April 17, 2011 The dueling deficit-cutting plans presented by congressional Republicans and President Obama both promise to restore the nation’s fiscal credibility. But if they fail to deliver, the result could be still higher deficits and the potential for another devastating economic crisis.
Even if the far-reaching and painful measures like those in the two proposals were adopted, economists say, more drastic action would be required in the years ahead to bring the deficit down to a sustainable level.
The GOP plan, drafted by Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, would reduce government red ink by $4.4 trillion over 10 years. It would cut federal spending by $5.8 trillion, but would offset that by $4.2 trillion in tax cuts. Ryan counts on the tax cuts to stimulate the economy and end up delivering substantially more tax revenues.
Obama would shrink deficits by $4 trillion over 12 years. He would make considerably smaller spending reductions, a total of $2 trillion, but would increase taxes by about $1 trillion, focusing on wealthy Americans. Since his definition of wealthy begins with families earning $250,000 a year, many working couples with hefty salaries but few if any tax shelters could feel the effects of his plan more sharply than the millionaires and billionaires he often talks about.
Obama’s savings rely in good part on future efforts by government regulators to hold down the costs of medical care — a major, but yet untested, element in the healthcare law that does not take full effect until 2014.
Both the Ryan-Republican plan and the one outlined by Obama in his speech last week are opening bids in what’s expected to be a drawn-out battle along partisan lines. But the two approaches agree on one thing: Over time, the nation’s mounting debt threatens the economic stability of the whole country, and the government — along with most voters — will almost certainly have to find ways to do more with less.
Aaron HowardJewish Harold Voice
Jewish community newspaper serving the Houston and Texas Gulf Coast area since 1908
A bill before the Israeli Knesset that would give full authority for conversions to the Chief Rabbinate is causing a huge controversy in Israel and in the United States.The Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee approved 5-4, on first reading to plenum on July 12, a bill that would give the Israeli Orthodox rabbinate a monopoly on conversions to Judaism. The bill must go before second and third readings before being brought to a vote in the Knesset and can be revised during the process.
Under current practice, Israel recognizes only conversions performed by Orthodox rabbis inside Israel. But, under the Law of Return, people converted by non-Orthodox rabbis outside the country are automatically eligible for Israeli citizenship like other Jews. The proposed legislation would give Israel’s chief rabbinate the legal power to decide whether any conversion outside Israel is legitimate.
The groups most likely to be affected would be about a half-million immigrants to Israel from the former Soviet Union and those who converted to Judaism abroad and could now be denied Israeli citizenship.
The bill, supported by various religious and right-wing parties, essentially would give the Israeli Orthodox rabbinate the power to decide who is Jewish and who is not. At the same time, it would delegitimize non-Orthodox rabbis outside Israel. Opponents of the bill say that passage of the bill would defeat efforts to promote a more flexible and Halakhic conversion process and would marginalize the non-Orthodox Jewish movements.
The bill has set off a storm in and outside Israel.
“I understand the concern of the Conservative and Reform movement,” said Rabbi Barry Gelman. “From the perspective of Israel, it is already a fact that the rabbinate controls conversions in Israel. They also have retroactively nullified conversions. They have already been notoriously well-known for deciding which conversions are good and which are not good – that is, not acceptable according to Halakha.
”Rabbi Gelman is senior rabbi of United Orthodox Synagogues and president of the International Rabbinic Fellowship, a worldwide organization of rabbis founded to promote Modern Orthodoxy and serious study of Torah and Halakha and to advocate policies and implement actions on behalf of World Jewry and humankind.
“The key here, which is why I’m not so concerned yet, is what this bill does is turn into law what, in fact, is already being done,” said Rabbi Gelman. “So, how much is really being lost in that part of the negotiations? That remains to be seen, which is why I’m not ready to stand squarely behind the bill.
“On the plus side, the bill would allow city rabbis in Israel to perform conversions without the need to work with the Chief Rabbinate’s rabbinical courts. That could help in two ways. One, which is significant, is it could help liberalize the conversion standards so that the close to half-million Russian immigrants who are of Jewish stock – if not Halakhicly Jewish – can convert. The new bill is taking an approach to conversion that would not necessarily require complete mitzvah observance.
“Second, the bill will generally offer a more realistic and, in many cases, a user-friendly process for everybody.
So, there is a lot of plus side.
“The American movements are looking at the bill from the American perspective. There are very few Reform or Conservative conversions done in Israel. This bill could be the answer to the problem that many people in Israel have been complaining about. But, because it may call into question some conversions done in Israel, it has caused an uproar.
”Because of the possible upsides to the legislation, Rabbi Gelman explained that he was not ready to condemn the bill. He was hopeful that Conservative and Reform movement leaders, who have arrived in Israel on Sunday to lobby the bill’s chief sponsor, Israeli Beiteinu MK David Rotem, will find a way to alter the language in a way that is more acceptable to American critics.
One important question raised by Religious Zionists: Does the Chief Rabbinate understand their responsibility toward making conversion a realistic possibility for these half-million Russian Jews?
And, a second question raised by the Conservative and Reform movements in the United States: Does this bill disenfranchise the majority of American Jews?Rabbi Gelman argues there are well-established Halakhic ways to make the conversion process doable for these Russian Jews.
“These are not necessarily methods we would use for individual converts,” he cautioned. “But because the issue of these Russian Jews and the future of their children as well as the future of the state is affected, the rabbinate should be exercising nationalist or Religious Zionist Halakhic thinking. They should realize their decision would affect the entire country.
“We have handed the keys to the kingdom to anti-Zionists.
“But, there are city rabbis who are Zionist. There are city rabbis who understand what needs to be done in regards to converting these Russian Jews. So, that’s why I think the bill has an upside for the state. I understand it has a downside for Reform and Conservative Jews.
”Danny Horwitz, rabbi of the Greenfield Chapel at Beth Yeshurun, has been a Conservative pulpit rabbi for 30 years. He views the conversion bill as a move fraught with political peril.
“Sometimes, power politics takes precedence over what’s best for the citizens – in this case, members of the Jewish people,” said Rabbi Horwitz. “The bill is designed to place total control over the definition of Jewish identity in the hands of the Chief Rabbinate, probably the most extreme ultra-Orthodox element in Israel with any power. Not only will this be a problem in terms of recognizing conversions, but in its current form, it could affect the status of people who want to make aliyah. The rabbinate has the desire to maintain control over conversions. But, they have also retroactively annulled conversions.
“The bill maintains a certain amount of power and employment within the ultra-Orthodox community. But, as we know, the current situation of the ultra-Orthodox community is not sustainable. A majority from the ultra-Orthodox community does not work. So, where does their money come from? It must come from the government. They currently have a certain amount of votes in the Knesset. But, I also foresee a situation in 10 to 20 years where you may reach a point where 50 percent of the people who are 18 years old won’t serve in the army.
”For Conservative and Reform Jews throughout the world, the bill makes no sense, argues Rabbi Horwitz.
“Given Israel’s need to deal with much more existential problems, it doesn’t make sense that Israel would create this kind of slap in the face to the communities of Jews who have stood behind Israel. That’s part of the reason why [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu came out on Sunday against the bill.
“However, I don’t take it for granted just because he came out against the bill that it may fail.
”Rabbi Horwitz also views the conversion bill as harmful to Modern Orthodox interests. “In general, modern Orthodox have allowed the status quo in Israel to continue,” he said. “They have hoped they would remain legitimized – that their conversions would remain legitimized by the Chief Rabbinate. Now, many of them are having their conversions rejected by the Israeli rabbinate. In my judgment, if they don’t stand up for the rights of those who are being undermined, they will also be squeezed out of the business of conversions.
”What should American Jews do? Rabbi Horwitz suggests that U.S. Jews must make a separation between those existential issues and the conversion bill.
“We have to stand with Israel,” he said. “But, we also have to be willing to say to Israel: This is not the kind of Israel we want to see. You can’t expect young American Jews to support a people whose thinking is the same ilk as the folks in Tehran. When you have women attacked for carrying a sefer Torah at the Western Wall, that’s not going to warm the hearts of American Jews. It’s not realistic for Israel to expect that every Jew will give them a pass for this behavior and allow Judaism to be defined by its most extreme elements.
“Ben-Gurion said in 1939, when the British created the White Paper: ‘We will fight the Nazis as if there was no White Paper and fight the White Paper as if there were no Nazis.’
“I think we ought to fight the enemies of Israel as if we didn’t have this internal problem in Israel. And, we ought to deal with the internal problem of freedom of religion in Israel as if she did not have external enemies.”
Joe O’Connor
National Post
Stephanie Butler had not seen Reggie Wilson in almost a decade and then there he was, standing beside her, at a grocery store in St. Petersburg, Fla.
Reggie was new in town, so Ms. Butler invited her old college pal over to watch what every other University of Alabama alumnus watches in early September: Alabama’s season-opening football game.
On game day, in addition to serving snacks, they chatted, like old college friends do, about old times, about life, and how hard it was for Stephanie and her husband, Kevin, to scratch out a living in an expensive big city like St. Petersburg — especially with two toddlers — and how much the Butlers missed Alabama and wanted to move back.
“So Reggie says,” says Ms. Butler, “ ‘Have you heard about those Jews who are paying other Jews to move to Alabama?’ ”
She had not heard. In fact, she had never really heard of Dothan, Ala., either, except to drive by it on her way to someplace else. Or considered what she and her Alabama-raised-non-Jewish husband would do if a Jewish congregation in a small Southern city in a state where they wanted to live offered them US$50,000 to move there.
“I couldn’t believe it,” Ms. Butler says. “So I called them up.”
Rob Goldsmith answered. He is the executive director of the Blumberg Family Jewish Community Services of Dothan, runs the Family Relocation Project and goes home each night to his wife, Lynne, the rabbi at Temple Emanu-El.
The synagogue has served Jews in Dothan and surrounding counties for more than 80 years. The Goldsmiths are relatively new to the place, and when they showed up three years ago the Temple looked like Heaven’s waiting room.
Almost 95% of the faces were elderly. The Sunday school had five students. A once robust congregation of 100 families had dwindled to 40 and was dying off fast.
“Dothan was just like so many small towns in the South that had thriving Jewish communities in the 1800s and the 1900s and have seen their Jewish populations wither,” Mr. Goldsmith says.
Larry Blumberg, a Dothan native who operates 67 hotels across the southeast, wanted to stop the bleeding and was willing to put up a million dollars to do so. His vision: convince 20 young families to move to the town of 60,000 in southeastern Alabama — the added incentive: $50,000 per family.
“It’s a pretty interesting idea,” says Dr. Stuart Rockoff, head of the history department at the Institute of Southern Jewish Life in Jackson, Miss. “Dothan is a pretty small community, and if they are even able to attract a handful of Jewish families it is going to have a transformative effect on the congregation.”
Jews have been shaping Southern life for almost 300 years. The first Jewish congregation was established in Savannah, Ga., in the 1730s, and up until 1820 Charleston, S.C., boasted the largest Jewish community in the United States.
The diaspora enjoyed freedom of religion in the United States, and blew all around the South, collecting in port cities and market towns — and smaller places like Dothan — where Jews were the merchants, wholesalers and retailers.
Anti-Semitism, while it existed, and always will, was the exception. The South, first with slavery and then with segregation, was a binary society. It was black and white. And Jews were white. They owned slaves, held elected office, joined the local chamber of commerce and fought for the Confederacy in the American Civil War. They were Southerners, through and through.
“It is remarkable how well the Jews were received,” Dr. Rockoff says. “There are examples in old newspapers celebrating the arrival of a town’s first Jewish merchant. It was a sign that your town had arrived, that it was on the move and doing well.”
By the mid-20th century Dothan’s main street was lined with marquees for Blumberg’s department store, Bauman’s, Greenburg’s, Kraselsky’s and more. The Jewish community was thriving, while also undergoing a tectonic shift where the sons and daughters of Dothan’s merchant class were leaving for college to become doctors and lawyers and bankers and never looking back.
In 1980, the Jewish population of Atlanta, Ga., was 20,000. Today it is closer to 120,000, thanks to the small town exodus that ultimately produced Larry Blumberg’s million-dollar solution for Dothan.
For Rob Goldsmith, selling the Butlers on Alabama life was a slam-dunk. Alabama was already sweet home in their eyes. But for other prospects interested in relocating the sales pitch is not always so easy. Indeed, the thought of moving to small-town Alabama three years ago wasn’t all that easy for the Goldsmiths to digest.
He is originally from Baltimore. His rabbi wife is from New England. The couple’s preconceived notion of the Deep South had a decidedly Northern influence, and was painted with images of Civil Rights marches, men in white hoods, shotgun shacks and burning crosses.
“That chip on our shoulder that we had in the northeast before we moved here, it just hasn’t proven out,” Mr. Goldsmith says, chuckling. “We have Starbucks. We have highways. People wear shoes. It is the new South, and the quality of life here has been great.”
And that old myth, about Southern hospitality, well, apparently it is not a myth. Lisa Greenman-Gonzalez, a Spanish teacher, and her husband, Dany, an El Salvadoran-born flight instructor, were greeted by 20 members of the Temple on the day they moved into their apartment in Eufaula, a town even smaller than Dothan 40 minutes from the synagogue.
“I didn’t know any of them,” Ms. Greenman-Gonzalez says. “Some of them stayed late helping us. Some even brought flowers.”
The family has two boys. A third child is due in December. Their move from Granite City, Ill., was not a matter of money, but a matter of faith. Lisa is Jewish. Dany is Catholic. They could not find a house of worship anywhere near their previous home that would accept them both.
“For us, the $50,000 — and we have only spent about half of what was offered — was only really a factor in terms of covering our moving costs,” Ms. Greenman-Gonzalez says. “We have received some funding to go towards my student loan and that helped, and it’s nice. But I really think we still would have come anyway.”
Dothan welcomed them with open arms, and helping hands. It is a welcome that occurs after a vetting process lasting several months. It involves filling out questionnaires, exchanging multiple phone calls and finally meeting Mr. Goldsmith, when he travels to an applicant’s home city for an intense three-night, two-day, get-to-know-each-other visit followed by a return engagement in Dothan.
The rabbi’s husband has met seven families so far: in Illinois, Massachusetts, Florida and North Carolina. Three have moved to Alabama. Three out of the other four are in the “pipeline,” waiting for a lurching U.S. economy to improve.
For the Butlers, there was no hesitation. Their family dog is named Bama. Alabama is where they wanted to be.
The place they could not really afford in St. Petersburg is a now a three-bedroom house with a big backyard in a quiet neighbourhood that costs US$750 a month to rent.
They are 20 minutes — at most — from everywhere in town, and less than two hours from some of the best beaches in Florida. Ms. Butler recently secured a teaching job at a nearby high school, while Mr. Butler has gone back to school to study finance while working full-time at one of Mr. Blumberg’s hotels, a job arranged through the congregation.
“It’s cheap, it’s quiet, it’s calm, and the people here are really nice,” Ms. Butler says.
It is the kind of place where a young couple can raise a few kids and grow old together, can put down roots and never leave.
Change has come to Dothan’s Jewish community. Heaven’s waiting room is looking more and more like romper room. Temple Emanu-El’s Sunday school will have 22 students in September, and Rob Goldsmith is always on the lookout for more.
“This place has been reinvigorated, and now, when you look around at the congregation, there are younger faces, younger families,” he says. “We’ve actually had quite a few contacts from Jewish families in Canada, especially when it gets cold.
“And we’d really like to keep hearing from them.”
National Post
joconnor@nationalpost.com
By Mitchell Bard
Support for Israel is not restricted to the Jewish community. Americans of all ages, races and religions sympathize with Israel. This support is also nonpartisan, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans consistently favoring Israel by large margins over the Arabs.
The best indication of Americans’ attitude toward Israel is found in the response to the most consistently asked question about the Middle East: “In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations?” The organization that has conducted the most surveys is Gallup. Support for Israel in Gallup Polls has remained consistently around the 50% mark since 1967. The most recent poll, reported by Gallup in February 2010, found that sympathy for Israel was 63% compared to 15% for the Palestinians. Israel’s popularity only exceeded this figure during the Gulf War. In recent years Gallup has noted that many Americans have moved from “no preference” into the pro-Israeli column.
Despite the violence of the preceding years, and a steady stream of negative media coverage, this exceeds the level of support (56%) Israel enjoyed after the 1967 war, when many people mistakenly believe that Israel was overwhelmingly popular. Israel reached the zenith of its popularity during the Gulf War. In January 1991, sympathy for Israel reached a record high of 64%. Meanwhile, support for the Arabs dropped to 8% and the margin was a record 56 points.
In 81 Gallup polls, going back to 1967, Israel has had the support of an average of 47% of the American people compared to 12% for the Arab states/Palestinians. The results are similar (47%-11%) when all 189 polls asking similar questions are included. Americans have slightly more sympathy for the Palestinians than for the Arab states, but the results of polls asking respondents to choose between Israel and the Palestinians have not differed significantly from the other surveys.
Overall, support for Israel has been on the upswing since 1967. In the 1970s, the average level of support for Israel was 42%, in the 1980s, it was 46%, and, in the 1990s, 50%, including the record highs during the Gulf War. Since 2000, support for Israel is averaging 51%.
Meanwhile, support for the Arabs/Palestinians has actually declined in the last two decades from an anemic average just below 15% in the 1980s to less than 15% since 2000. On average, Israel is favored by more than 3 to 1.
Gallup also takes regular polls on world affairs. Overall favorable ratings of Israel in February 2010 were 67%, ranking fifth behind Canada, Great Britain, Germany and Japan. By contrast, just 20% of Americans have a favorable opinion of thePalestinian Authority, while 70% have an unfavorable view. The PA is rated just above Afghanistan (18%), North Korea (14%) and Iran (10%) as the least popular countries. The same poll also found that 58% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Saudi Arabia.
Since 1998, roughly three-fourths of respondents have said the United States should take neither side in the conflict, but those who do pick a side overwhelmingly choose Israel (27% vs. 1% for the Palestinian’s side in 2001). More than three-fourths of Americans also believe Palestinian-Israeli peace is somewhat or very important to the United States.
Polls also indicate the public views Israel as a reliable U.S. ally, a feeling that grew stronger during the Gulf crisis. A January 1991 Harris Poll, for example, found that 86% of Americans consider Israel a “close ally” or “friendly.” This was the highest level ever recorded in a Harris Poll. The figure in 2006 was 75%. In an October 2009 ADL poll, the figure was 67%.
The Economist
October 29
Can a handful of peaceniks challenge the power of AIPAC?
POLITICAL lore in Washington has long ascribed mighty powers to the Jewish lobby—and especially to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In 2007 two academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, went so far as to write a book accusing “the lobby” of hijacking American foreign policy and luring America into the quagmire of Iraq to serve Israel’s interests. Henceforth, however, it will not be possible to write of a monolithic pro-Israel lobby in America. AIPAC now has a small but vocal competitor.
More than 1,500 people, mostly American Jews, but including both Israelis and a few Palestinians, showed up in Washington this week for the first annual conference of J Street, a one-year-old, self-describedly “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby, whose executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, says it is fighting for the “heart and soul” of the American Jewish community. Unlike AIPAC, J Street intends to push aggressively for a two-state solution based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
AIPAC has maintained a lofty public silence about this doveish upstart. But J Street’s first job has been to rebut a posse of detractors who question how “pro-Israel” it really is. Israel’s ambassador to the United States declined to attend. In print and in the blogosphere, in America and Israel, foes have excoriated J Street for having called for an immediate ceasefire during last year’s Gaza war, paying excessive heed to Richard Goldstone’s report accusing Israel of war crimes, making room at its conference for people who do not support the Zionist idea of a Jewish state, and other alleged heresies against the orthodox line of Israel’s traditional supporters in America.
If this flood of denigration was intended to drown J Street at birth, it seems to have failed. Israel’s Likud-led government may have stayed away from its conference, but its president, Shimon Peres, and Tzipi Livni, the leader of its opposition Kadima party, expressed their support. James Jones, America’s national security adviser, not only gave a speech but made a point of saying that the Obama administration would be represented at future meetings as well. Although some invitees pulled out, more than 40 members of Congress attended a gala dinner.
So J Street has planted a foot in the door. Yet it remains puny compared to AIPAC. The new organisation has an annual budget of around $3m and a handful of staff. AIPAC has an annual budget of around $60m, more than 275 employees, an endowment of over $130m and a new $80m headquarters building on Capitol Hill.
Beyond the disparity in resources, Mr Ben-Ami now faces the nightmarish job of retaining the loyalty of the doves who flocked to this week’s conference without alienating mainstream Jewish opinion in America. This requires some contortions. J Street criticises the “flawed” mandate Mr Goldstone received from the UN but says Israel should take the findings seriously. It favours imposing harsh new sanctions on Iran, but only if the Obama administration’s efforts to engage it fail. Mr Ben-Ami says American Jews take “very sophisticated and nuanced positions” on the Middle East. But many will continue to prefer AIPAC’s simpler view that the government of Israel is the best judge of where Israel’s interests lie.
Source: NY Times
Published: November 3, 2009
Across the country, voters chose new elected officials and cast ballots on referendum questions.
Governor
New Jersey
Winner:
Christopher J. Christie
Christie Unseats Corzine in New Jersey
A former United States attorney, Christopher J. Christie, became the first Republican to win statewide in 12 years, defeating the unpopular incumbent, Jon S. Corzine, by vowing to attack the state’s fiscal problems.
Governor
Virginia
Winner:
Robert F. McDonnell
In Virginia, McDonnell Ends Democrats’ Streak
Robert F. McDonnell, a Republican, won the governor’s race and became the first in his party to lead the state in eight years.
Mayor
New York City
Winner:
Michael R. Bloomberg
Mayor Prevails Over Thompson in a Close Battle
Michael R. Bloomberg defeated Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., but the margin was far thinner than anticipated.
23rd Congressional District
New York
Winner:
Bill Owens
Conservative Loses Closely Watched New York Race
A battle in an upstate district became one of the most closely watched in the nation, attracting some of the biggest forces in politics from both parties.
Mayor
Atlanta
Result:
Runoff Election
Atlanta’s Race for Mayor Heads to a Runoff
Mary Norwood, an Atlanta councilwoman, could become the city’s first white mayor in a generation, facing off against a black state senator, Kasim Reed, in a runoff next month.
Ballot Initiatives
Maine
Result:
Reject Gay Marriage
Expand Medical Marijuana
Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage Law, and Expand Medical Marijuana Law
The rejection of a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry amounts to a heartbreaking defeat for the gay rights movement. Voters also decided to allow state-regulated dispensaries to grow marijuana and sell it to patients.
Mayor
Houston
Result:
Runoff Election
Houston Mayor’s Race Going to Runoff
City controller Annise Parker and former city attorney Gene Locke are headed to a runoff to become mayor of America’s fourth-biggest city.
Mayor
Pittsburgh
Winner:
Luke Ravenstahl
Mayor Holds Onto Seat in Pittsburgh
After winning his first full term, Luke Ravenstahl faces some difficult financial problems for the city.
Mayor
Detroit
Winner:
Dave Bing
Dave Bing Wins Election to Full Term as Detroit Mayor
Dave Bing’s election may bring the long-awaited end to the fallout from a scandal that led to the departure of Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick and has sent Detroiters to the polls four times since February.
10th Congressional District
California
Winner:
John Garamendi
California’s Democrat Is Elected to Congress
Lt. Gov. John Garamendi of California easily won, outpolling a little-known Republican in a suburban and largely liberal district east of San Francisco.
Mayor
Boston
Winner:
Thomas M. Menino
Menino Coasts to Fifth Term as Boston Mayor
Mayor Thomas M. Menino easily won an unprecedented fifth term, relying on his popularity to neutralize charges that the city needed a change. Go to article »
Mayor
Miami
Winner:
Tomás Regalado
Tomás Regalado won after promising voters he would improve local services and rein in developers.
Mayor
Seattle
Winner:
Undetermined
Race for Seattle Mayor Is Too Close to Call
Early returns in the contest for mayor showed a tight race, and full returns were not expected until later in the week because the balloting was all by mail.
Ballot Initiative
Washington
Result:
Expand Domestic Partnerships
Early Vote Favors Domestic Partner Law
Early returns showed Washington State voters narrowly approving a ballot measure that would expand legal protections for domestic partners.
Source: Anti Defamation League
Atlanta, GA, October 20, 2009 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today said that despite the apology of two South Carolina Republican Party chairmen for characterizing Jews as penny-pinchers, “they need to do more to publicly disavow their words and to understand why their remarks were so insensitive.”
In an opinion piece published Oct. 18 by The Times and Democrat newspaper, Bamberg County GOP Chairman Edwin Merwin and Orangeburg County Chairman James Ulmer defended the fiscal policies of U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, by saying he was “like Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves.”
“Their apology is a first step, but it doesn’t go far enough,” said Bill Nigut, ADL Southeast Regional Director. “Stereotypes about Jews’ facility with money have survived through generations and have been inculcated into our culture. Mr. Merwin and Mr. Ulmer need to better understand the impact of their words, and how those words will resonate and reinforce anti-Semitism.”
ADL said it would gladly facilitate a dialogue between the two county chairmen and members of the South Carolina Jewish community.
“The seeming ease with which these Republican leaders invoked age-old stereotypes of the Jewish people makes it clear that they need to engage actively in meaningful conversation with the Jewish community to understand why their remarks were so insensitive,” Mr. Nigut said.
“The best outcome of this sad episode would be for Mr. Merwin and Mr. Ulmer to learn more about the root causes of anti-Semitism. They need to do more to publicly disavow their words and to understand why their remarks were so insensitive.”
“Preserving and Unifying the Ideals of the Russian Speaking Jewish Community”
Each culture, each community brings something unique to America. Often referred to as a melting pot many Americans confuse this with an abandonment of their historic communities. In fact, America is not so much a melting pot as it is a tapestry of unique cultures and people. In this way preserving the American way of life is about preserving individual cultures. In America we celebrate and are nourished by other communities, other cultures. In this way we are the standard-bearers of, and responsible for, keeping our culture alive. America is not a chorus that sings unison, it sings harmony. Therefore, preserving and unifying the ideals of the Russian speaking Jewish community with its varied history and culture is an American expectation, an American responsibility, that each culture is expected to shoulder.
The Challenges We Face
We are first and foremost Jews. In Russia geography, where we were from, did not matter. In coming to America we have lost sight of this one immutable fact – we are Jews, and we need to let the differences in geography not deplete us but enrich us and our communities. Because we are so diverse the challenges we face in trying to keep our community intact are difficult but not insurmountable. One of the greatest challenges we face is keeping our community together.
Why it is important to keep our “neighborhood” intact.
It is important to understand that while it is best if we have Russian-Jews living and working in close proximity to one another so there is a large Russian-Jewish presence this is not always possible. However, moving away from the community does not mean leaving the community.
Keeping Traditions Alive
Keeping our traditions alive will strengthen our heritage and strengthen the bonds between us. Traditions establish a support network for all Russian Jews now and into the future. When people move away and do not stay connected to their community they weaken those bonds and make it easier to lose them.
Keeping traditions alive means we must create an environment that is the type of environment we want to live, work and raise our children in. Issues such as schools (education) clean, safe streets, open green spaces (parks and fields), and zoning and development issues are all better addressed by an intact community with a unified voice.
Traditions however do something even more important, they strengthen the bonds between parent and child. By readily reinforcing a common culture we create an environment that we all understand and can function most effectively in.
Founder: Emanuel David
Program Director: David Mirand
