending it to his 2,205 followers (as of the article’s writing), perhaps out of context. Because he has a lot of access to important meetings and conferences, that’s putting a lot of the activity below the radar on the record, which can make some people uncomfortable. Daroff recently annoyed people by tweeting details of the friction between the traditional pro-Israel lobby and left-wing J Street over Iran sanctions.

I’m one not only one of Daroff’s followers but have also been on the receiving end of some free social media advice from him: Make your Tweets more substantive.

He’s right. Our appetite for social media is robust, but as much as we enjoy sharing impressions of last night’s episode of “The Bachelor” or the cute things our kids say, what adds value to the proposition is the ability to send and receive real-time data that not only makes the world feel like a smaller place but helps us make better decisions by being well-informed.

Daroff should be congratulated for setting a good example of how to use social media constructively.

ShareThis

That’s the question that faced voting representatives at this week’s conference of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Many voted in favor of amending the language of a 2008 JCPA resolution in support of a two-state Mideast solution to remove the words Jewish state. The motion, which was not carried, was sponsored by the JCRC of St. Louis.

While advocates of the change said “state of the Jewish people” is more in line with terminology used by the Israel’s prime minister, David Luchins of the Orthodox Union’s Institute for Public Affairs says it was pretty clear from the debate that they were concerned about the notion of Israel as a theocracy, in light of recent tension there between synagogue and state.

“I told them I’m not happy about the women on the back of the bus either, but that’s no reason to rewrite the title of Theodor Herzl’s book,” said Luchins. Also backing the status quo was the American Jewish Committee and several major city JCRCs.

“It was interesting to listen to the two points of view,” said JCPA executive director Rabbi Steve Gutow, who said the debate was impassioned but civil. “It wasn’t contentious in any way.”

In a compromise during discussion before the vote, the amendment advocates called for including both Jewish state and “the nation state of the Jewish people.” But by then, the point seemed lost. And some noted that, with a Palestinian state, that sounded like a three-state solution.

When the votes were tallied, the nays had it. The measure was defeated 258-229.

And so it’s resolved as a matter of official Jewish community public policy. Israel is still the Jewish state. At least until next year.

“It could easily come up again,” said Rabbi Gutow.

ShareThis

Noting the trend of Holocaust films that began with Spielberg’s 1993 “Schindler’s List,” Foxman notes that Quentin Tarantino’s Nazi-killing action film puts “a new twist on the Holocaust genre for a new time and a new audience” and describes the film as “an allegory about good and evil and the no-holds-barred efforts to defeat the evil personified by Hitler, his henchmen and his Nazi regime.”

“Inglorious Basterds” is a good film. Christopher Waltz richly deserves the Best Supporting Actor nod for his brilliant portrayal of Col. Hans Landa, the stone-cold, milk-drinking “Jew Hunter” who seems to fit the bill of most Nazi officers we know about: well-educated, efficient and charming yet stunningly acquiescent to and complicit in evil.

I don’t know how good the film’s chances are, though, of getting the Best Picture statue since it’s up against some serious competition. Films like “Avatar” that combine good performances with the latest special effects and good directing tend to sweep the contest. And 17 years after “Schindler,” it’s not likely the Academy is feeling pressured to encourage production of more Holocaust films — it’s already happening.

Still, Foxman argues that “Basterds” should be rewarded for both its educational and escapist potential. “Hopefully the millions who see it will understand the horrors of the Holocaust and echo my view of “if only it were true!,” he writes.

Absent from Foxman’s assessment is the fact that the squad of Basterds in the film, led by Brad Pitt’s Aldo Raine, make no pretense of being out to rescue Jews. Their unlikely mission is only to engage and capture, then torture and execute Nazis. In doing otherwise, Tarantino would have run the risk of exaggerating the U.S. effort to stop the genocide, which was virtually nonexistent.

In contrast, after seeing Ed Zwick’s 2008 “Defiance,” Foxman wouldn’t have to say “if only it were true.” The film is based on the largely unsung Bielski Brigade, who not only killed Nazis, but rescued thousands of Jews in Belarus.

Foxman doesn’t mention “Defiance” in his run-down of recent noteworthy Holocaust films. But while “Basterds” was more entertaining on many levels, “Defiance” is surely the better film because it reminds us that, while there were many non-Jewish saviors (Nazi-hunting commando leaders not among them) in all too many cases it was left to the Bielskis and other Jewish partisans of Europe to save their own skin.

If “Basterds” were up against “Defiance” for Best Picture, I hope Abe Foxman would root for the true story. Since it isn’t, I’ll join him in his pick, while strongly recommending “Defiance” as a more realistic look at “the horrors of the Holocaust” and the “no holds-barred efforts to defeat the evil personified by Hitler.”

ShareThis

Among the issues to be debated at the annual plenary of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs next week is what the umbrella group considers a growing loss of common ground and tendency to disagree stridently among groups that ostensibly have the same agenda of concern for Israel and the Jewish people.

The organization, which sets the policy agenda for community relations councils across North America, wants to adopt a resolution that “addresses the issue of civility as a broader mandate and
calls for a Campaign for Civility.”

“Civility is neither the lack of difference nor the squelching of debate,” reads the resolution. “It is the application of care for the dignity of every human being, even those with whom we may sharply disagree.”

Just because of the potential for irony, you can be sure the debate at the plenary for this resolution will be extra-polite, although the journalists who attend may well appreciate a dust-up just for the headline possibilities.

The resolution will have no teeth — Mort Klein won’t be fined for denouncing a member of Americans for Peace Now without calling him sir. But it’s always a good idea to reinforce good principles and to codify them even when they should be obvious, especially when you’re trying to keep diverse people inside an increasingly uncomfortable tent.

Some may say the issue isn’t important enough to address at the conference, or argue that there’s nothing wrong with a bit of passion when dealing with issues that affect Jewish destiny. Hopefully, they’ll do so amiably and take a minute to listen to the other point of view.

ShareThis

When Richards asked Gibson how he thinks the public perceives him now — a vague, awkward reference to the star’s 2006 drunk driving arrest and anti-Semitic rant — Gibson said “That’s almost four years ago, dude. I mean, I’ve moved on. I guess you haven’t.” When Richards pushed a little, Gibson uttered a cuss word related to the human posterior. (He later said he was referring to his publicist.)

Richards’ question was as rhetorical as it was awkward. Contrary to his assertion while promoting “Passion of the Christ” that he would be frozen out of Hollywood for daring to offend Jews, Mel’s still a hot commodity. After he finished raking in a cool half-billion from “Passion,” he still got to make the stinker “Apocalypto,” and now he’s once again back to his roots with the formulaic action/suspense drama “Edge of Darkness.”

I can see Mel’s point that he has moved on after apologizing for saying Jews are responsible for the wars in the world, and if he hasn’t done anything offensive since it should be let go. The trouble is, his name is still tossed around by late night comedians and others as an anti-Semitism poster boy, probably because he unconvincingly tried to pass of his biases as solely the result of over-imbibing. Clearly he still has some brand rebuilding to do.

A movie plug spot probably wasn’t the best forum. But it would be intriguing to see a seasoned interviewer like Larry King or Barbara Walters probe Gibson — as a service to the consumers who spend money on his movies — on how he really feels about the Jews (there is no known chemical link between alcohol and anti-Semitism). It would also be interesting to ask Mel about being such a devout Christian that he dared no alter an iota of how he views the Crucifixion, but not so devout to be above adulterously fathering a child out of wedlock.

That interview would probably be much more interesting to watch than “Edge of Darkness.”

* * *

The New Jersey Jewish Standard is taking an online poll on whether readers will boycott Gibson’s movie. I’ll check the results later. Meanwhile, you can leave your opinion below or email me at continuumblog@yahoo.com.

ShareThis

Probably not. But it is one of the things to ponder about a movie that borrows so much of its essence, while leaving so much to interpretation.

As the saying goes, there’s nothing new under the sun, and that’s particularly true of the entertainment world, where the biggest sensation in Hollywood in the pre-Oscar weeks is this CGI-laden reboot of an overused plot device.

The stranger-in-a-strange-land who learns the ways of another culture has appeared on the big screen in such historical fiction as the Disney cartoon “Pocahantas” and the films “Last of the Mohicans,” “Dances With Wolves,” and “The Last Sumarai.” A variation on this theme, with a title that gets right to the point, was “A Stranger Among Us,” in which a gentile cop played by Melanie Griffith goes undercover among chasidim.

Often the transitional element of these films is that the male protagonist turns against his native people to protect his adopted culture, usually motivated by a love interest. That’s precisely what happens in Avatar, although the twist is that only hero Jake Sully’s mind is with the adopted blue-skinned alien people, operating a synthetic avatar body.

The villains in Avatar look, dress and talk like the American military, which was probably mostly a practical consideration for director James Cameron. But it’s easy to speculate about a commentary against U.S. imperialism and adventurism. There are plenty of other analogies to be made, from the destruction of rain forests to the annihilation of Native American culture.

And if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is something that, well, occupies your mind much you will probably see some elements of it in the film, too. That’s what happened when Juliano Mer-Khamis, a Palestinian-born filmmaker and actor saw Avatar. Mer-Khamis, who has a Jewish mother and Arab father, makes no attempt to be objective in the conflict. After seeing the film he caused a ruckus in a California suburb (unidentified in press reports) by loudly comparing the destroyers in the film to the Israelis and the peaceful Na’vi to the Palestinians. The story has been told in Maariv, the LA Times and the Palestine Note blog.

“No one dares to make the real analogy,” Mer-Khamis told Maariv. “’Avatar’ is one of the bravest films made. It portrays the occupation, but people aren’t making the analogy. Many would like to be like the blue people but don’t understand the meaning. This is why people got angry at the movie theater. It is no secret that I think the Israelis are occupiers and the Palestinians occupied. Israel sits forcefully on lands that belong to others and this is exactly what the movie is talking about.”

The analogy wasn’t lost on Israelis either. On the satirical TV show Eretz Nehederet (Wonderful Country), a blue skinned ambassador from Pandora appears to forge an alliance with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. But when the Na’vi diplomat compares his people to the Palestinians, the actor playing the right-wing Lieberman breaks off the talks with the business end of a gun.

Surprisingly, we haven’t heard much from Jewish theologians likening the plight of the Na’vi to our millennial story of triumph over victimization and preservation of culture. And surely the grand battle between overwhelming forces trying to destroy the tiny paradise whose guardians surprise with their ferocity can draw a few analogies to the Six-Day and Yom Kippur wars, too.

It’s precisely because the plot of this film is such a template that people can interpret what they what they wish from it. Much of science fiction is allegory and because everything in it is so far removed from our daily life it’s natural to wonder what inspired the writer or if there’s a point to be made.

Since the definition of avatar, based on the Hindu concept of a deity descended from heaven but lately popularized in video game use, is a template that takes on the characteristics of the user, it seems only fitting that people look at the movie through their own rose-colored 3D glasses.

And if Avatar does end up sweeping the Oscars, our multiple interpretatiions would bolster Cameron’s claim that, despite the lack or originality of the plot, he has truly created art.

ShareThis

In it he grapples with the question that is always unanswerable, though it is the subject of milennia of soul-searching and at least one book: Why do bad things happen to the innocent. In dealing with this subject in the past, I have put my foot in my mouth as many others, including Pat Robertson, have by trying to come up with a rational explanation when there clearly is none, at least in this world. In lieu of one, too many people make what they see as the logical leap that people who are suffering have done something to deserve it, or that they are paying the price for the sins of others, present or past.

Rabbi Weinreb’s take: “Our tradition insists that we “shelve” [this] type of question. Judaism insists instead that we ask the question of the second type. We must inquire as to the response that God requires of us. And to that inquiry the answer is powerful and clear: See! Feel! Act!”

ShareThis

There is probably a fascinating analysis of this theme to be done, but on the face of it, Jewish Women Watching has not done it. What they have done is compare apples and oranges. To make their case of hypocrisy, they would have to compare the reactions of the same leaders to identical phenomena occurring in two different communities.

Instead, JWW is distributing a bookmark that displays a quote from Daniel Pipes of the pro-Israel Middle East Forum, warning that Gibran will  “generate serious problems…imbuing pan-Arabism and anti-Zionism, proselytizing for Islam, and promoting Islamist sympathies will predictably make up the school’s true curriculum.”

Leaving alone the question of whether Pipes’ concern is valid, the commentator, while he may be Jewish, has not, as far as I’ve heard, claimed to be a representative of the “mainstream Jewish community” or a spokesman for anyone but Middle East Forum. Clearly his quote was featured solely because it is one of the harshest available on the subject.

The contrasting quote is from the American Jewish Congress, which does hold itself out as a “defense agency” that concerns itself with the well-being of the Jewish people. No quote is featured from the Congress on Gibran, and my recollection and preliminary search results suggest they offered none. But JWW presents a paragraph from the Forward paraphrasing  the agency’s Marc Stern, an expert on matters or religion and law, on the Hebrew Language School that opened its doors a year after Gibran.

“Stern said he does not believe that a Hebrew-language charter school inherently poses a challenge to the constitutionally mandated divide between religion and state. But…it would be impossible to distinguish exactly what element might be used ‘as a means of furthering Judaism.’”

Opposition to the Gibran Academy centered on concerns that the school would be a taxpayer-funded Madrassa that fomented Islamic funadementalism. Those concerns were deemed unfounded by the Department of Education and the mayor, who went ahead with opening the school as planned, although the founding principal had to step down as a casualty of that pressure.

Since Hebrew and Israeli radicalism have proven to be far less a danger around the world, and not at all in New York, opposition to the Hebrew Language Academy, such as it is, centers around constitutional issues, the impact on local Jewish day schools and whether students there will substitute its curriculum for a Jewish education.

Completely different people addressing  completely different issues, and as far as I can see, most leaders in the community staying out of the fray in both cases.

ShareThis

James von Brunn, the outspoken racist who was shot by museum guards in the attack and charged with the murder of one of the guards, has died in a prison hospital. It’s unclear if his death was a result of his injuries. He was 88 years old, and spent much of those years spewing hatred against Jews.

So there will be no trial in the murder of Stephen Johns, the guard who courteously held the door at the museum before he was shot to death. Museum security had been reviewed and undoubtedly enhanced. Johns has been buried and his story will, unfortunately, fade from our collective short memory. A sad chapter closed.

Von Brunn will take to his grave any insight into how an educated man, Navy veteran and former advertising executive became the crazed extremist who tried to take hostages at a federal building in 1981 and later spent his time obsessing over and publishing Holocaust revisionist theories. We’ll also never know what about today’s hateful climate may have prompted his final rampage. Maybe there are no answers to such questions.

But his death also spares us the possibility that he would use his trail as the forum for Holocaust revisionism and other conspiracy theories that he always craved.

ShareThis

Anyone who watches or reads the news in New York has to be aware of the Polar Bears, that wacky group of folks who annually celebrate the new year by jumping into the icy Atlantic from Coney Island beach.

A majority of these folks, for some reason, seem to older Jewish men. Maybe it dates back to some European custom they remember from the old country. Or for something deeper you can add your own cliche about a culture of prevailing over adversity and needing to build stregnth and tolerance. (My former colleague, Toby Axelrod, once told me about her grandfather’s custom of washing his face in the first snow of the season — a version of making lemons from lemonade — and it’s a custom I’ve followed ever since.)

Some of these ice bathers will argue that there are health benefits to this freezing dip, but doctors will note that hypothermia and frostbite are largely considered harmful conditions.

Since few human Polar Bears are spotted bobbing in winter surf when there are no cameras around, the more cynical will suspect that a large part of the motivation is the desire for publicity on a slow news day. As we have learned from “Fear Factor,” “Survivor” and the Balloon Boy, the prices people won’t pay for their 15 minutes these days are few and far between.

But publicity aside, there does seem to be something enticing about poking your finger in nature’s eye and doing something that’s, to be generous, counterintuitive. So it has always appealed to me as a once-only challenge, or an item for the (eventual) Bucket List. Since I already get a fair amount of publicity in my life, I could write off that motivation and embrace it simply as a self-dare.

So, when this year a friend and neighbor, Alan Skorski, noted on Facebook (in a long thread about global warming, which he dismisses as a liberal plot) that he was considering taking the plunge, I told him if we did he’d have a partner.

If anything, it would help settle our ongoing clash about climate change. If we emerged unscathed, basking in the January sunshine, I’d win. If we turned blue and had to be defrosted with hair dryers, he could make a strong case against Al Gore’s agenda of panic.

Roughly a week before the new year, Alan, being a charitable soul, came up with the idea of making something noble out of our escapade, drafting a letter to local shuls looking for sponsors. Similar to a bowl-a-thon or a race-for-the-cure, we would stay in the water in ten-second increments for each sum pledged to the local food bank for needy families. (For the record, though, Alan works in the food industry and has had more ability to experience and adjust to frozenness, which would give him an edge, whereas I keep a chair warm on my job.)

I anticipated a chilly reception, and was right. Two shuls in our neighborhood declined sending out e-mails, probably worried about the potential legal and moral liability if the stunt went bad. We considered fundraising among friends, or just putting up some money on our own. But in the end, cooler heads prevailed.

We both ended 2009 with colds, and going into the holiday weekend, it dawned on us that the timing wasn’t encouraging. The bears gathered at noon on Friday, with Shabbat just over four hours away, with potential traffic heading back to Long Island. With New Year’s Day falling on Saturday next year, there’s plenty of time to gather courage, and maybe some sponsors, for 2012.

And so, for now, we put our mitzvah on ice. Which is surely the least painful thing to put there.

ShareThis