United States – Page 6

Troubles in leadership

A world leader decries investigations into his possible criminal corruption as an “attempted coup” based on “fabrications and a tainted and biased investigative process.”

No, not that world leader. This time it is Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime-minister-by-a-thread. Finally indicted on graft charges after months of anticipation, he became the first Israeli prime minister ever to face charges while in office. He insists the indictment will not impact his leadership, just as the country seems on an irreversible path to a third election in a year.

In a region with a scarcity of free and fair elections, Israel can’t seem to stop having them. From that perspective, things could be worse. Whether Netanyahu’s Likud party stands with him in his time of trouble remains to be seen. The possibility of his departure from the political scene, which he has dominated for nearly a generation, would provide the most significant shakeup of the field and possibly prevent a third inconclusive outcome.

On this side of the ocean, the U.S. House of Representatives continues investigating President Donald Trump. Few people, including Republicans, are making much of an effort to refute the basic facts. Evidence piles upon itself that the U.S. president indeed asked the president of Ukraine for a dirty political favour – a bribe – in exchange for military financial aid that had already been approved by the U.S. Congress. GOP responses to this evidence range from “So?” to the only slightly more nuanced argument that the president of the United States didn’t get what he wanted and the president of Ukraine did, so no harm done.

With Trump seemingly in thrall or somehow beholden to Vladimir Putin, and his party steadfast behind him, we are treated to the spectacle of a party that 60 years ago was trampling over individual liberties based on a largely false suspicion that “the Russians” were infiltrating the country’s government and threatening its entire way of life now responding to a disturbingly similar situation, this one far more provably real, with a shrug.

While Canada, thankfully, has no such level of political intrigue or corruption at the moment, a shocking diplomatic move last week has set the official voices of the Jewish community on edge.

The day before swearing in a new cabinet, the government of just-reelected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau opted to vote at the United Nations General Assembly to condemn all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, jumping on a dogpile led by North Korea, Egypt, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe, none of whom should be arbiters of justice or human rights. To be clear, the vote means almost nothing in practical terms. But symbolism does count. And the vote was a slap in the face by Canada to Israel and those in this country who recognize it as our closest ally in the region for historical, moral and pragmatic reasons.

Some speculate that the shift in tone reflects the new minority government currying favour with the New Democratic Party, which has included some notorious Israel-bashers. That is probably a less likely reason than the campaign by Trudeau to win Canada one of the rotating seats on the United Nations Security Council. Where former prime minister Stephen Harper’s refusal to “go along to get along” in the anti-Israel hatefest that occurs annually at the UN was seen as a key reason we lost out on a seat, Trudeau seems determined to hedge his bets.

A prestigious seat on the Security Council would presumably elevate Trudeau in the eyes of the world after he frittered away the “Canada is back” optimism of four years ago by failing to meet climate targets while bhangra dancing across the world stage.

Regardless of the motive, it is a reprehensible act that could have serious implications for the political orientation of Jewish Canadians in the next few years. Coming as it does while the ink is barely dry on the results of an election in which Liberals mostly made the right noises to Jewish and pro-Israel Canadians, it seems a particularly brutish little dagger to unsheathe now.

Trojan horse for Israel?

United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Monday that the United States does not view Israeli settlements in the West Bank as a violation of international law, reversing long-standing U.S. policy.

Most countries, and the United Nations General Assembly, hold that the settlements contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention, which declares that an occupying power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies.” There are counterarguments: Jewish residency in the area goes back thousands of years and, since Jordanian occupation of the area, which was superseded by Israeli occupation in 1967, was never internationally recognized, there was effectively no legal sovereign power and, as a result, the prohibition outlined by the Geneva Conventions is moot.

These are arcana for legal minds, but the more practical implications of the announcement demand the questions: Why? And why now?

The announcement came 48 hours before the deadline Benny Gantz was granted to form a government in Israel. Was this some last-ditch lifesaver thrown to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu by his friend Donald Trump? Trump seemed to throw Netanyahu more of an anvil than a buoy after Netanyahu’s poor showing in the most recent election, contending that the relationship was between two countries, not between two men. Typically, Trump’s concept of loyalty to ostensible allies is solid as the wind.

And what does the U.S. administration hope to gain from this? Is there some domestic political calculation at play? It may be an ideologically consistent position for Republicans to side with the Israeli right. But ideological consistency, or any consistency at all, is not a hallmark of the administration.

Some would say that there is an overemphasis on settlements as a component of the conflict, that there is a vast range of issues at the root of the continuing Israeli-Palestinian struggle and that settlements are among the most likely to be satisfactorily resolved through compromise. Other accelerants, like incitement in Palestinian society, are less easily dismantled or accommodated through trade-offs.

Whether we are vehemently opposed to settlements in the West Bank, whether we are passionately in favour of the right of Jewish people to live in that area, or whether we fall somewhere in between, realpolitik should convince us that settlements undermine attempts by the Israeli side to project a good-faith commitment to an eventual resolution of the conflict.

But, more to the immediate consequences, almost instantaneously after Pompeo’s comments, the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a branch of his own department, issued a new security alert for Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, warning of potential retaliation by Palestinians in response to Pompeo’s remarks: “U.S. citizens should carefully consider risks to their personal safety and security at sites and events that are potential targets” and “should avoid nonessential movements and events that attract attention.”

Violence should always be blamed on the perpetrator, and defences should not be made that seem to excuse it based on “provocations.” Nevertheless, the Secretary of State made a comment that led to an immediate warning from his own department that American and Israeli people and interests may be put at risk. And for what?

Is this a “gift” to Jewish and Zionist Americans? Sure, if we believe that it is beneficial to have the Diaspora pro-Israel movement associated with the extreme right in both countries, and that our long-standing commitment to peace and two states with contiguous defensible borders is a concept increasingly isolated to the left. Clearer heads would see it as a very divisive gift indeed, a Trojan horse more than a gift basket from Zabar’s.

For whatever else it may have been, Pompeo’s statement is, at root, the manifestation of something we have repeatedly warned against in the space: the politicization of the important bilateral relationship with Israel for short-term political reasons. That isn’t good for Israel in the long run.

Bahr’s many personas

Writer and comedian Iris Bahr performs at the Rothstein Theatre on Nov. 12 and 13, as part of the Chutzpah! Festival. (photo by Gail Hadini)

Award-winning writer, actor, director and producer Iris Bahr delves into serious issues using humour – and by being someone other than herself. She will bring some of her many characters to the Rothstein Theatre stage Nov. 12 and 13 as part of the Chutzpah! Festival.

Bahr hosts the weekly podcast X-RAE, as alter ego Rae Lynn Caspar White. In her one-woman show DAI (enough), she portrays 11 different characters in a Tel Aviv coffee shop. In her comedy series Svetlana, which ran for a couple of seasons, she starred as the Russian prostitute and political consultant. These are but a few examples of the personas she has created.

“I think I was about 6 years old,” Bahr told the Independent about when she did her first impression. “My family went on a trip to Italy and I began to imitate the tour guide, who kept going on and on in a heavy Italian accent about ‘marble from Carrera’ and so, for years after that, I would always be asked to ‘perform my Italian woman’ when my parents had company over.”

Using the example of the character of Rae Lynn, Bahr explained how an alter ego allows for a better conversation.

“I host my X-RAE podcast in character because I find it puts people at ease and they open up about topics they wouldn’t otherwise,” she said. “Rae Lynn flips from highbrow to lowbrow in a heartbeat and talks openly and outrageously about parenting, marriage and various R-rated topics. During my interview with Lawrence O’Donnell, for example, we veered from Marxism to Penn Gillette’s sex parties in a single breath.”

A magna cum laude graduate of Brown University, in Providence, R.I., Bahr studied neuropsychology, and has done brain research, as well as cancer research.

“I think I gravitated towards neuroscience because the inner workings of the brain fascinate me and I’m equal parts cerebral and highly emotional, and so that translates into all my work,” she explained. “I have a splintered identity, but not in a 50-50 kind of way – I actually feel 100% American and 100% Israeli at all times and that feeling of connection yet constant alienation lends itself to me inhabiting different characters and being able to truly commit to different viewpoints.”

Bahr was born and raised in the Bronx but moved to Israel as a teenager, staying there through military service; she still has family there. Her latest satire, The Olive Tree, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, recently had a soldout reading in New York and is set to open in spring of next year. DAI came to the stage in 2006 and audiences have included the United Nations, in 2007.

“I was invited to perform the show for over 100 ambassadors and delegates and the experience was unforgettable,” she said. “They were highly attentive and laughed at all the right moments, which I was not sure was going to happen. I felt like a diplomat for a day.”

Bahr said she wrote DAI “to communicate the intricacy and complexity of life in Israel, the inner conflicts prevalent in Israeli society, and how they are affected by living under constant threat of suicide bombings/sudden death, which, as any Israeli will tell you, instil not a feeling of helplessness but a vibrancy and love for life. On the flip side, is how that very fact is perceived by visiting outsiders and Palestinians affected by the conflict. The characters we meet in the café – from all walks of life, ideological spectrums and backgrounds – have no idea their lives will be ending abruptly [by a suicide bomber] and so their monologues range from outrageously humourous, vengeful, disillusioned and more.”

She first performed DAI at Baruch College in New York City, “as part of a festival sponsored by the Culture Project,” she said. “I had no idea it would get picked up immediately for a commercial run, and so that was a phenomenal development.

“A lot has changed since I first wrote DAI, in terms of how the conflict is manifesting itself on both sides, and yet the situation has sadly stayed the same. Thankfully, suicide bombings seem to be a thing of the past, but my dear childhood friend and father of four was stabbed to death only last year while out shopping, the Palestinian plight has not improved and the political climate is worse than ever. Nevertheless, the characters in DAI have sustained their relevancy; my German character talks about rising antisemitism in modern-day Germany, for example; my Israeli former military man talks of his son who doesn’t want to serve in the military; and the snooty ex-pat woman who lives in New York City, well, those types of women only seem to multiply by the minute.”

She stressed, “The play is not a polemic – it is a collection of social observations that speak from many different viewpoints. The piece aims to entertain, offer a visceral theatrical experience and, hopefully, also illuminate and enlighten. Thankfully, it has been warmly received amongst extremely ‘pro-Israel’ audiences and also ‘pro-Palestinian’-leaning crowds both in Europe and here in America. Of course, certain right-wingers think it’s too leftist and left-wingers think it’s too right, which is all I could really hope for as a piece about humanity.”

For tickets to see Bahr perform at Chutzpah!, and for more festival offerings, visit chutzpahfestival.com.

ניסויים מוצלחים באמצעות מזל”טים

נסיעה טובה: ניסויים מוצלחים להעברת משלוחים באמצעות מזל”טים בארה”ב וקנדה (Webagentur Meerbusch via Pixabay)

בחודשים האחרונים בוצעו ניסויים מוצלחים להעברת משלוחים באמצעות מזל”טים ברחבי ארצות הברית וקנדה. זאת על ידי גורמים מסחריים וממשלתיים שונים. הניסויים מתבצעים כחלק מפעילות להפוך בקרוב את השירות של השימוש במזל”טים למסחרי ורווחי. כפי שפירסמנו בעבר הרגולציה בקנדה לביצוע ניסוים באמצעות מזל”טים הרבה יותר קלה, מאשר זו שבארה”ב. זו הסיבה למשל שאמזון החליטה לבצע את הניסויים במזל”טים בצד הקנדי של הגבול, לא רחוק ממטה החברה שבעיר סיאטל שנמצאת בצד האמריקני.

בקנדה בוצע בתקופה האחרונה ניסוי מסחרי ראשון ומוצלח על ידי רשות הדואר הקנדית (קנדה פוסט), בשילוב רשת בתי המרקחת לונדון דראגס ויצרנית מקומית של רובוטים אינדרו רובוטריקס (ממחוז בריטיש קולומביה). אינדרו רובוטריקס משתפת כבר פעולה עם רשות החלל האמריקנית (נס”א), רשות החלל הקנדית ורשות התחבורה הקנדית. באמצעות מזל”ט קטן הועברו תרופות חיוניות מוונקובר איילנד לביתו של חולה בשגר באחד האייים הסמוכים – סולט ספרינג איילנד שבבריטיש קולומביה. כלי הטיס הבלתי מאוייש עבר את ששת הק”מ מעל הים באחת עשרה דקות בלבד. השותפים לפרוייקט מאמינים כי כאשר השימוש במזל”טים להעברת משלוחים יהפוך למסחרי, אחת הדרישות המיידיות מהשוק תהיה העברת תרופות וציוד רפואי חיוני, למקומות שנמצאים במרחק ממרכזי הערים.

ניסוי דומה בוצע בחודש לאחרונה בארה”ב על ידי הצבא האמריקני, בשיתוף פעולה עם המכון לטכנולוגיה של מדינת ניו ז’רזי. שני הגופים ביצעו שני ניסויים עם מזל”טים שטסו למרחק של עד קרוב לק”מ, מעל הים ליד ניו ז’רזי. כלי הטיס העבירו מנות חירום ומארזי מים לצבא האמריקני. זאת כדי לבדוק את האופציה של העברת אספקת חירום לאזורי לחימה בלתי נגישים, וכן לאזורי מוכי אסון בארה”ב.

מספר ניסויים נוספים בוצעו בארה”ב בתקופה האחרונה להטסת מזל”טים ללא ציוד בשלב זה. בקייפ רובטרס שבמדינת קליפורניה בוצעה טיסת ניסוי למשך כדקה של מטוס ללא טייס, הנחשב הגדול ביותר מסוגו כיום, בארה”ב ואולי אף בעולם כולו. משקל כלי הטייס נאמד בכחצי טון. הפרוייקט שייך לחברת הסטרט-אפ אלראוי אייר מסאן פרנסיסקו. החברה בודקת אפשרות להעביר מטענים כבדי משקל של למעלה ממאתיים ק”ג. אלראוי אייר נערכת לשתף פעולה עם חברות המישלוחים האמריקניות הגדולות בעולם: פדקס, די.אייץ’.אל ויו.פי.אס.

בניסוי בפורט וורט שבמדינת טקסס מזל”ט קטן עלה לאוויר למשך מספר דקות ונחת. פרוייקט זה של חברת בל הליקופטר טקסטרטון האמריקנית בשיתוף פעולה עם חברת המשלוחים הגדולה של יפאן – ימאטו.

ואילו אוניברסיטת פיירבנקס שבמדינת אלסקה בשיתוף פעולה עם חברת שירותי צינורות, ביצעו ניסוי ראשון באזור פוקס. הניסוי הכלל הטסת מזל”ט למרחק של למעלה משישה ק”מ. שני הגופים מעוניינים לאפשר לספק ציוד רפואי לאזור צינור הנפט טרנס אלסקה. ובמקביל לבצע מעקבים אווירים על מה שמתרחש באזור.

מזל”ט הוא כלי טיס בלתי מאויש שלא נושא עליו טייסים. הכוונה והבקרה על כלי הטיס נעשית על ידי הפעלה מרחוק. רוב המזל”טים מיועדים לשימושים צבאיים, אך יותר ויותר נעשה בהם שימוש גם ליישומים אזרחיים. כמו למשל: משטרה, אבטחה, בקרת תנועה, מחקר מדעי וצילום.

בשימושים הצבאיים מזל”טים משמשים לאיסוף מודיעין, יצירת הטעיה וכן לירות חימוש מדוייק במטרות קרקעיות. בין המדינות המחזיקות במזל”טים לתקיפות צבאיות: ארה”ב, ישראל, סין, הודו, מדינות אירופה וקנדה. האיראנים אגב הואשמו לאחרונה בכך שהם השתמשו במזל”טים להתקיף את מתקני הנפט של ערב הסעודית. המזל”טים הגיעו מאזור תימן והפציצו שני מתקני נפט סעודיים.

Trump betrays Kurds

U.S. President Donald Trump stunned and confounded even his closest allies in Congress and his military advisors when he announced Monday that he would withdraw American troops that were helping safeguard Kurds who have valiantly held off ISIS and battled the blood-soaked regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan is threatening an incursion into Kurdish-held Syrian territory and analysts say the offensive could include massacres of Kurds, a longtime enemy. The move is a brutal betrayal of the stateless Kurdish people who have been steadfast allies of the West against the worst forces in the world today. Trump’s irrational, inhuman act could lead to mass murder of the very people who are – or were – our greatest allies in that horrific battle. His motives are opaque and suspect. He appears to be doing the bidding of Turkey, Russia and Iran and, at the same time, emboldening ISIS. Trying to understand the inner workings of his mind, in this case, as in most, is probably fruitless.

Stateless people are endangered everywhere, nowhere more than in the contentious and violent region the Kurds are condemned to live. Jews understand the perils of statelessness in a dangerous world. That was one of the lessons of the 20th century. Another lesson was to depend on no one else for survival. Repeatedly, Israel has had to defend itself alone from existential threats. The Kurdish people are in a deeply precarious position now and, in an ideal world, alternative forces would come to their aid.

Meanwhile, for those supporters of Israel who insist that moving an embassy and having a Jewish daughter make Trump a reliable friend of Jews, let this be a lesson about the capriciousness of the man’s loyalty and humanity.

Still loyal if vote Democrat

The Aug. 29 Jerusalem Post had an article, “Pipko to Post: Jewish Democrats are walking away,” which argued that “The Democrats have changed and so should [Jewish] support for them.” It is part of an effort carried out by Republicans before every presidential election to make Israel a wedge issue, to convince Jews to switch to supporting Republicans.

Polls have found that most Israelis also believe that U.S. Jews should support President Donald Trump and other Republicans, largely because of what they perceive as their strong support for Israel. In his efforts to get U.S. Jews to change their political allegiance, Trump has stated about Jews that, “In my opinion, you vote for a Democrat, you’re being very disloyal to Jewish people, and you’re being very disloyal to Israel.”

Despite these opinions and statements, in the same Aug. 29 issue of the Post was the article “Trump vs. Gallup: Report shows Jews will vote Dem,” which indicated that a very strong majority of U.S. Jews (roughly 75%) are very likely to continue to vote for Democrats.

As an American who made aliyah about three years ago, after living in the United States for 82 years, I would like to discuss why U.S. Jews generally vote for Democrats and, in doing so, are, I believe, loyal to Jews, Israel and Jewish values.

A major reason is that Trump, along with virtually all U.S. Republican politicians, denies climate change, an existential threat to Israel, the United States and, indeed, the world. Trump and virtually all Republicans are doing everything possible to support the fossil fuel industry and weaken efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Research from Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School and other sources revealed more than 80 environmental rules and regulations on the way out under Trump.

Another important reason that most Jews vote for Democrats is that many of Trump’s policies are contrary to basic Jewish values of kindness, compassion and concern for the disadvantaged, the stranger and the poor. Rather than improving Obamacare, which provided health insurance to tens of millions of Americans, Trump supported legislation that would result in as many as 32 million Americans losing their health insurance and making others pay higher premiums.

Also, instead of rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure, rated a D+ by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Trump and Republican legislators pushed through a tax bill that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest Americans and highly profitable corporations. This will greatly increase the U.S. national debt, giving the Republicans an excuse to try to carry out their longtime desires to cut programs Americans depend on, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Most Jews also disagree with the views and policies of Trump and other Republicans on many issues, including immigration, civil rights, gun control, church-state separation, judicial appointments, diplomacy and the Iran nuclear agreement.

While a significant majority of Israelis approve of the United States getting out of the Iran nuclear deal, the results of that action remain to be seen. A strong majority of military, nuclear and strategic experts believe that the pact is the best approach to curbing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Among the negatives of Trump’s decision is that European and other nations have been alienated, America’s credibility in keeping agreements has been reduced and the potential for war and terrorism may have increased.

Then there is the issue of Trump’s character. As the New York Times’ conservative columnist Bret Stephens, a former chief editor of the Jerusalem Post, wrote in a recent article, Trump’s character involves “lying, narcissism, bullying, bigotry, crassness, name-calling, ignorance, paranoia, incompetence and pettiness.” Do we really want to honour such a person and make him a role model for our children and grandchildren?

Jews who vote Democrat generally support Israel, but they believe that, while it will be difficult to obtain, largely due to Palestinian positions and actions, Israel needs a resolution to its conflict with the Palestinians in order to avert continued and possibly increased violence, effectively respond to its economic, environmental and other domestic problems, and remain both a Jewish and a democratic state. They view Trump’s statements and actions with regard to Israel in terms of that belief.

American Jewish Democratic party supporters recognize that Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, his movement of the U.S. embassy there and his other supportive policies and actions with regard to Israel are good for Israel’s morale, but they do not believe it makes peace more likely or terrorism less likely.

Of course, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, always has been and always will be. But, almost all of the nations of the world will only acknowledge this if it is part of a comprehensive, sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump’s shift of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem has totally alienated the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, which now rejects a U.S. role in forging peace with Israel. Trump’s decision would have made sense as the capstone of a final peace agreement with the Palestinians, but its timing seems counterproductive, alienating many nations, adding impetus toward anti-Israel violence and reducing prospects for a negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The price that Israel will have to pay for Trump’s support should also be considered. Most analysts believe that it was pressure from Trump that convinced Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to cancel the visit by the two U.S. congresswomen, a decision that received widespread criticism, even from strong supporters of Israel, including AIPAC.

It is very significant that, of the 36 Jewish Congress members, 34 are Democrats.

Israel may also suffer significantly by Trump and other Republicans making Israel a wedge issue, harming the important bipartisan support of Israel, in efforts to convince Jews to vote Republican.

Another factor is the major increase in antisemitic acts since Trump became president, which many people believe is due to his failure to sufficiently condemn white nationalists and other bigots.

In light of all these considerations, I believe that U.S. Jews are correct in supporting Democratic politicians and, in doing so, are being loyal to Jews, Jewish values and Israel.

Richard H. Schwartz, PhD, is professor emeritus, College of Staten Island, president emeritus of Jewish Veg and president of Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians. He is the author of several books, including Judaism and Vegetarianism and Who Stole My Religion? Revitalizing Judaism and Applying Jewish Values to Help Heal Our Imperiled Planet, and more than 250 articles at jewishveg.org/schwartz. He was associate producer of the documentary A Sacred Duty: Applying Jewish Values to Help Heal the World. A version of this article was originally published in the Jerusalem Post.

Jewish women in West

When Jeanne Abrams told a friend she was planning to do her doctorate dissertation on an aspect of Colorado Jewish history, her friend replied, “What a wonderful idea! You’ll hardly have any work to do.” She proved wrong.

“While I was researching my dissertation and finishing up my PhD, I visited the Beck Archives of Rocky Mountain Jewish History at the University of Denver,” Abrams told the Independent. “The director, when she retired, asked me to interview for the job. The rest is history. As director of the Beck Archives, one of my tasks was to become an expert on Western American Jews, and that’s how the book came about,” she said, referring to Jewish Women Pioneering the Frontier Trail: A History in the American West (New York University Press, 2006).

“I’ve always had an interest in American Jewish women, and found there were some differences that I wanted to point out, and that Jewish women played a very important part in settling and developing Jewish communities in the American West,” she said.

Abrams herself was born to Holocaust survivor parents in Stockholm, Sweden. Sheltered there after the war by the Swedish Red Cross, her family moved to the United States when Abrams was less than a year old.

Through her research, she has learned that, in the United States, while Jewish men were very involved in city and organization building, it was often left to the women to develop religious continuity and community.

She said Jewish women “were in the forefront of founding synagogues, keeping Jewish tradition alive in the home, and they also branched out in many areas – particularly strong in philanthropy and charitable enterprises. At the same time, because of a combination of factors, including the more open environment in the West and that kind of spirit of adventure, Jewish women also really ventured into professions, into higher education.

“I think this environment in the West made this area of the country different for Jews in general. I certainly don’t want to suggest that there was no antisemitism in the West but … [Jews] were more prominently accepted into general society, so American Western Jews, men and women … were often leaders in both the general community and the Jewish community simultaneously.”

Throughout Denver’s history, there have been many endeavours that have involved people of different faiths. As an example, Abrams cited the Denver Charity Organization Society, which was organized in 1887 by a Jewish woman, a rabbi, a Catholic priest and a Protestant minister. The society evolved into what is now known as the United Way.

“Jewish women were also in the forefront of political life here in many ways, and I don’t think that most people realize that women voted in the West long before they did on the East Coast…. We’re coming up to the 100th anniversary of the amendment that allowed women to vote in the U.S.,” said Abrams. “In 1893, women were already voting in Denver. It was the largest city in the U.S. in which women could vote. I think people often think of women’s suffrage with the East Coast, New York, and minimize the amount of influence that early suffragettes had in California, here in Colorado, and in many other cities.”

In 1899, the National Jewish Hospital was founded as a place for people with tuberculosis. It drew patients and staff from all over the country, and was funded by people all over the country. According to Abrams, this was likely one of the first national Jewish organizations to hire a Jewish woman in the role of executive director, in 1911.

While Abrams’ research has primarily focused on Denver’s Jewish population, she also has come across parallels in Canada.

“We know Jews have a very long tradition of philanthropy and social justice. I found that across the border as well,” said Abrams. “But, in terms of the hospitals, when I studied them, I’d say, in Denver, the two Jewish sanatoriums actually had more interaction by women than I saw in Montreal.”

With her book, Abrams wanted to impart a sense of appreciation for women in the American West – of them having been leaders.

“They’ve often been overlooked, because historians tend to be very East Coast-centric,” she said. “I think that people generally seem to be surprised that there are Jews living out in the West. If they thought of anyone, they had the stereotype of cowboys living there.”

While more people associate Denver with the gold rush, Abrams noted that more people actually came to Colorado in search of health than wealth, specifically referring to the tuberculosis treatments available.

These days, Abrams has mainly been studying early American history. Her most recent book was, she said, “on America’s first three ladies. It’s called First Ladies of the Republic: Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, Dolley Madison and the Creation of an Iconic American Role. I’ve moved back and forth, but I’ve enjoyed the different topics I’ve covered.”

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

Intolerance is growing

A recent study indicates that Americans are increasingly tolerant of the idea that businesses should be able to refuse service to customers based on the customer’s identity.

Of those polled, 19% said that a business should be able to refuse to serve Jews, an increase from 12% the last time the question was asked five years earlier. Twenty-two percent believe that Muslims could be legally denied services, 24% said atheists should be able to be turned away and slightly fewer than one in three believe that gay, lesbian or transgender people could be denied service. Fifteen percent of respondents said that a business should have the right to refuse to serve African-Americans, an increase from 10% in 2014. Most notable is that these numbers have increased over the past five years. For example, the number of people who said gays or lesbians could be denied service almost doubled, to 30% from 16%. (The question did not include Muslims five years ago.)

The issue has come to a head on a couple of occasions, such as when bakeries have refused to provide cakes for same-sex weddings. But it is the increase in the feelings of exclusion that have grown over the past half-decade that indicate we are not in a period of unfettered progress in our acceptance of diversity.

Some economists would suggest that the market should decide the matter – a business that turns away customers may have more trouble surviving, or it may benefit from an increase in like-minded clients, but that is of concern only to its owner. Others would say, if a baker doesn’t want to bake your wedding cake because they are prejudiced against your sexual orientation, why on earth would you want to patronize them? Of course, the principle of equality goes beyond economics. Court decisions in Canada and the United States have indicated that the law will not tolerate the refusal of service to identifiable groups by a business or service that otherwise is available to the general public.

There are nuances to the discussion, though.

This year, the White Rock Pride Society claimed discrimination after the Star of the Sea Catholic church refused to rent a venue to the LGBTQ organization. Here is where things get a little more complicated. A Catholic individual – or a Muslim, or a Jew or anyone – operating a business aimed at the general public does not have the right to discriminate based on a customer’s identity. But a church – or a synagogue or a mosque – is not on par with a business that is open to the public. One has to wonder about the motivation of a gay organization approaching a Catholic church to rent space, which seems like a bit of a set-up for a discrimination complaint. But the larger issue here is that religious organizations should certainly have the right to determine who can use its facilities. Imagine, for example, an overtly antisemitic organization asking to rent space in a Jewish community centre. There is a substantial difference, of course, between one’s beliefs (being anti-Zionist or even antisemitic is a choice) as opposed to an immutable characteristic of one’s personality, such as sexual orientation.

The issue is at once simple and complex. Businesses are not individuals with human rights. They are entities created under laws and they must adhere to the laws and norms of the jurisdiction in which they operate. We might be thankful to know that, if a particular pizza maker or café owner holds antisemitic views, we can choose not to patronize them. This is an entirely different scenario than the flip side of that coin, in which a business refuses to serve Jews.

There has been a lot of commentary in recent years that the American president and others in high-profile positions have given permission to people to air their prejudices openly. A study like this is welcome because it puts quantifiable numbers to the perception of growing intolerance. This is a wake-up call to those who would ignore the warning signs of our current era of discontent. The evidence has arrived. Now, what are we going to do about it?

Naming inhumanity

Concentration camps are in the news this week. The term, which was first used in the context of Jews in the Holocaust, is being invoked by opponents of the U.S. government’s detention of migrants from Latin America. Appallingly, those detained include hundreds of children who have been separated from their parents. These current child detainees are among the at least few thousand children who have been separated from their families over the last two years.

The use of “concentration camps” and phrases like “Never again” has been criticized by some high-profile Jewish activists and others as diminishing the meaning and seriousness of the Holocaust. Some see the use of these terms as a cheapening of the Jewish experience or a form of Jew-baiting. In contrast, it is not heartening that Republicans who sanctimoniously condemn the use of these terms have a crass political motivation for defending the sanctity of Jewish historical memory.

There is no question that the words are used for their shock value. And, at a time when short attention spans intersect with what is genuinely a grotesque affront to humanity, there is little wrong with shocking a complacent population.

Reports from the facilities tell of sickening conditions.

A group of lawyers who toured one of the facilities and spent days interviewing child-inmates said that the most basic standards demanded under international law around the treatment of children in custody are being ignored. Children are not supposed to be held for longer than 72 hours, but many have been incarcerated for weeks. They are crammed into windowless warehouses, unwashed for days, in mucous-stained clothing, without the most rudimentary necessities like soap or toothbrushes, sleeping on cold concrete floors, suffering lice-infestations and untreated influenza outbreaks. Guards bring diaperless 2- and 3-year-old children to the facility and ask older children to care for the younger ones. Teenagers serve as unofficial guards in exchange for extra food. Parents are being held separately in unknown locations and some experts have said it is likely some families will never be reunited.

The situation for adults is not to be ignored either. At one facility, about 900 migrants are incarcerated at a facility intended for 125. Cells intended for 35 people are jammed with more than 150.

In an unfathomable breach of what public relations folks call “optics,” there are plans to accommodate the ever-growing number of child detainees by repurposing Fort Sill, Okla., a site where Japanese-Americans were interned during the Second World War.

To be charitable, the argument over language reflects a struggle to find words for what is happening. The situation for these children (and adults) is intolerable in any country, least of all, perhaps, in the land that once welcomed the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free.

Still, concerns over the desecration of the memory of the Holocaust are legitimate. We have witnessed too many instances where minor affronts are equated with Nazism and other massively inappropriate comparisons. But the Holocaust did not begin with crematoria. It began with dehumanization and othering and, as the will of the world to tolerate increasingly hostile acts against Jews was tested and found to be elastic, the perpetrators progressed into successive stages leading to genocide.

There is no way to predict the future and there is little point in making unnecessarily combustible assertions about impending genocide. But, when human beings are treated as they are in this circumstance and the trajectory is toward more of the same, people must militate against this inhumanity.

A consensus has developed among Holocaust educators and human rights activists that the term “Never again” does not apply solely to attempts to reprise anti-Jewish ideas and actions, but that the lesson of the Shoah is that we must be vigilant when any people are targeted.

It is unfortunate that the people who seem most inclined to use Holocaust-associated language in the context of current events are also people whose record on issues of concern to Jewish people are highly problematic, drawing reasonable suspicions to their motives. Terminology is important. But, the more we learn about what is happening to children and others in American detention facilities, the more hair-splitting over nomenclature seems to compound the inhumanity we are witnessing.

We are correct to be defensive about any perceived disrespect to the memory of the Holocaust and its victims. However, we might ask ourselves, when judging the appropriateness of such usage: If not now, when?

Israel honours Trump with a settlement

(photos by Kobi Gideon / IGPO via Ashernet)

photo - A special cabinet meeting was convened in the Golan Heights on June 16 to name a new settlement there in honour of U.S. President Donald Trump — A special cabinet meeting was convened in the Golan Heights on June 16 to name a new settlement there in honour of U.S. President Donald Trump.

A special cabinet meeting was convened in the Golan Heights on June 16 to name a new settlement there in honour of U.S. President Donald Trump. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, together with U.S. Ambassador David Friedman, attended the special meeting, unveiling a sign reading Ramat Trump (Trump Heights) in Hebrew and English. The decision to name the settlement after the U.S. president was as a sign of appreciation for the Trump administration’s support of Israel. While Ramat Trump does not presently exist, the planned location is next to an isolated outpost with no more than 10 residents. It appears on paper that the plan is to build some 110 new homes. The Golan Heights is of strategic importance to Israel – before 1967, when Syria had control of the area, the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), which is located below the heights, was constantly being fired upon from Syrian positions, making life unbearable for the residents of that part of the Galilee.