Earlier this week the Supreme Court heard argument in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the issue being whether Hastings College of Law, part of the University of California system, can deny official status and benefits to a group that requires its leaders and voting members to accept its core religious beliefs, including that marriage is between a man and a woman. A decision should come down before the end of the Court’s term in June. The expectation is that the Justices will rule in favor of CLS and not simply because the Court has become more conservative.
This case should not have reached the Supreme Court. It has because a federal district judge ruled against CLS, a decision that was affirmed in an astonishingly brief opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which demonstrates anew that hostility toward religion remains alive, if not entirely well, within the judiciary. It’s also another illustration of the remarkable irony (because of their polar ideologies) that Gay Rights and the Gun Lobby are the most powerful interest groups today in the country.
There are sixty student groups registered at Hastings. CLS alone is penalized for alleged discrimination, although for sure there are more than a handful of groups that have requirements or understandings that limit who can be leaders and active members to students who meet specified parochial criteria. This is certainly true of Jewish groups on campus and, likely, of all or nearly all religious groups. In his brief for CLS, Michael W. McConnell, the noted constitutional scholar and former federal judge, points out that the bylaws of La Raza restrict what is referred to as “policy” membership to students “of Raza background,” meaning “persons of Latino or Mexican descent.” There are other examples of similar selectivity. The singling out of CLS is nasty business.
The animus toward CLS – at Hastings and other campuses – contributes to the polarization and ideological warfare that increasingly mark American public life. What is lost is a sense of moderation and also the acceptance of the reality that this is a large country with a huge and diverse population and that we should expect and accept diversity and disagreement on key issues and practices. Those who oppose Gay marriage should not be penalized, especially when their opposition is based on sincere and long held religious beliefs and especially when we recognize that as recently as about a decade ago, Gay marriage was scarcely on the public agenda.
We hear much about pluralism and tolerance, terms that are standard fare for liberals, many Jews included. There is no need to preach or practice tolerance toward beliefs and practices that we endorse. Unless there is a willingness to respect the right of others to hold beliefs that are contrary to our own, pluralism and tolerance are empty, even hypocritical, terms. Of course, these twin ideals are not an invitation to harm others. As with basic values generally, there are limits. The test must assess intent and impact, whether what is believed aims to harm those of different belief and whether, irrespective of intent, persons whose beliefs are different are being hurt. CLS requires nothing more than that those who lead and make decisions for the group adhere to its core beliefs. Gays suffer not at all as a consequence, while the actions of a public institution to punish CLS strike me as afoul of the Free Exercise clause.
As it prepares to rule, the Supreme Court is the recipient of a ton of amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs on either side of the issue. I doubt that the Justices regard these offerings as particularly friendly or necessary or whether the briefs add much to the argument. They are essentially interest group statements, as I learned more than a half century ago when, as a graduate student, I examined amicus briefs in civil liberties cases.
We Jews have contributed handsomely to the flow, with the Orthodox in CLS’s corner and a slew of organizations on the side of Hastings. Agudath Israel and the Orthodox Union have submitted separate briefs, while Young Israel has signed on to the submission by the Becket Fund which has emerged as the primary legal defender of the rights of religious groups and persons. The failure of Orthodox groups to cooperate is regrettable, especially because on public affairs issues they surely do not disagree. Decades ago, when intra-Orthodox division was far greater than it now is, cooperation on litigation and legislation was routine. There were leaders of greater vision and stature then.
To its credit, the American Jewish Congress weighed the equities and decided not to take a position. The American Jewish Committee has weighed in against CLS, although its brief is tepid. It should have stayed out of the case. The Anti-Defamation League comes on in its brief like a bull in a china shop and, like bulls in china shops are wont to be, its behavior is strange. Unlike the amicus it signed on to at the Ninth Circuit level, the focus is an attack against President Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Whatever one may think of our previous president and his policies, they are not the issue before the Supreme Court. I wonder what the legal hotshots, including three at Weil, Gotchal & Manges, were thinking when they drafted such an inappropriate and foolish document.
As expected, the New York Times maintains its record of hostility to religious groups in an editorial on the CLS case published on the day that the Supreme Court heard argument. With the Times and the traditional anti-religion crowd, sadly made up of a significant number of Jews in its corner, the ADL should reap contributions into its coffers. What about the contribution that ADL is making to the defamation of Jews as a group that is hostile to religion?
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Should We Ignore Bad News?
If I am able to conduct another day school census in the 2013-2014 school year, the research will show that enrollment in U.S. schools has grown by more than 20,000 since the previous census five years earlier. This would mean at least 250,000 students in full-time Jewish schools, surely an impressive number.
When the statistics are broken down according to day school category, a different picture will emerge. Nearly all of the growth – and perhaps all of it – will come from the yeshiva world and chassidic sectors which continue to experience high fertility, a reality that affects not at all what is produced by the pseudo-scientific demographers who continue to report that the Orthodox are no more than ten percent of all American Jews. In all other day school sectors, the story is either stagnant enrollment or, more likely, decline.
A person greatly committed to the Conservative movement’s Solomon Schechter schools circulated an email several months ago urging recipients to focus on good news. That’s a useful idea, provided that the other news isn’t treated as if it doesn’t exist, particularly when the other news is, unfortunately, the more important story. The Solomon Schechter’s are hemorrhaging students and losing some schools along the way and the process is ongoing.
A case in point is the Solomon Schechter of Nassau County. I visited the school twice years ago and was impressed by the commitment of its leaders, professional and lay. Unfortunately, enrollment has declined steadily, both because of the tuition crisis and the woes affecting Conservatism. There has been talk of closing the high school. In a recent report, school leaders describe a strategy for keeping it open that includes diminishing the Judaic component and raising tuition. The approach won’t work.
Other Schechters are in trouble, some facing what appear to be insurmountable problems. I write this in sadness and without the slightest sense of satisfaction. The movement’s leaders seem committed to the strange notion that Conservatism will be saved by conserving less of its Judaic content. The apparent notion is that since watering down has worked for the Reform, let’s try it. In an article in the terrific first issue of the Jewish Review of Books that has just been published, Dr. Lance J. Sussman, Senior Rabbi of Reform Congregation Kehilath Israel in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, writes that “The Reform movement has probably contracted by a full third in the last ten years!”
There is a better model to emulate. If Conservatives want to salvage their Solomon Schechters, they need to strengthen their Judaics and find ways of reducing tuition. They should advocate for government support of the secular or academic program of day schools under religious sponsorship, as key figures in the movement did in the 1950s through much of the 1970s. In a characteristically insightful but uncharacteristically angry piece in the latest Commentary, Jack Wertheimer who remains a significant presence at the Jewish Theological Seminary writes about “The High Cost of Jewish Living” and makes a pitch for government aid. The article’s subtitle speaks of “the perverse refusal of the American Jewish community to look after its own.” As an illustration of this perversity he quotes an official of the National Council of Jewish Women opposing government aid who said, “We can’t put a chink in the wall [of separation] just because it will help Jewish children.”
There are Jewish leaders who seem to believe that contemporary Jewish life is a spiritual suicide pact.
It isn’t only the Conservative and other non-Orthodox schools that are suffering declines. A number of Modern Orthodox institutions have lost students. As the notion that public schools or charter schools or some other arrangement is an acceptable Jewish alternative becomes more acceptable, it is certain that there will be additional defections from day school education. The Modern Orthodox have high tuition to blame for their losses. That’s not true of Chabad schools or those that serve an immigrant or outreach population. Their growing difficulties stem from an inability to attract sufficient financial support.
The Chabad school in affluent Port Washington which is right next to Great Neck came close to shutting down in mid-school year as its ambitious program did not receive sufficient support. Shalom Torah Centers in New Jersey, perhaps the outstanding kiruv or outreach day school in the country, has just filed for bankruptcy, as a group of devoted lay people with much other crucial communal responsibilities struggle to keep it open. While some of its problems are unique, in general it shares the fate of the cluster of immigrant and outreach schools that have lost much of their enrollment and much of their support.
Even in the fervently Orthodox sectors, payrolls are further behind than they have been at any time in at least a generation. Jack Wertheimer notes that there are “insular” Orthodox schools that charge only a few thousand dollars per year. Actually, the number of such schools is quite large and, as impossible as it may seem, there are more than a few Orthodox schools that receive on an average significantly below several thousand dollars a year in tuition payments per student.
The enrollment of these schools will continue to grow because of high fertility and these schools will remain open because of the devotion and sacrifice of faculty and staff. Elsewhere in the day school world where tuition is far higher and the dedication is not as high, the losses will mount. It may be comforting to deny what is already a reality, but such comfort would be born out of self-delusion. The news is bad and it should be reported.
When the statistics are broken down according to day school category, a different picture will emerge. Nearly all of the growth – and perhaps all of it – will come from the yeshiva world and chassidic sectors which continue to experience high fertility, a reality that affects not at all what is produced by the pseudo-scientific demographers who continue to report that the Orthodox are no more than ten percent of all American Jews. In all other day school sectors, the story is either stagnant enrollment or, more likely, decline.
A person greatly committed to the Conservative movement’s Solomon Schechter schools circulated an email several months ago urging recipients to focus on good news. That’s a useful idea, provided that the other news isn’t treated as if it doesn’t exist, particularly when the other news is, unfortunately, the more important story. The Solomon Schechter’s are hemorrhaging students and losing some schools along the way and the process is ongoing.
A case in point is the Solomon Schechter of Nassau County. I visited the school twice years ago and was impressed by the commitment of its leaders, professional and lay. Unfortunately, enrollment has declined steadily, both because of the tuition crisis and the woes affecting Conservatism. There has been talk of closing the high school. In a recent report, school leaders describe a strategy for keeping it open that includes diminishing the Judaic component and raising tuition. The approach won’t work.
Other Schechters are in trouble, some facing what appear to be insurmountable problems. I write this in sadness and without the slightest sense of satisfaction. The movement’s leaders seem committed to the strange notion that Conservatism will be saved by conserving less of its Judaic content. The apparent notion is that since watering down has worked for the Reform, let’s try it. In an article in the terrific first issue of the Jewish Review of Books that has just been published, Dr. Lance J. Sussman, Senior Rabbi of Reform Congregation Kehilath Israel in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, writes that “The Reform movement has probably contracted by a full third in the last ten years!”
There is a better model to emulate. If Conservatives want to salvage their Solomon Schechters, they need to strengthen their Judaics and find ways of reducing tuition. They should advocate for government support of the secular or academic program of day schools under religious sponsorship, as key figures in the movement did in the 1950s through much of the 1970s. In a characteristically insightful but uncharacteristically angry piece in the latest Commentary, Jack Wertheimer who remains a significant presence at the Jewish Theological Seminary writes about “The High Cost of Jewish Living” and makes a pitch for government aid. The article’s subtitle speaks of “the perverse refusal of the American Jewish community to look after its own.” As an illustration of this perversity he quotes an official of the National Council of Jewish Women opposing government aid who said, “We can’t put a chink in the wall [of separation] just because it will help Jewish children.”
There are Jewish leaders who seem to believe that contemporary Jewish life is a spiritual suicide pact.
It isn’t only the Conservative and other non-Orthodox schools that are suffering declines. A number of Modern Orthodox institutions have lost students. As the notion that public schools or charter schools or some other arrangement is an acceptable Jewish alternative becomes more acceptable, it is certain that there will be additional defections from day school education. The Modern Orthodox have high tuition to blame for their losses. That’s not true of Chabad schools or those that serve an immigrant or outreach population. Their growing difficulties stem from an inability to attract sufficient financial support.
The Chabad school in affluent Port Washington which is right next to Great Neck came close to shutting down in mid-school year as its ambitious program did not receive sufficient support. Shalom Torah Centers in New Jersey, perhaps the outstanding kiruv or outreach day school in the country, has just filed for bankruptcy, as a group of devoted lay people with much other crucial communal responsibilities struggle to keep it open. While some of its problems are unique, in general it shares the fate of the cluster of immigrant and outreach schools that have lost much of their enrollment and much of their support.
Even in the fervently Orthodox sectors, payrolls are further behind than they have been at any time in at least a generation. Jack Wertheimer notes that there are “insular” Orthodox schools that charge only a few thousand dollars per year. Actually, the number of such schools is quite large and, as impossible as it may seem, there are more than a few Orthodox schools that receive on an average significantly below several thousand dollars a year in tuition payments per student.
The enrollment of these schools will continue to grow because of high fertility and these schools will remain open because of the devotion and sacrifice of faculty and staff. Elsewhere in the day school world where tuition is far higher and the dedication is not as high, the losses will mount. It may be comforting to deny what is already a reality, but such comfort would be born out of self-delusion. The news is bad and it should be reported.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Writing About Orthodox Wrongdoing
With the completion of creation, the earth was sanctified and immediately it became the territory of what is called life, of temptations and forces that impel people to transgress, even to murder. This fall from grace was sudden and it was permanent. It may be, as some have suggested, that human imperfection is an element in the plan for creation, for we are thereby partners in the striving for sanctity and goodness.
Orthodox Jews are not immune from human imperfections. There is the hope, perhaps expectation, that as a consequence of their fidelity to the commandments, their incidence of wrongdoing will be reduced. In writing about the torrents of wrongs arising from sexual and monetary appetites, Maimonides does not qualify that he is writing about Jews who are not religious. Nachmanides goes further, identifying a personality type who though externally is entirely faithful to the mitzvos is yet repulsive in that he is living a lie because his behavior debases Torah values.
There are Orthodox Jews who do bad things. How should our media report their wrongdoing or, for that matter, wrongdoing by other Jews? Journalistic decisions are about substance, about what happened. They are also about space. Much that may merit attention is not reported because of a lack of space. What may ordinarily be referred to as run of the mill wrongdoings, whether illegalities or ethical lapses, generally do not make the cut, either because of space constraints or unawareness.
The “Talk Of The Town” section in this weeks’ New Yorker has a piece about a “crime wave” by a group of podiatrists, all but one of whom appears to be Jewish. The tale hasn’t made it into this newspaper and for good reason. There is no Jewish angle. The standard should not be different when the wrongdoer is Orthodox, yet somehow that detail often results in a different journalist rulebook, in a rush to print. What is the justification? – a question that is not intended to justify wrongdoing.
Googling and the quick availability of information can serve as an invitation to reporters to bundle stories about wrongdoing and that is what occurred last week in the lead article in this newspaper, “Orthodox Scandals Could Harm Power Base, Experts Warn.” I am tempted to write that if scandals are the price to pay to demolish the mythology about Orthodox power, we should perhaps root at least temporarily for more scandal, since wrongful perceptions about Orthodox power are at the root of much Orthodox wrongdoing. Too many buy into the notion that there are fixers who for the right price can get things done. This mentality is a catalyst for more scandal.
For all of the media concentration on their wrongdoing, the Orthodox represent a disproportionately low share of all Jewish wrongdoing as measured by prison population or indictments. If Bernard Madoff is transformed into an Orthodox Jew and his wrongdoings are ascribed to the Orthodox, as has happened in newspaper stories, the tally is different and it is distorted.
What clearly merits journalistic attention is when religious leaders or institutions are implicated in wrongdoing. This is a desecration of G-D’s name and is newsworthy. I wonder whether Orthodox insularity is a contributory factor when wrongdoing takes place, a question that was touched on last week by David Klinghoffer in an exquisite article in the Forward called “In Scandals, a Wake-Up Call for Orthodoxy.” Klinghoffer was unsparing, even harsh, in his criticism.
Not all religious and ethnic groups are insular or are closed off to a significant extent from the outside world. Those that are, including the fervently Orthodox, run the risk that their insularity may result in behavior that departs from the appropriate laws and rules of the larger society. Members of the group may believe that what is regarded as improper by outsiders is acceptable because the group is benefitting or, alternatively, they may come to believe that it is right to take advantage of government or outsiders. Another factor contributing to possible loose legal and moral behavior is the tendency toward informality and laxity in intra-group transactions.
Insularity may feed into distortions about political influence. Ambitious powerbrokers position themselves as fixers, as people with contacts on the inside who can get things done. Photo-ops and the appearance of meaningful access are utilized to help make their pitch. Through the bundling of political contributions they can, in fact, purchase marginal access which amounts to little real influence. Too few Orthodox understand that meaningful political influence is not about leaving fingerprints. It’s about how Wall Street firms, big banks, pharmaceutical companies and other major interest groups conduct their efforts to exert influence. Of course, Orthodox are not alone in misunderstanding political influence.
The game plan for politicians dealing with the fervently Orthodox was set in the 1950s when office holders and seekers would pay pseudo-homage to Chassidic leaders in Williamsburg. After the photo-op, they acquiesced in the building of a highway right through the heart of the neighborhood. The lesson continues in Borough Park, now the largest Orthodox community, whose representative in Congress is Jerry Nadler, the ultra-liberal from Manhattan’s West Side. Put otherwise, is there a social or public issue on which Orthodox Jews have a distinctive position where public policy accords with that position? Yet, journalists constantly market the cliché about Orthodox political power.
The Orthodox may be forgiven for their naïveté about politics, but, of course, not for any wrongdoing. To them, appearances are crucial. What excuse is there for our media?
Orthodox Jews are not immune from human imperfections. There is the hope, perhaps expectation, that as a consequence of their fidelity to the commandments, their incidence of wrongdoing will be reduced. In writing about the torrents of wrongs arising from sexual and monetary appetites, Maimonides does not qualify that he is writing about Jews who are not religious. Nachmanides goes further, identifying a personality type who though externally is entirely faithful to the mitzvos is yet repulsive in that he is living a lie because his behavior debases Torah values.
There are Orthodox Jews who do bad things. How should our media report their wrongdoing or, for that matter, wrongdoing by other Jews? Journalistic decisions are about substance, about what happened. They are also about space. Much that may merit attention is not reported because of a lack of space. What may ordinarily be referred to as run of the mill wrongdoings, whether illegalities or ethical lapses, generally do not make the cut, either because of space constraints or unawareness.
The “Talk Of The Town” section in this weeks’ New Yorker has a piece about a “crime wave” by a group of podiatrists, all but one of whom appears to be Jewish. The tale hasn’t made it into this newspaper and for good reason. There is no Jewish angle. The standard should not be different when the wrongdoer is Orthodox, yet somehow that detail often results in a different journalist rulebook, in a rush to print. What is the justification? – a question that is not intended to justify wrongdoing.
Googling and the quick availability of information can serve as an invitation to reporters to bundle stories about wrongdoing and that is what occurred last week in the lead article in this newspaper, “Orthodox Scandals Could Harm Power Base, Experts Warn.” I am tempted to write that if scandals are the price to pay to demolish the mythology about Orthodox power, we should perhaps root at least temporarily for more scandal, since wrongful perceptions about Orthodox power are at the root of much Orthodox wrongdoing. Too many buy into the notion that there are fixers who for the right price can get things done. This mentality is a catalyst for more scandal.
For all of the media concentration on their wrongdoing, the Orthodox represent a disproportionately low share of all Jewish wrongdoing as measured by prison population or indictments. If Bernard Madoff is transformed into an Orthodox Jew and his wrongdoings are ascribed to the Orthodox, as has happened in newspaper stories, the tally is different and it is distorted.
What clearly merits journalistic attention is when religious leaders or institutions are implicated in wrongdoing. This is a desecration of G-D’s name and is newsworthy. I wonder whether Orthodox insularity is a contributory factor when wrongdoing takes place, a question that was touched on last week by David Klinghoffer in an exquisite article in the Forward called “In Scandals, a Wake-Up Call for Orthodoxy.” Klinghoffer was unsparing, even harsh, in his criticism.
Not all religious and ethnic groups are insular or are closed off to a significant extent from the outside world. Those that are, including the fervently Orthodox, run the risk that their insularity may result in behavior that departs from the appropriate laws and rules of the larger society. Members of the group may believe that what is regarded as improper by outsiders is acceptable because the group is benefitting or, alternatively, they may come to believe that it is right to take advantage of government or outsiders. Another factor contributing to possible loose legal and moral behavior is the tendency toward informality and laxity in intra-group transactions.
Insularity may feed into distortions about political influence. Ambitious powerbrokers position themselves as fixers, as people with contacts on the inside who can get things done. Photo-ops and the appearance of meaningful access are utilized to help make their pitch. Through the bundling of political contributions they can, in fact, purchase marginal access which amounts to little real influence. Too few Orthodox understand that meaningful political influence is not about leaving fingerprints. It’s about how Wall Street firms, big banks, pharmaceutical companies and other major interest groups conduct their efforts to exert influence. Of course, Orthodox are not alone in misunderstanding political influence.
The game plan for politicians dealing with the fervently Orthodox was set in the 1950s when office holders and seekers would pay pseudo-homage to Chassidic leaders in Williamsburg. After the photo-op, they acquiesced in the building of a highway right through the heart of the neighborhood. The lesson continues in Borough Park, now the largest Orthodox community, whose representative in Congress is Jerry Nadler, the ultra-liberal from Manhattan’s West Side. Put otherwise, is there a social or public issue on which Orthodox Jews have a distinctive position where public policy accords with that position? Yet, journalists constantly market the cliché about Orthodox political power.
The Orthodox may be forgiven for their naïveté about politics, but, of course, not for any wrongdoing. To them, appearances are crucial. What excuse is there for our media?
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
RJJ Newsletter - March 2010
The first days of September are a pressure period for many yeshivas and day schools as parents who seek substantial tuition reductions usually wait until then to register their children. There are schools that complete the registration process for nearly all of their students before school ends in June. They are, as a rule, more affluent institutions, charging relatively high tuition and offering, at most, limited scholarship assistance. Other schools, like our three on Staten Island, charge relatively low tuition and registration is for many parents a bargaining process with school officials, with the latter usually yielding because, after all, the mission of the school is to provide a Torah education and that mission may be forfeited if the child is not admitted.
There is a tendency for local rabbis to intervene on behalf of parents seeking scholarship assistance. There is a corollary tendency for schools to heed the words of rabbinic leaders. They are rightfully respected and they may know much about a family’s situation, including finances, that is beyond the information available to the school. This past September, a Rabbi whom I respect, called to ask for my intervention on behalf of a number of parents whose children had not been registered, saying that these were hardship cases. As has happened previously, I yielded to his plea and instructed that the children be admitted, with little or no tuition being required, this despite the escalating financial difficulty our schools have in meeting their obligations.
During the recent winter break, one child who was on a full scholarship – meaning no tuition was being charged – vacationed in Aruba with his mother and perhaps other family members. This was called to my attention and I was shocked and still am by this situation. It is disgraceful and worse that a family would take such advantage. We told the family that we would have to have a minimum payment, else the student could not remain in the school. The payment has been made and the student is continuing in the school.
This episode has caused me much anguish, obviously because a child who did not make the decision to spend substantial funds on an expensive vacation was being severely punished. His Jewish future would have been compromised if he did not remain in a Jewish school. For all of my adult life and for nearly sixty years, I have worked and struggled to provide a Torah education to children, particularly those who are from marginally observant homes. I have often overruled school officials who have claimed that my leniency regarding tuition payments severely harms their institutions.
The Aruba incident was too egregious to ignore. What was involved is a form of theft and not merely in an abstract moral sense. Our schools are forced to stint on nearly everything. Faculty and staff bear the brunt of this, as they are severely underpaid and too often they are not paid in a timely way. When parents take extreme advantage, they are harming persons who have devoted their lives to Torah education, individuals who can scarcely get by even if they are paid on time. This is shameful and cannot be tolerated.
Over the years, when a student receiving substantial scholarship assistance has celebrated a fancy Bar or Bat Mitzvah or whose family has done something lavish, we have been told that the money came from another source, usually a grandparent. It escapes me how this is a justification for paying zero or little tuition.
What adds to our dismay in these situations is that there are too many parents who take similar or even greater advantage. What this amounts to is the reality that there is a sort of market place for the swapping of information regarding how best to cheat the school. Worse yet, what emerges is the existence of a culture of taking extreme advantage.
There are, it needs to be underscored, parents who are legitimate scholarship recipients. The severe economic downturn has taken a heavy toll in lost jobs. It is heartless to exhort parents who have lost their livelihood to pay significant tuition. It is part of the essence of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School and has been for one-hundred and ten years to be caring and to treat parents on scholarship assistance with the utmost dignity. This will remain our hallmark, even as we are determined to insist that parents who can pay a fair share do so.
There is a tendency for local rabbis to intervene on behalf of parents seeking scholarship assistance. There is a corollary tendency for schools to heed the words of rabbinic leaders. They are rightfully respected and they may know much about a family’s situation, including finances, that is beyond the information available to the school. This past September, a Rabbi whom I respect, called to ask for my intervention on behalf of a number of parents whose children had not been registered, saying that these were hardship cases. As has happened previously, I yielded to his plea and instructed that the children be admitted, with little or no tuition being required, this despite the escalating financial difficulty our schools have in meeting their obligations.
During the recent winter break, one child who was on a full scholarship – meaning no tuition was being charged – vacationed in Aruba with his mother and perhaps other family members. This was called to my attention and I was shocked and still am by this situation. It is disgraceful and worse that a family would take such advantage. We told the family that we would have to have a minimum payment, else the student could not remain in the school. The payment has been made and the student is continuing in the school.
This episode has caused me much anguish, obviously because a child who did not make the decision to spend substantial funds on an expensive vacation was being severely punished. His Jewish future would have been compromised if he did not remain in a Jewish school. For all of my adult life and for nearly sixty years, I have worked and struggled to provide a Torah education to children, particularly those who are from marginally observant homes. I have often overruled school officials who have claimed that my leniency regarding tuition payments severely harms their institutions.
The Aruba incident was too egregious to ignore. What was involved is a form of theft and not merely in an abstract moral sense. Our schools are forced to stint on nearly everything. Faculty and staff bear the brunt of this, as they are severely underpaid and too often they are not paid in a timely way. When parents take extreme advantage, they are harming persons who have devoted their lives to Torah education, individuals who can scarcely get by even if they are paid on time. This is shameful and cannot be tolerated.
Over the years, when a student receiving substantial scholarship assistance has celebrated a fancy Bar or Bat Mitzvah or whose family has done something lavish, we have been told that the money came from another source, usually a grandparent. It escapes me how this is a justification for paying zero or little tuition.
What adds to our dismay in these situations is that there are too many parents who take similar or even greater advantage. What this amounts to is the reality that there is a sort of market place for the swapping of information regarding how best to cheat the school. Worse yet, what emerges is the existence of a culture of taking extreme advantage.
There are, it needs to be underscored, parents who are legitimate scholarship recipients. The severe economic downturn has taken a heavy toll in lost jobs. It is heartless to exhort parents who have lost their livelihood to pay significant tuition. It is part of the essence of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School and has been for one-hundred and ten years to be caring and to treat parents on scholarship assistance with the utmost dignity. This will remain our hallmark, even as we are determined to insist that parents who can pay a fair share do so.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Times Gets It Wrong Again
Those of us for whom the New York Times is both an addiction and a quasi-Bible constantly assess its Israeli and Jewish reporting, often concluding that it is unfair. It is evident that the newspaper gets an awful lot of feedback from Jewish readers, many if not most of whom write to complain. It’s also the case that the Times hears quite a bit from readers who are hostile to Israel and believe that the newspaper is biased in favor of the Jewish state.
That’s the picture that emerges from Clark Hoyt’s sensitive and sensible “Too Close to Home” article in the February 7 Sunday Times. Hoyt is now the paper’s Public Editor. It’s his responsibility to consider whether the country’s greatest newspaper has abided by journalistic standards. It’s not his responsibility to make editorial decisions, although it is a good bet that he has influence there as well, if only because editors know that someone is looking over their shoulders.
The article discusses the difficult issue of whether Ethan Bronner should remain the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief since his son who is an American collegian is now serving as a volunteer in the Israeli army. Even before this question arose, Hoyt received hundreds of complaints alleging that Bronner’s writing is slanted against Israel. There has also been a fusillade from the other side claiming pro-Israel or anti-Arab bias. The father/son situation has upped the volume. It is mildly comforting that our mild paranoia about the media and Israel is matched by the mild paranoia of Israel’s enemies.
Despite the highly unusual circumstance, the Times has decided to keep Bronner on the job because, as Hoyt writes, it did not want “to cave in to…relentlessly unfair criticism of the paper’s Middle East coverage by people who are hostile to objective reporting.” After acknowledging that “it doesn’t seem fair to hold a father accountable for the decision of his adult son,” Hoyt concludes that Bronner should be transferred elsewhere for “the duration of his son’s service in the I.D.F.”
In a sharp response posted on the Public Editor’s blog, Bill Keller, the Times’ executive editor, said nothing doing. “We will not be taking your advice to remove Ethan Bronner from the Jerusalem Bureau,” because to do so would be to “capitulate to the more savage partisans.” Keller then offers a handful of inapposite examples that amount to a fierce but ineffective defense of his decision. Hoyt is right. Appearances do matter, especially in journalism, and Bronner should be transferred. Whether he goes or stays, the newspaper’s Israel and Middle East coverage will continue to generate much comment and controversy.
What is stunning about the episode is how far the paper is now removed from the longstanding policy of not posting a Jewish reporter in Israel. That changed when Thomas Friedman came to Jerusalem from Beirut, a mixed blessing if there ever was one. Putting aside Friedman’s trademark egocentrism, as he acknowledged in “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” he liked the Arabs a great deal more than he liked the Israelis. There wasn’t an Israeli wart that he was aware of that could escape his reporting.
Bronner is far superior to Friedman. The Times’ Israel problem, however, transcends the situation of the Bronner family or whether its reporters in Jerusalem are Jewish. In a nutshell, the problem is too much attention, too much of which is devoted to trivia. This is a conscious decision, arising I believe from the large proportion of Times’ readers who are Jewish, as well as from the maintenance of an expensive bureau in Jerusalem. There is copy to be filed and this is a challenge when there are no big stories relating to warfare or Hezbollah and Hamas. In a sense, reporters feel obligated and may be instructed to ferret out tales of internal Israeli problems or minor conflicts of the kind that come with the territory called life. The result is that small-time stuff makes it big time into the newspaper.
This isn’t a new phenomenon and my concern is apparently not shared by many, as there are children of all ages – most of them adults – who lap up the coverage given to Israel and Jews. At its best, journalism is a two-edged sword. The caressing hand is sooner or later also the hand that bites. No other country on the face of the earth is subjected to the trivial pursuit that is regular fare in Israeli coverage and, for that matter, no other people on the face of the earth is reported on the way Jews are reported on. This isn’t a blessing.
Several weeks ago, David Brooks, the best of the Times Op Ed writers, was in Israel and filed a wonderful article about the country’s technological development and other indices of progress. He saw the larger picture. In a probably unintended way, his article serves as a rebuke to his employer. Nitpicking, he was suggesting, is not the same as journalism.
Unfortunately, the forces that dictate and shape what Timesmen file from Israel encourage nitpicking, so that readers generally do not know of the highways and parks unless they serve as instrumentalities to criticize Israel. Readers do not know about Israeli scientific achievements and technological developments or of the stunning improvement in the standard of living or of the remarkable accomplishment of integrating nearly a million Russians. The media wallow in trivia and negativism and that’s the story that people who do not know Israel first-hand get when they read their newspapers.
I believe that inadvertently the treatment that Israel gets serves as a disincentive to Palestinian and Arab self-examination and as a disincentive to utilize the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been available to improve the lot of Palestinians. Why take that road when the media wars are being won? Downtrodden Palestinians are highly functional to the Arab world.
That’s the picture that emerges from Clark Hoyt’s sensitive and sensible “Too Close to Home” article in the February 7 Sunday Times. Hoyt is now the paper’s Public Editor. It’s his responsibility to consider whether the country’s greatest newspaper has abided by journalistic standards. It’s not his responsibility to make editorial decisions, although it is a good bet that he has influence there as well, if only because editors know that someone is looking over their shoulders.
The article discusses the difficult issue of whether Ethan Bronner should remain the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief since his son who is an American collegian is now serving as a volunteer in the Israeli army. Even before this question arose, Hoyt received hundreds of complaints alleging that Bronner’s writing is slanted against Israel. There has also been a fusillade from the other side claiming pro-Israel or anti-Arab bias. The father/son situation has upped the volume. It is mildly comforting that our mild paranoia about the media and Israel is matched by the mild paranoia of Israel’s enemies.
Despite the highly unusual circumstance, the Times has decided to keep Bronner on the job because, as Hoyt writes, it did not want “to cave in to…relentlessly unfair criticism of the paper’s Middle East coverage by people who are hostile to objective reporting.” After acknowledging that “it doesn’t seem fair to hold a father accountable for the decision of his adult son,” Hoyt concludes that Bronner should be transferred elsewhere for “the duration of his son’s service in the I.D.F.”
In a sharp response posted on the Public Editor’s blog, Bill Keller, the Times’ executive editor, said nothing doing. “We will not be taking your advice to remove Ethan Bronner from the Jerusalem Bureau,” because to do so would be to “capitulate to the more savage partisans.” Keller then offers a handful of inapposite examples that amount to a fierce but ineffective defense of his decision. Hoyt is right. Appearances do matter, especially in journalism, and Bronner should be transferred. Whether he goes or stays, the newspaper’s Israel and Middle East coverage will continue to generate much comment and controversy.
What is stunning about the episode is how far the paper is now removed from the longstanding policy of not posting a Jewish reporter in Israel. That changed when Thomas Friedman came to Jerusalem from Beirut, a mixed blessing if there ever was one. Putting aside Friedman’s trademark egocentrism, as he acknowledged in “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” he liked the Arabs a great deal more than he liked the Israelis. There wasn’t an Israeli wart that he was aware of that could escape his reporting.
Bronner is far superior to Friedman. The Times’ Israel problem, however, transcends the situation of the Bronner family or whether its reporters in Jerusalem are Jewish. In a nutshell, the problem is too much attention, too much of which is devoted to trivia. This is a conscious decision, arising I believe from the large proportion of Times’ readers who are Jewish, as well as from the maintenance of an expensive bureau in Jerusalem. There is copy to be filed and this is a challenge when there are no big stories relating to warfare or Hezbollah and Hamas. In a sense, reporters feel obligated and may be instructed to ferret out tales of internal Israeli problems or minor conflicts of the kind that come with the territory called life. The result is that small-time stuff makes it big time into the newspaper.
This isn’t a new phenomenon and my concern is apparently not shared by many, as there are children of all ages – most of them adults – who lap up the coverage given to Israel and Jews. At its best, journalism is a two-edged sword. The caressing hand is sooner or later also the hand that bites. No other country on the face of the earth is subjected to the trivial pursuit that is regular fare in Israeli coverage and, for that matter, no other people on the face of the earth is reported on the way Jews are reported on. This isn’t a blessing.
Several weeks ago, David Brooks, the best of the Times Op Ed writers, was in Israel and filed a wonderful article about the country’s technological development and other indices of progress. He saw the larger picture. In a probably unintended way, his article serves as a rebuke to his employer. Nitpicking, he was suggesting, is not the same as journalism.
Unfortunately, the forces that dictate and shape what Timesmen file from Israel encourage nitpicking, so that readers generally do not know of the highways and parks unless they serve as instrumentalities to criticize Israel. Readers do not know about Israeli scientific achievements and technological developments or of the stunning improvement in the standard of living or of the remarkable accomplishment of integrating nearly a million Russians. The media wallow in trivia and negativism and that’s the story that people who do not know Israel first-hand get when they read their newspapers.
I believe that inadvertently the treatment that Israel gets serves as a disincentive to Palestinian and Arab self-examination and as a disincentive to utilize the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been available to improve the lot of Palestinians. Why take that road when the media wars are being won? Downtrodden Palestinians are highly functional to the Arab world.
Friday, February 12, 2010
How We Look at Arabs
We who have been forever scarred by the Holocaust and for whom Israel is both birthright and haven and, except for the Torah, our dearest possession, regard Arabs as Israel’s enemies and therefore also our enemies. This is not only a calculation of wars and rockets. There are attitudes that are embedded and elements of our emotional makeup. Unless we ignore history and are blind to today’s realities, our attitude toward Arabs has been cemented by decades of hostility, by acts of terrorism and by the notion of permanent warfare, with the destruction of Israel being the ultimate goal.
Under such circumstances, how can we avoid feelings of hatred? There is no obligation, ethical or other, to be kind to those who wish us harm. Turning the other cheek is not in our teachings. But, there is nothing to celebrate about this. Golda Meir’s lament continues to jolt: “When peace comes, we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.”
Within the attitudinal and experiential confinements imposed by Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Iran and much else in the Islamic world, is it possible to look at Arabs or Muslims not as an undifferentiated mass of tens or hundreds of millions who pray and plan daily for Israel’s harm and harm to Jews but as a people who like other people have bad and good elements, with the majority being silent and occupied primarily with such daily challenges as livelihood, family obligations and health concerns?
This question, which seems never to be asked, is not intended to suggest a shift away from Israel being hyper-careful about security. There is no practical way for security not to be at the top of the Israeli agenda and inevitably and unfortunately this results in hardships imposed on Arabs. As with other societies, what the majority may believe or want is subordinated to what those in power want and do. What ordinary Gazans may think figures not at all in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. What matters is the intent of armed groups, which is why Israel cannot make additional territorial concessions. The Gush Katif lesson remains an open wound.
There is hate emanating from the Arab and Islamic worlds. Must we reciprocate with our hatred? Whether or not justified, hatred is a dynamic force, quenching reason and being blind to reality as it feeds on itself. If we hate all Arabs, the prospect is that we will hate those Jews who disagree with our attitude toward Arabs.
My interest in this unexplored question was stoked by a New Yorker essay (January 18) called “Found in Translation.” Written by Claudia Roth Pierpont who is talented and exceedingly hostile to Israel, the article is ostensibly a review of recent Arabic literature. I hope that what she has written will be challenged.
For all of Pierpont’s hostility, the article provides cues to the normalcy of much of Arab life within Israel. We learn of Arabs who did not flee in 1948 and whose families have prospered, of Arabs voting in Israeli elections, of Arabs being treated in Israeli hospitals, of Arab students in Israeli universities. This pattern of normalcy is under the radar screen of journalists who constantly write negatively about Israel. Most of us have a sense of this normalcy when we are in Israel. We encounter Arabs in hotels and other work settings, on the street, and especially in Jerusalem’s wonderful parks. Admittedly, this does not amount to friendship associations, to social interactions that forge meaningful and ongoing ties. It is naïve and harmful to fall prey to the notion that persons of different ethnic backgrounds and commitments should somehow act as if they are buddy-buddy. It is sufficient and often a difficult enough goal that they live separately but with respect for those who are different.
Although there are zones of what may be called Israeli/Jewish-Arab interaction, as in the relationship with Egypt and Jordan which has resulted in tourism and some economic and diplomatic cooperation, it remains that even here there is scarcely a comfort level. In Egyptian textbooks, the message of hostility toward Israel and Jews remains. The cooperation that exists arises entirely from a mutuality of interests in that Israel, Egypt and Jordan - and to an extent other Arab states – have what to fear from Islamic extremism. Israel serves as a buffer for what passes as Arab moderation and the Arab countries with which Israel has diplomatic relations serve as a kind of buffer for the Jewish state. In short, there is a relationship of convenience.
Likely, self-interest is the optimum that can be achieved under contemporary circumstances. But this should not be discounted. There is insufficient appreciation of Israel’s diplomatic accomplishments, perhaps because much of it inevitably has been behind closed doors. There is also the problem that Israeli political life is beset by an excess of backbiting, so that even what should be applauded too often is subject to unfair criticism.
For all of the patches of normalcy or the zones of civility and cooperation, the dominant fact in the Middle East remains the fever of Islamic/Arab hostility and extremism. Until this fever subsides, which isn’t going to happen any time soon, Israel is compelled to act harshly toward Arabs and thereby to foster the attitude that in all our relationships there is justification for being hateful toward Arabs.
This is the reality, but it is a reality that we should not be happy about. The Midrash tells us that when the Egyptians were killed immediately after the Exodus, G-D rebuked the Jews for celebrating: “My creations are drowning in the sea and you are rejoicing.” Golda Meir’s formulation was as follows: “An Arab mother who loses a son in battle weeps as bitterly as any Israeli mother.”
Under such circumstances, how can we avoid feelings of hatred? There is no obligation, ethical or other, to be kind to those who wish us harm. Turning the other cheek is not in our teachings. But, there is nothing to celebrate about this. Golda Meir’s lament continues to jolt: “When peace comes, we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.”
Within the attitudinal and experiential confinements imposed by Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Iran and much else in the Islamic world, is it possible to look at Arabs or Muslims not as an undifferentiated mass of tens or hundreds of millions who pray and plan daily for Israel’s harm and harm to Jews but as a people who like other people have bad and good elements, with the majority being silent and occupied primarily with such daily challenges as livelihood, family obligations and health concerns?
This question, which seems never to be asked, is not intended to suggest a shift away from Israel being hyper-careful about security. There is no practical way for security not to be at the top of the Israeli agenda and inevitably and unfortunately this results in hardships imposed on Arabs. As with other societies, what the majority may believe or want is subordinated to what those in power want and do. What ordinary Gazans may think figures not at all in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. What matters is the intent of armed groups, which is why Israel cannot make additional territorial concessions. The Gush Katif lesson remains an open wound.
There is hate emanating from the Arab and Islamic worlds. Must we reciprocate with our hatred? Whether or not justified, hatred is a dynamic force, quenching reason and being blind to reality as it feeds on itself. If we hate all Arabs, the prospect is that we will hate those Jews who disagree with our attitude toward Arabs.
My interest in this unexplored question was stoked by a New Yorker essay (January 18) called “Found in Translation.” Written by Claudia Roth Pierpont who is talented and exceedingly hostile to Israel, the article is ostensibly a review of recent Arabic literature. I hope that what she has written will be challenged.
For all of Pierpont’s hostility, the article provides cues to the normalcy of much of Arab life within Israel. We learn of Arabs who did not flee in 1948 and whose families have prospered, of Arabs voting in Israeli elections, of Arabs being treated in Israeli hospitals, of Arab students in Israeli universities. This pattern of normalcy is under the radar screen of journalists who constantly write negatively about Israel. Most of us have a sense of this normalcy when we are in Israel. We encounter Arabs in hotels and other work settings, on the street, and especially in Jerusalem’s wonderful parks. Admittedly, this does not amount to friendship associations, to social interactions that forge meaningful and ongoing ties. It is naïve and harmful to fall prey to the notion that persons of different ethnic backgrounds and commitments should somehow act as if they are buddy-buddy. It is sufficient and often a difficult enough goal that they live separately but with respect for those who are different.
Although there are zones of what may be called Israeli/Jewish-Arab interaction, as in the relationship with Egypt and Jordan which has resulted in tourism and some economic and diplomatic cooperation, it remains that even here there is scarcely a comfort level. In Egyptian textbooks, the message of hostility toward Israel and Jews remains. The cooperation that exists arises entirely from a mutuality of interests in that Israel, Egypt and Jordan - and to an extent other Arab states – have what to fear from Islamic extremism. Israel serves as a buffer for what passes as Arab moderation and the Arab countries with which Israel has diplomatic relations serve as a kind of buffer for the Jewish state. In short, there is a relationship of convenience.
Likely, self-interest is the optimum that can be achieved under contemporary circumstances. But this should not be discounted. There is insufficient appreciation of Israel’s diplomatic accomplishments, perhaps because much of it inevitably has been behind closed doors. There is also the problem that Israeli political life is beset by an excess of backbiting, so that even what should be applauded too often is subject to unfair criticism.
For all of the patches of normalcy or the zones of civility and cooperation, the dominant fact in the Middle East remains the fever of Islamic/Arab hostility and extremism. Until this fever subsides, which isn’t going to happen any time soon, Israel is compelled to act harshly toward Arabs and thereby to foster the attitude that in all our relationships there is justification for being hateful toward Arabs.
This is the reality, but it is a reality that we should not be happy about. The Midrash tells us that when the Egyptians were killed immediately after the Exodus, G-D rebuked the Jews for celebrating: “My creations are drowning in the sea and you are rejoicing.” Golda Meir’s formulation was as follows: “An Arab mother who loses a son in battle weeps as bitterly as any Israeli mother.”
Thursday, February 04, 2010
The Strange Case of Stewart David Nozette
Americans who worry that the FBI and the rest of our multi-billion dollar per year intelligence apparatus is little improved since the failures that contributed to 9/11 and other security lapses point to the recent Fort Hood massacre and the near disaster on a Detroit-bound plane carrying a terrorist who was carrying explosives as evidence that their concerns are not far-fetched. We can perhaps breathe easier because the Feds have arrested Steward David Nozette on espionage charges. Let’s celebrate and pay no heed to the inconsequential circumstance that whatever spying Nozette is accused of was arranged entirely by the FBI.
This is a strange case that somehow involves Israel. The FBI decided, perhaps because Nozette is Jewish, that it would fabricate a scenario of potential spying for Israel, although there actually was no spying and Israel knew nothing about what was happening. Israel haters are singing their familiar tune, abetted by a Yossi Melman article in Haaretz that fails to meet the low standards of what nowadays often passes as journalism.
Nozette is not an attractive figure. A physicist with an MIT doctorate, he has worked for several governmental agencies and served openly as a consultant to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), as well as operating his own business. He pled guilty a year ago to fraud and tax evasion charges that had no link to Israel and he was set to serve a sentence of up to three years. He apparently told a colleague that he might flee to Israel and that information was passed on to the FBI which, in turn, decided on a sting operation, with an FBI officer posing as a Mossad agent. His espionage, such as it was, occurred this past September. According to the indictment, he “did knowingly and unlawfully attempt to communicate, deliver and transfer to a foreign government, to wit the Government of the State of Israel, and representatives, officers, and agents thereof, directly and indirectly, documents and information relating to the national defense of the United States, specifically, documents and information classified TOP SECRET/SCI and SECRET/SCI.”
This isn’t accurate because Nozette 1) had contact with an FBI agent and not with the Israeli government and 2) he, in fact, did not transmit any information or documents. At most, he intimated that he could transmit. This doesn’t make him a Boy Scout and he may have committed a serious crime, but not the one he is accused of. In moving to deny Nozette bail, the government claims that he “demonstrated his willingness to work for Israeli intelligence, as demonstrated by the following conversation.” Here is the conversation in its entirety. UCE refers to an undercover employee of the FBI. The text is in bold in the original, presumably to highlight the severity of Nozette’s espionage.
UCE: I’ll just say it real quick and then we’ll just move on. Quick, I wanna clarify something from the start. And I don’t say it very often, but umm, I work for Israeli Intelligence…
NOZETTE: Mm-hmm
ICE: Agency known here as Mossad.
NOZETTE: Mm-hmm
UCE: So from now on I’m not gonna say this. But if I say service…
Nozette: Mm-hmm
UCE: so you know what that, what it is. But I just want be sure, I’ll let it out so we don’t have any ambiguity later on. But
NOZETTE: Mm-hmm
UCE: How you doin’?
NOZETTE: Good. Happy to be of assistance.
This would be funny, if it wasn’t serious business or, perhaps, it is a crime to excessively say “Mm-hmm.” Prosecutors now claim that they have additional evidence found on Nozette’s computer, including a document titled “Proposed Operations for 2005-2006” that refers to the need to penetrate NASA, whatever that means. The Haaretz article which carries the provocative headline, “American Jew Indicted as Possible Spy for Israel in U.S.,” claims that after seizing Nozette’s computer, the FBI “found additional proof of his connection to Israel,” including several visits that he did not report, “letters he wrote to Israelis, reports he forwarded to IAI, a map of Israel, photos of assorted places in Israel, a Hebrew-language catalog of archeological artifacts and other items.”
None of this strikes me as criminal, yet Melman is being cited by those who constantly disparage Israel as proof that this is another Pollard case. One example is the blog INTELNEWS written by Ian Allen and Joseph Fitsanakis. One of their notable postings was “Is Israeli intelligence aiding Islamic groups?” They conclude their nasty posting on Nozette: “As the links between Steward David Nozette and the Israeli government become increasingly apparent, they help dispel the romantic belief – stubbornly maintained by some U.S. officials – that Israeli espionage operations on US soil are a thing of the past.”
There may be more to the Nozette case, but after reading the available documents I am doubtful. Maybe it is a crime for an American Jew to have links to Israel, but that, too, is highly questionable. The Nozette case begs for greater attention within our community. Perhaps our defense organizations and media will show some backbone, but that would require a significant transformation which does not seem to be in the offing. The prospect is for Israel to be falsely accused of a crime that apparently from A to Z was concocted by the FBI.
Unfortunately, there is much else in the FBI’s record that American Jews should be concerned about. Is it our obligation or fate to worship this false idol?
This is a strange case that somehow involves Israel. The FBI decided, perhaps because Nozette is Jewish, that it would fabricate a scenario of potential spying for Israel, although there actually was no spying and Israel knew nothing about what was happening. Israel haters are singing their familiar tune, abetted by a Yossi Melman article in Haaretz that fails to meet the low standards of what nowadays often passes as journalism.
Nozette is not an attractive figure. A physicist with an MIT doctorate, he has worked for several governmental agencies and served openly as a consultant to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), as well as operating his own business. He pled guilty a year ago to fraud and tax evasion charges that had no link to Israel and he was set to serve a sentence of up to three years. He apparently told a colleague that he might flee to Israel and that information was passed on to the FBI which, in turn, decided on a sting operation, with an FBI officer posing as a Mossad agent. His espionage, such as it was, occurred this past September. According to the indictment, he “did knowingly and unlawfully attempt to communicate, deliver and transfer to a foreign government, to wit the Government of the State of Israel, and representatives, officers, and agents thereof, directly and indirectly, documents and information relating to the national defense of the United States, specifically, documents and information classified TOP SECRET/SCI and SECRET/SCI.”
This isn’t accurate because Nozette 1) had contact with an FBI agent and not with the Israeli government and 2) he, in fact, did not transmit any information or documents. At most, he intimated that he could transmit. This doesn’t make him a Boy Scout and he may have committed a serious crime, but not the one he is accused of. In moving to deny Nozette bail, the government claims that he “demonstrated his willingness to work for Israeli intelligence, as demonstrated by the following conversation.” Here is the conversation in its entirety. UCE refers to an undercover employee of the FBI. The text is in bold in the original, presumably to highlight the severity of Nozette’s espionage.
UCE: I’ll just say it real quick and then we’ll just move on. Quick, I wanna clarify something from the start. And I don’t say it very often, but umm, I work for Israeli Intelligence…
NOZETTE: Mm-hmm
ICE: Agency known here as Mossad.
NOZETTE: Mm-hmm
UCE: So from now on I’m not gonna say this. But if I say service…
Nozette: Mm-hmm
UCE: so you know what that, what it is. But I just want be sure, I’ll let it out so we don’t have any ambiguity later on. But
NOZETTE: Mm-hmm
UCE: How you doin’?
NOZETTE: Good. Happy to be of assistance.
This would be funny, if it wasn’t serious business or, perhaps, it is a crime to excessively say “Mm-hmm.” Prosecutors now claim that they have additional evidence found on Nozette’s computer, including a document titled “Proposed Operations for 2005-2006” that refers to the need to penetrate NASA, whatever that means. The Haaretz article which carries the provocative headline, “American Jew Indicted as Possible Spy for Israel in U.S.,” claims that after seizing Nozette’s computer, the FBI “found additional proof of his connection to Israel,” including several visits that he did not report, “letters he wrote to Israelis, reports he forwarded to IAI, a map of Israel, photos of assorted places in Israel, a Hebrew-language catalog of archeological artifacts and other items.”
None of this strikes me as criminal, yet Melman is being cited by those who constantly disparage Israel as proof that this is another Pollard case. One example is the blog INTELNEWS written by Ian Allen and Joseph Fitsanakis. One of their notable postings was “Is Israeli intelligence aiding Islamic groups?” They conclude their nasty posting on Nozette: “As the links between Steward David Nozette and the Israeli government become increasingly apparent, they help dispel the romantic belief – stubbornly maintained by some U.S. officials – that Israeli espionage operations on US soil are a thing of the past.”
There may be more to the Nozette case, but after reading the available documents I am doubtful. Maybe it is a crime for an American Jew to have links to Israel, but that, too, is highly questionable. The Nozette case begs for greater attention within our community. Perhaps our defense organizations and media will show some backbone, but that would require a significant transformation which does not seem to be in the offing. The prospect is for Israel to be falsely accused of a crime that apparently from A to Z was concocted by the FBI.
Unfortunately, there is much else in the FBI’s record that American Jews should be concerned about. Is it our obligation or fate to worship this false idol?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)