During his 36-year career in the Senate, the Indiana Republican had a reputation for getting both parties to work together

By RON KAMPEAS

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Richard Lugar was never considered to be one of Israel’s leading advocates on Capitol Hill.

The veteran Republican senator from Indiana, who suffered a primary defeat last week after 35 years in office, is famously his own man.

Lugar, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, consistently backed defense assistance for Israel and in the 1980s championed freedom for Soviet Jews. But he was also known for pushing a more active U.S. approach to brokering Middle East peace than that favored by much of the pro-Israel lobby, and he preferred to move ahead cautiously on Iran sanctions.

Yet pro-Israel groups ponied up when Lugar came calling as it became clear that a Tea Party candidate was threatening to unseat him, lending logistical and financial support.

Israel advocates and GOP insiders explained that Lugar represented a breed of lawmaker who pro-Israel groups see as valuable to their cause and disappearing: One who reaches across the aisle.

“Lugar wasn’t actively pro-Israel, but he wasn’t anti either,” said Mike Kraft, a staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 1970s and 1980s who now is a consultant on counterterrorism and writes for a number of pro-Israel Web sites and think tanks. “But generally losing a good, balanced, thoughtful guy on foreign policy is a real tragedy. It weakens the American political system.”

Lugar received $20,000 from NORPAC, a leading pro-Israel political action committee based in New Jersey — the most of any candidate this cycle.

“We sent extra money to Lugar because he called and asked,” said Ben Chouake, NORPAC’s president.

Chouake acknowledged that Lugar, 80, was “never the most” pro-Israel member of Congress, “but sometimes you have to back someone because of who a person is.” He was referring to the Indianan’s 36-year career in the Senate and his reputation for getting Democrats and Republicans to work together.

A pro-Israel political giver told JTA that Lugar also raised money from supporters of Israel at events in Indiana and New York City.

Ultimately it was for naught: Richard Mourdock, Indiana’s state treasurer, easily defeated Lugar in the May 8 GOP primary by a margin of 61 to 39 percent. Mourdock now faces Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., in the general election.

Mourdock campaigned on a platform that opposed compromise.

“I have a mind-set that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view,” he told the Fox News Channel.

Matthew Brooks, the Republican Jewish Coalition’s executive director, said that Lugar’s defeat had more to do with his particular vulnerabilities — he famously has not lived in his home state since the 1970s — than with any larger trend toward uncompromising partisanship in the party.

“No matter how long you’ve been in office, politics starts at home — and maybe it would be a good idea to have a home in the state,” Brooks said.

A pro-Israel donor said that his fellow givers were now focused on preserving the career of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who also is facing a Tea Party insurgent in next month’s primary.

While some Israel Republicans are rooting for the establishment GOP incumbents, it is not because their Tea Party opponents are hostile to Israel.

Indeed, the Tea Party wave of 2010 has turned out to be pronouncedly pro-Israel, with the exception of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who says he would end assistance to Israel as well as all foreign aid. Pro-Israel insiders single out Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a Tea Partier who ousted Robert Bennett, as a star of that class. Mourdock himself backed Israel Bonds as Indiana treasurer and has initiated outreach to the pro-Israel community.

The problem, the insiders say, is not one of enthusiasm for Israel but in how members of the party’s right wing have proposed changing the mechanisms for allocating foreign aid.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has always emphasized the importance of backing the entire foreign assistance package. The logic is multifold: Aid overall builds good will for the United States and its allies; the perception that aid to the developing world is inextricable from aid to Israel promotes good will for Israel in those countries; singling out Israel for assistance while neglecting other countries promotes unseemly stereotypes about Jewish influence; and cutting aid inevitably will likely lead to cuts in assistance for Israel, however much the current Congress supports the country.

“They want to cut everything but Israel, but in the end, if everything else is cut, assistance to Israel will have to be cut,” said the pro-Israel donor.

Marshall Breger, President Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the Jewish community, predicted that as Tea Party conservatives gain in strength, the pro-Israel community may have to work out a formula — first proposed in a 2010 interview with JTA by Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., now the majority leader — whereby Israel assistance is treated separately from foreign assistance.

“When the thinking is going to be, ‘do you want to make a special exception for Israel or do you want to drop foreign aid for Israel?’ AIPAC will likely say ‘special exception,’” said Breger, who is now a law professor at the Catholic University in Washington.

More intangibly — but equally as critical — is how polarization has corroded bipartisanship in Congress, said Jason Isaacson, the legislative director for the American Jewish Committee. Even with overwhelming support for Israel, the failure of the parties to forge compromises on foreign policy undercuts America’s international profile — and that’s not good for Israel, he said.

“Because of the commitment of a great many people over a long period of time, support for Israel is a deeply entrenched nonpartisan sentiment,” Isaacson said. “What I do see under stress is the ability of either Congress or the executive branch to work together to pursue a consensus foreign policy.”

A senior GOP congressional staffer who supported Lugar conceded that Mourdock, albeit within his limited public experience as a state treasurer, has been more unequivocal in his support for Israel than Lugar had been.

“The statements that Mourdock has made that are troubling are less on policy and more on bipartisanship and working across party lines,” said the staffer. “We haven’t demonized each other enough? That sort of ideology isn’t just a problem for centrists, it’s a problem for anybody who wants to get something done.”

Morris Amitay, a former AIPAC executive director who now heads Washington PAC, a pro-Israel political action committee, said the failure to compromise, which he blamed on both parties, was undermining the U.S. profile internationally.

“Sometimes I long for the days of the Cold War,” said Amitay, who first worked as a congressional staffer in 1969. “Now extremes at both ends have more influence than they should. We’ve got problems in Latin America, Africa, especially northern Africa, Russia won’t cooperate — and Congress can’t function.”

Majid Jamali Fashi, 24, was hanged early Tuesday morning, according to Iranian news reports. He was sentenced to death in August 2010 for the murder of Ali Mohammadi, a particle physics professor at Tehran University killed by a remote-controlled bomb in a January 2010 attack.

Mohammadi is one of four scientists that Iran has accused Israel and the United States of assassinating in the last two years.

Fashi was accused of traveling outside of Iran to receive special training by Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency.

In April, more than 15 Iranian and foreign nationals reportedly were arrested for carrying out alleged terrorist missions for Israel in Iran, according to IRNA, Iran’s official news agency. The group was accused of spying for Israel, the attempted assassination of an Iranian expert and sabotage.

Anxiety over anti-Semitism is only one toxic element of a broader and much more complex national crisis

By RUTH ELLEN GRUBER

BUDAPEST (JTA) — The debate over anti-Semitism in Hungary has sharpened since the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and anti-Roma (Gypsy) Jobbik movement entered Parliament two years ago as the country’s third largest party.

Seeking scapegoats and channeling paranoia at a time of severe economic, social and political woes, Jobbik’s lawmakers regularly — and loudly — spout xenophobic, anti-Roma, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Outbursts in Parliament, in local councils and in the media have demolished taboos and increasingly serve to legitimize hate speech in both private conversation and public discourse.

But for the Jewish community, anxiety over anti-Semitism is only one toxic element of a broader and much more complex national crisis that touches all parts of society two years after the 2010 elections swept the conservative Fidesz party to power.

“The danger is about Hungarian democracy, not about anti-Semitism,” Rabbi Istvan Darvas told JTA.

“Everybody feels the crisis,” said Mircea Cernov, CEO of Haver, a foundation that fights anti-Semitism and teaches schoolchildren about Judaism and the Jewish people. “The financial and economic challenges, unemployment and poverty, social, education and health system crisis, democratic system in turbulence — there is no difference between people influenced by all this.”

With a two-thirds majority in Parliament, Prime Minister Victor Orban and his government rewrote the constitution and pushed through controversial new laws that sharply polarized the country and also drew tough criticism from the European Union and other international bodies.

These included new legislation regulating the media, changing how judges are appointed and reducing the number of officially recognized religious bodies. Three Jewish streams have such recognition.

Other new laws cut social benefits, nationalized private pension funds and even outlawed homelessness.

The government said the new laws were needed to consolidate the legal and judicial system. But critics claimed they contributed to a “democracy deficit” and undermined democratic rights.

Jobbik and other extremists have capitalized on the economic uncertainty, and social and political polarization to push a virulently nationalist message that stigmatizes Jews, Roma, immigrants and other minority groups.

Fidesz is not formally allied with Jobbik and has condemned anti-Semitism.

But a defense of Hungarian national honor is one of Fidesz’s platforms. Many Hungarian Jews, who traditionally have gravitated toward leftist-liberal parties, are deeply troubled by appeals to nationalism, even by mainstream parties.

And there is a perception among Fidesz opponents that some of its members may be sympathetic to Jobbik’s more extreme stance. This month, for example, the Israeli ambassador to Hungary canceled an official visit to the town of Eger after an audio recording came to light in which a Fidesz town councilor slammed a prominent actor as a “filthy Jew” with leftist-liberal sympathies.

“Intolerance is growing, radical narratives and voices are powerful, and many people feel that the risk of a greater conflict is real,” said Cernov.

The country, he said, faces a “moral crisis” along with its other woes.

“There are no real credible voices and opinion-influencing figures,” he said. “No role models and no people who can set positive reference points. The lack of a minimum platform of common understanding among all democratic parties and civil groups is the real weakness of the Hungarian society.”

In a recent incident, addressing Parliament just before Passover, a Jobbik lawmaker went so far as to advance the blood libel — the accusation that Jews kill Christian children and use their blood for ritual purposes.

And in a February interview with the London Jewish Chronicle, Jobbik foreign affairs spokesman Marton Gyongyosi called Israel a “Nazi system based on racial hatred,” accused Jews of “colonizing” Hungary and stressed Jobbik’s support of Iran.

These developments have ratcheted up the anxiety level for Hungary’s 100,000 Jews, the largest Jewish community in central Europe.

“The gravity of the situation is unprecedented in the past two decades of Hungarian democracy,” Rabbi Shlomo Koves told the Associated Press. “Although the safety and well-being of Hungarian Jews in their daily life is not physically in danger — or no worse than in any other European country — anti-Semitic public speech has escalated to a point which cannot be ignored by a single decent person.”

Rabbi Andrew Baker, the representative on anti-Semitism to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said it is not simple to gauge the extent and impact of anti-Semitism in Hungary.

“There are real problems and a high degree of uncertainty,” he told JTA after a fact-finding mission to Hungary in April. But, he added, “It is not easy to separate the anxiety that Jews feel together with many other left-of-center Hungarians at current political developments and unease at what are more directly anti-Semitic rumblings.”

Members of the Jewish community said anti-Semitism was widely expressed verbally but there have been few episodes of physical violence.

“Many people are afraid,” said Andras Heisler, a former president of the Federation of Jewish Communities. “But in normal daily life there is not any danger.”

Indeed, unlike in many Western countries, little security is evident at most of Budapest’s 20 or so active synagogues, prayer houses and other Jewish sites.

And Jewish life is lived openly. Budapest may be one of the only capitals where a program linked to this year’s March of the Living was publicized on an advertisement that covered the entire side of a downtown building.

Still, a report released before Passover by the Anti-Defamation League added fuel to alarmist fires.

Based on a telephone survey in which callers asked 500 people in 10 countries four questions regarding anti-Semitic stereotypes, the ADL found that 63 percent of Hungarians held anti-Semitic attitudes.

The report grabbed headlines. But sociologist Andras Kovacs, Hungary’s foremost researcher on anti-Semitism, slammed the report for employing what he called a faulty methodology that favored responses from hard-core anti-Semites, giving a skewed result that fed alarmism.

According to his research, he said, the proportion of anti-Semites in Hungary is 20 to 25 percent.

Cernov called the ADL report “superficial” and “even irresponsible.”

It could, he said, have a negative impact on organizations like Haver that were trying to carry out serious social action and other educational work to combat prejudice and counter extremist trends.

Question One, a compelling documentary, explores a pitched battle in Maine over legalizing same-sex marriage — the same issue that Minnesotans will vote on in November

By MORDECAI SPECKTOR

On May 6, 2009, Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill making same-sex marriage legal in the state. However, opponents of the law petitioned to stop its implementation and forced a statewide referendum on the measure, which was dubbed “Question One.” Less than six months later, the opponents of same-sex marriage prevailed — by a vote of 300,848 to 267,828 — and the law was overturned.

The dramatic events in Maine, which pitted gays and lesbians and their supporters against the Catholic Church and evangelical Christians, are depicted in Question One, an entirely fascinating, 95-minute documentary that will have its first theatrical release May 14-19 at Theatres at Mall of America.

Joe Fox, director, writer and producer of Question One, talked to the AJW last week about the film, marriage equality and Minnesota’s upcoming vote on a ballot measure to chisel a definition of traditional marriage into the state constitution.

Fox, 51, is the gay son of an Orthodox rabbi and an accomplished journalist. His series for USA Today, “Voices of Peace,” which investigated the peace process in Northern Ireland, South Africa and Israel, was the paper’s submission for the Pulitzer Prize.

Previously, Fox and James Nubile, the associate director, editor and producer of Question One, made the documentary Passing Poston, about a Japanese internment camp during World War II. That film aired on PBS affiliates across the United States.

Question One achieves its substantial intellectual and emotional impact by covering the Maine vote on rescinding the same-sex marriage law from the vantage of both camps. The filmmakers embedded with both the No on One group campaigning to retain the 2009 Maine marriage equality law, and the Yes on One faction — also called Stand for Marriage Maine — which argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to the “teaching of homosexuality” to elementary school children.

The documentary covers a Yes on One rally that featured Pastor Chris Clark, of East Clairemont Southern Baptist Church, San Diego, Calif. He declares that gays are not the enemy; rather: “Our enemy is the devil.”

The Christian religious folk ostensibly have nothing against gays; but they declare that their side is in a struggle with Lucifer himself — or that sanctioning same-sex marriage will lead to our society becoming like “Sodom and Gomorrah.” Can the director of the documentary sort that out?

“I can’t sort it out,” Fox replies. “Let’s go over those statements: We’re not against gay people, but it’s from the devil. I mean, what are you talking about here? If you’re equating a group of people with the devil, that’s demonizing the other group of people. It’s a nonsensical statement, as far as I’m concerned.”

The Yes on One group also frames homosexuality as a personal decision, as opposed to something innate in an individual’s makeup.

Linda Seavy, one of the Yes on One campaign activists profiled in the film, has a lesbian niece, and says that she hopes that her niece changes her “decision” to be a lesbian.

“That’s always the argument you hear: a lifestyle choice,” Fox says, regarding the mentality of the Yes on One backers.

Asked about his personal history, his coming out as a gay man from an Orthodox community, Fox explains, “When I came out I was long past being Orthodox. That ship had set sail. However, it was very difficult for me, when I did come out, to find a place for myself as a Jew anywhere.”

Regarding the role of Jews in the 2009 Maine ballot contest, Fox remarks, “There aren’t that many Jews in Maine.” He says that most of the Jews live in Portland and Bangor.

“There definitely were Jewish clergy that were involved in the overall religious coalition for marriage equality,” he recalls, and draws a comparison to Minnesota, where synagogues and Jewish organizations overwhelmingly are supporting the effort to defeat the marriage amendment on the November ballot.

Fox did not recall the presence of any Orthodox Jews or rabbis among the Yes on One campaigners, who are shown praying for victory in Question One, often in the name of Jesus. He thinks there must be a few Orthodox shuls in Maine. “There had to be at least one… or Chabad is out there,” he comments.

As for the Yes on One coalition, Fox says, “The religious forces that really banded together to fight [same-sex marriage] were the Catholic Church — that was through the archbishop — and the evangelical [Christian] community, through Pastor Bob Emrich, who was the co-leader of the Yes on One campaign. It was really an unlikely alliance that came together between the Church and the evangelical community, because usually they don’t get on too well.”

One of the intriguing figures in the documentary is Marc Mutty, director of public affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. Mutty took a leave of absence from his position to serve as co-chair of the Yes on One campaign. In Question One, he continually kvetches about the demands of the campaign.

In response to my question about a scene where Mutty, exasperated by his leadership role, lets loose with some choice expletives, Fox comments that the “situation overwhelmed him.” Mutty, according to the director, was “depleted, on the verge of having a nervous breakdown.”

Among Mutty’s problems was dealing with Frank Schubert, who directed the successful Prop 8 campaign to make same-sex marriage illegal in California, and also similar campaigns in other states, including Maine. Schubert, who worked for Sacramento-based Schubert Flint Public Affairs, directed the Maine effort to overturn the marriage equality law; he appears in Question One footage shot on the day of the vote, taking credit for the successful Yes on One campaign. In the run-up to the vote, Mutty and other organizers voice their displeasure about Schubert’s tactics.

And now, according to Fox (and press reports), Schubert, who is no longer with the Schubert Flint firm, is directing the campaign to pass the Minnesota ballot measure, a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

It should be mentioned that Question One also presents compelling characters campaigning to maintain same-sex marriage under Maine law. Sarah Dowling, who lives with her partner, Linda Wolfe, and her darling daughter, Maya, in Freeport, comments on her desire to make her relationship legal. Dowling, who is shown canvassing door to door to defeat Question 1, is one of the very appealing human faces in the marriage equality movement.

Also, Darlene Huntress, the grassroots director of the No on One campaign, is seen throwing herself into the work; heartbroken and in tears when the election results go the other way; and with her partner, Melissa, whom she joins in Salem, Ore., following the campaign.

A promotional themeline for Question One states: “The battle for same-sex marriage has just begun.”

Fox, who came up with that line, says, “I think that the battle is far from over. It remains, culturally and societally, one of the major battles of our time. In a way it really hasn’t begun, quite in earnest yet.”

He mentions that five states, including Minnesota, will have same-sex referenda in the fall. And he adds, “There are court cases [challenging same-sex marriage bans] that are winding their way up to the Supreme Court.”

In short, there is no timelier documentary film for Minnesotans than Question One.

***

Question One will be shown 7 p.m. May 14-19 at Theatres at Mall of America. Joe Fox will be present at all screenings and tickets are $10; visit: www.twincitiesfilmfest.org.

Jewish Community Action (JCA) will hold a screening of Question One 7 p.m. Thursday, May 17. A reception with filmmaker Joe Fox will begin at 5:30 p.m.

Fox will also join JCA for a post-film discussion. He will discuss how his background of being gay and Jewish helped to shape the making of the film.

The screening is a fundraiser with a suggested minimum donation of $18. Preregistration is required; call Carin or Laura at 651-632-2184 or visit: givemn.razoo.com/story/Question1jca.

For information about the film, visit: www.q1-thefilm.com.

(American Jewish World, 5.11.12)

St. Louis Park native Peter Himmelman has been booked for a May 24 return engagement at Minneapolis’ premier jazz club

By MORDECAI SPECKTOR

Peter Himmelman has made his home in southern California for many years, but his hometown gigs, an annual affair for many years, are eagerly anticipated. The St. Louis Park native played his first date at the Dakota Jazz Club last August; and the renowned Minneapolis jazz joint will welcome him back on May 24.

The popular singer-songwriter spoke with the AJW last week about his Dakota gig, a new record ready for release and his Big Muse songwriting workshops for business people.

Himmelman’s 2011 show at the Dakota had the feeling of a Bar Mitzva reception, with a big crowd comprised of many friends and relatives. “There’s a nervous aspect to that,” Himmelman allows, but adds, regarding the intimate music room: “I loved the place, absolutely loved it… It works really well for my style.”

He’s still working on the lineup for his May 24 show. Jeff Victor, his longtime musical collaborator, will play keyboards. The rhythm section is to be determined.

Himmelman’s next LP will hit the record bins this summer. The album will be “under a band moniker, the band’s name is Minnesota.” The follow-up to The Mystery and the Hum was recorded in Minneapolis, with the help of producer David Hollander. As I wrote last year, the sessions included Victor on Hammond organ; Noah Levy, drums; Jim Anton, bass; Jake Hanson, of the band Halloween, Alaska, on guitar; and Kristin Mooney and Claire Holley on vocals.

The music from the new album — which Himmelman will not be showcasing at the Dakota this month — is “really different for me,” he says. “Not radically different, but it’s in its own little place.”

No band has taken the name “Minnesota” prior to this?

“Not that we’re aware of,” he responds. “We did a little search. If you hear the record, it kind of makes sense.”

And, as mentioned in the last edition of the Jewish World, Himmelman also is writing songs with Dan Bern, another Midwestern Jew transplanted to L.A. He says that he usually doesn’t write with a partner; but they are “checking out” the process of writing some songs for kids. It’s been a productive collaboration.

Himmelman explains that they divide up the work, one person takes the verse, while the other works on the chorus — “kind of like Lennon and McCartney.” When they come back together with their song pieces, Himmelman finds that the “two parts fit pretty well.”

And the multifaceted composer and musician — who still does his weekly Furious World webcasts — also is leading workshops at universities and workplaces. The creativity seminars are under the brand Big Muse, with the themeline: “Using songwriting to deliver powerful innovation skills, leadership training, and team building.”

He has presented the Big Muse seminars, which include a songwriting exercise, at UCLA and a number of larger companies.

“It’s really powerful stuff,” Himmelman says of the workshops that encourage right-brain engagement, tapping innate creativity to spur innovative thinking. “I just did a thing last week for the American Society of Trainers and Developers (ASTD), who are people in this exact field.”

The Big Muse approach is an outgrowth of Himmelman’s years of stage experience, putting on shows that involve a great deal of extemporaneous interaction with the audience. “Ultimately, the metaphor is using the narrow structure of songwriting,” an “ephemeral” activity that marries left-brain and right-brain capacities, to help people access creative thinking, improve their problem-solving ability and generally become more innovative in their academic or business environment.

“The seminars are really emotional, they’re really funny,” he comments.

Himmelman mentions a Big Muse seminar he conducted “at an actuarial firm out East — which is the last place you’d ever think that they would need this.” However, he found that the employees “draw conclusions about human interactions from data,” so there is a creative and “very human component” in the work.

When asked how the right brain (creativity) and the left brain (categorization and analysis) can be better harmonized, Himmelman recommends a “brilliant” book, My Stroke of Insight, by Dr. Jill Bolte, a brain scientist who suffered a stroke and chronicled her experiences.

Taylor eventually recovered her speech and other abilities impaired by the stroke; but “she never lost sight of the unbelievable nature of this right brain.”

Himmelman also has read studies about “infants and toddlers who are completely in their right-brain universe, and as they get into grade school there’s a precipitous drop [in creative thinking], and as they get into adolescence it goes way down.” By middle age, only about five percent of the population is “comfortable with their right brain nature,” he says.

So, the Big Muse seminar is Himmelman’s attempt to reopen the pathways to spontaneous, creative activity.

It’s a living, making something from the “fruits of imagination.” And he says it’s also what the journalist on the other end of the phone line knows about: telling a story, communicating in an interview, etc. And he notes that the mundane details of music performance and journalism also involve left-brain activities: “If you wouldn’t call me on time, nothing would function. It’s really the marriage of the two [brain hemispheres],” he says. “It’s not trying to isolate one or the other.”

“There are a number of exercises that I have,” Himmelman explains about his Big Muse seminars, which have been taking place over recent months. “The central exercise is that everyone walks out of there having written a finished song.” The emphasis is on lyrics, he adds.

Himmelman has scored music for TV shows (Judging Amy, Bones, Men in Trees), recorded albums for both adults and children, and performed in concert around the country. Big Muse represents a natural progression from these varied creative pursuits.

“The idea of selling music now has almost come to an end,” comments the 51-year-old musician, who has been playing in bands since he was a teenager.

In the changed landscape of the music business — where music is either outright pirated or downloaded from iTunes and other online venues — the question arises, “How do you make a go of it?”

Himmelman says the tenor of his conversations with other musicians, about the state of the music biz, “ranges from hysteria to melancholy to nostalgia.”

It’s probably best just to forget your troubles and dance.

In other news from sunny California, the Himmelmans are proud to announce that their son, Isaac, will give a commencement speech at the University of Massachusetts Amherst graduation ceremony this month.

“He’s the commencement speaker, along with Ted Koppel; he’s the student commencement speaker,” Himmelman says.

Any final words on the May 24 show at the Dakota?

“Just come down, it’ll be a really good time,” Himmelman suggests. “The shows are always very fun, uplifting. You will not be depressed when you leave; you will be happier than when you came in. And I will be, too.”

***

Peter Himmelman performs 7 p.m. Thursday, May 24 at the Dakota Jazz Club, 1010 Nicollet Ave., downtown Minneapolis. Special guest Dan Israel will open the show. For tickets, go to: dakotacooks.com or call the box office at 612-332-1010.

(American Jewish World, 5.11.12)

What We Talk About When We Talk About Anne Frank, by Nathan Englander, Knopf, 224 pages, $24.95.

Reviewed by NEAL GENDLER

Nathan Englander continues to go from strength to strength, packing new proof of his distinctive talent into this slender package of eight short stories.

Englander burst to stardom in 1999, with a short-story collection, For the Relief of Unbearable Urges. The title story, about an Orthodox man who seeks rabbinical approval to go to a prostitute because his wife denies him sex, has an ending worthy of O. Henry, famed since the first decade of the last century for witty short stories with a twist at the end.

The stories in What We Talk About When We Talk About Anne Frank are equally unusual and sprinkled with humor, irony, absurdity and surprises. Englander, who was raised Orthodox and became secular while living in Jerusalem, either sees people, life and the world rather differently than do the rest of us, or he sees more deeply — often darkly — and finds unusual ways of communicating his vision.

Seven of these stories are very Jewish, but Englander-ishly offbeat. The title piece features a pot-smoking frum (devout) couple (how else to cope with 10 daughters in tight Israeli quarters?) visiting the wife’s now-secular best friend from their years in a girls’ yeshiva. The couples discuss where to hide and who might hide them from a Shoah-like persecution.

The secular husband describes the religious pair as going from Orthodox to ultra-Orthodox, which he says “sounds like a repackaged detergent — Orthodox Ultra, now with more deep-healing power.”

Another story, “Camp Sundown,” has youngsters on one side of a lake and an elderhostel of kvetching geriatrics on the other. Eight of the oldsters are convinced that a man who comes to play bridge is a former concentration-camp guard. The harried director, Josh, observes that “every summer, the old people grow smaller as the children grow big.” He “has decided that there is only so much height in the world, and the inches must change hands.”

Long and engrossing, “Sister Hills” tells of an Israeli woman living primitively on a Samaria hilltop who becomes widowed by the 1973 war. The infant daughter of her only neighbor, on the other hilltop, falls deathly ill. The mother believes she’s to blame because of some sin and, following a superstition, sells the girl to the widow, who renames her.

Bits of Israeli history, Israeli stubbornness and Jewish argumentation combine with compassion for the widow, and for the mother and child who become victims of the widow’s logic.

In another tale, a group of boys learns self-defense moves from a Russian immigrant but still must turn to a reluctant young man who’s the “biggest Jew in town” and “the toughest Jew we knew” to defend them against an anti-Semitic bully.

These are no conventional stories, and some have unconventional structures, requiring a page or two to catch on. One is a personal and family history told in numbered paragraphs. A story about a once-famous writer emphasizes his present irrelevance by identifying him only as “Author,” without an article. For example, “The woman is talking to Author.” In some stories, it’s occasionally difficult to discern who’s talking or acting; Englander might help his readers by showing a bit more concern about antecedents.

Although one needn’t be Jewish to enjoy Englander’s stories, most have rhythms or references almost implicitly understood by Jews. A smattering of Hebrew words — most of them familiar — happily lack the interrupting distraction of translation.

Englander’s stories contain many questions of identity — individual identity, family identity, group identity and Jewish identity, including Jewish observance or lack of it.

Are these stories Englander’s way of dealing with his own identity problems, or just one fairly well-adjusted, even brilliant, writer’s thoughts about life? Either way, we can applaud his rare combination of observation, imagination and skill.

***

Neal Gendler is a Minneapolis writer and editor.

(American Jewish World, 5.11.12)

This week’s editorial deals with recent event in Europe — a subject that’s usually not as touchy, in terms of vituperative feedback from readers, as, say, Israel. The big news this week was about the victory of French Socialist Party presidential candidate François Hollande, who edged out Nicholas Sarkozy — and ended a 17-year reign by French conservatives.

However, the more ominous election results were in Greece, where Golden Dawn entered the Hellenic Parliament for the first time, with seven percent of the vote (in the last general election they gained a fifth of one percent of the vote). This far-right faction is referred to as “ultra-nationalist” in some press accounts; but with their stylized swastika logo and outstretched arm salutes, Golden Dawn is clearly a neo-Nazi group.

The mainstream Greek parties, New Democracy and PASOK, the Socialists, which both backed the agreement to refinance the nation’s sovereign debt, failed to gain a majority of seats in the parliament. Along with Golden Dawn, a party called Syriza, a coalition of the radical left, made significant electoral gains. This all renders the Greek political situation more unstable — on top of the ongoing economic crisis, which includes a looming debt default later this summer.

Golden Dawn’s anti-immigrant agenda apparently struck a chord with a significant minority of Greek voters. The online version of the Mail, the London newspaper, reported that the party’s leader, Nikolaos Mihaloliakos, when asked what Golden Dawn’s first action in parliament would be, responded: “All the illegal immigration out! Out of my country, out of my home!”

Asked how that would be accomplished, he angrily said, “Use your imagination.”

There was another interesting detail in the Mail story: at a press conference after the elections, Golden Dawn members “order assembled journalists to stand to attention.”

No word as to whether they also were required to give a Nazi salute.

Of course, Greek Jews are quite concerned about the election results, which boosted the fortunes of the xenophobic party. Haaretz reported that David Saltiel, president of Greece’s Central Board of Jewish Communities, issued a “careful statement” after the elections, saying that “the Jewish community is examining the situation.”

Haaretz reported: “Speaking from Salonika in a telephone conversation, Saltiel added that he was surprised by the number of votes Golden Dawn received. ‘In the last national elections, they didn’t pass the threshold level [of three percent], but in this election, voters banded together in protest against the country’s two large parties, and that helped the small parties.’”

“Some 750,000 voters in Greece cast ballots for a party that expressly articulates neo-Nazi sentiments, and which publicly sings Nazi songs and openly bandies about Nazi symbols,” Haaretz reported.

The Greek election results bring to mind the warning issued last year by Hannah Rosenthal, the U.S. Department of State’s special envoy to combat and monitor anti-Semitism. Rep. Keith Ellison brought Rosenthal to the Sabes JCC for a community forum, “Confronting Anti-Semitism and Religious Intolerance,” which also featured Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and imam and executive director of the All Dulles Area Muslim (ADAM) Society (5-27-11 AJW).

At a briefing for communal leaders, which I attended, Rosenthal said that there is “almost a tsunami of ultra-nationalism in Europe,” which targets the Roma (Gypsies) and immigrants.

The State Department envoy noted that the rhetoric of these surging right-wing parties mimics that of the Jew haters of old, with its avowal “to protect our country’s purity.” She also mentioned the phenomenon of Holocaust revisionism and “glorification,” notably, parades with Waffen SS veterans in the Baltic states. Rosenthal called the upsurge in this kind of behavior “very troublesome.”

In the 20th century, Europe descended into barbarity. Demagogues in Germany turned their nation’s defeat in World War I and subsequent humiliation into a program of anti-Semitic scapegoating. The Nazi regime set the continent aflame, and 6 million Jews, and millions of others, were murdered in the years of carnage.

Europeans have never been very good with the “Other,” the religious and ethnic minorities in their midst. The ascent of Golden Dawn is a worrying symptom of Europe’s turn to simplistic and dangerous solutions. The situation in Greece, and in other European countries with fascist tendencies in the ascendancy, should be carefully watched.

— Mordecai Specktor / editor@ajwnews.com

(American Jewish World, 5.11.12)

Jewish Family Service of St. Paul’s Senior Advocacy Services offers a variety of resources and support to older adults, their caregivers and all members of the family

By ERIN ELLIOTT BRYAN / Community News Editor

If you live out of state and your aging parents require additional services, where do you turn? If there is dissension among family members about healthcare roles and responsibilities, who can you talk to?

Jewish Family Service of St. Paul’s Senior Advocacy Services is a program that helps older adults and their families make the important decisions that accompany the aging process. A dedicated team of nurses, social workers and mental health professionals — some of whom are bilingual — are available to consult with families and provide ongoing care management.

“Because families used to live closer together, there wasn’t as much need for this type of services as there is now,” said social worker Chris Rosenthal, the director of senior services for JFS. “And for adult children who live right here by their parents, they’re often overwhelmed, too. They may be taking care of their own kids, their parents have needs, the system seems very confusing and complex. That’s where we can help.”

JFS’ Senior Advocacy Services provides assistance in two different ways. Both are available on a sliding fee scale, though no one will be turned away for inability to pay.

The first is a one-time family consultation with JFS professionals that assesses an older adult’s situation and determines the best options for care. Clients receive written copies of the staff’s recommendations and follow-up phone calls.

“Sometimes all people need is a chance to sit down and talk through a situation, get the information they need, get the resources they need, and they can take all that information and go with it,” Rosenthal said.

For those who need more than a one-time consultation, families can receive ongoing care management services in which JFS staff works with a client for as long as the need is present. Staff will provide a comprehensive in-home assessment of the older adult to determine their needs — including physical, social and psychological — and develop a plan of care with the client, family members and healthcare providers.

“There’s certain things in our lives that we have to do that are so routine: we have to eat, we have to take care of ourselves, we have to bathe. But whatever the problems are, whether they are psychological or physical, we need support,” said registered nurse Esther Winthrop, a JFS care manager. “Sometimes it’s either the client you support or it’s the caregiver that you support… and to tell you the truth, I’m not even sure who needs it more.”

JFS care managers, like Winthrop, also communicate with out-of-town family members and serve as an advocate for the client no matter where they are receiving care — at home, in a hospital or transitional care unit, or at a long-term care facility.

“Especially for people that don’t have anybody, that don’t have a daughter or a son, then they need somebody,” Winthrop said.

JFS staff work hard to help clients and their families understand what is happening and how to navigate the complicated healthcare system, including providing information about Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug coverage, among other things.

“It’s difficult for people to understand and to pull all that information together,” Rosenthal said. “That’s our role, too, to translate what’s being said and what that means, what that looks like for people.”

And, in addition to healthcare services, JFS can help families locate other appropriate resources — from finding someone to take over the client’s finances to making arrangements to move to assisted living. For example, JFS can refer a family to Gentle Transitions, an Edina-based company that specializes in senior move management. Their move managers coordinate the daunting task of packing and moving a household.

Additionally, JFS’ Senior Advocacy Services can help to identify issues that may be impeding an important decision or alleviate tensions among family members.

“Sometimes it’s just getting people to sit down and talk,” Rosenthal said. “And we can be objective where sometimes family members can’t. Because it’s hard when it’s your own family.”

JFS has been serving the St. Paul community for 100 years and has always provided these types of services — its Senior Advocacy Services program is now more formalized and comprehensive. Fees are affordable and help to offset the costs associated with providing the services.

“Certainly the expertise has always been there,” Rosenthal said.

“We do a knowledgeable, caring, thorough job,” added Winthrop.

***

For information about Jewish Family Service of St. Paul’s Senior Advocacy Services, call 651-698-0767 or visit: www.jfssp.org.

(American Jewish World, 5.11.12)

More than 35 photographs representing the theme of ‘community’ were displayed at the Yom Ha’atzmaut event on April 29

By ERIN ELLIOTT BRYAN / Community News Editor

To conclude the first year of the Jewish Lens program, a community-wide curriculum that encourages participants to connect with their Judaism through photography, six organizations from Minneapolis and St. Paul — Bet Shalom Congregation, Beth Jacob Congregation, the Amos and Celia Heilicher Minneapolis Jewish Day School, St. Paul JCC, Mount Zion Temple and the Talmud Torah of St. Paul — had samples of their work displayed at the Yom Ha’atzmaut event on April 29 in the auditorium at the Sabes JCC.

According to the exhibit program, the Jewish Lens invites participants to focus on their individual communities by taking photographs of their families, neighborhoods and synagogues. The participants then create captions for their work that pair images with traditional Jewish texts and personal commentaries.

Each organization submitted up to seven images and a design team chose the final group of 35 to 37 images to be exhibited. All of the photographs depicted the overall theme of “community,” but they were displayed according to the categories of kehila (community), mishpacha (family), spirit and tradition. Photographers ranged in age from sixth grade to adult.

Hugh Kirsch is the director of EDGE (Enrichment, Development and Growth for Educators), a program of the Minneapolis Jewish Federation. He also directs the Jewish Lens curriculum, a program funded by a grant from the New York-based Covenant Foundation, which is based on the work of photographer Zion Ozeri (11-11-11 AJW).

Kirsch said the curriculum teaches participants how to look at a photograph critically, allowing them to take their own photographs with a critical eye.

“In my opinion, that allows you to match that text or that Jewish value with that photograph and make a very powerful statement,” Kirsch said.

The full exhibit will be displayed at the St. Paul JCC and then brought back to the Sabes JCC in June. Other organizations are planning their own exhibits to highlight the work of their participants.

“My favorite part, from an intellectual point of view, was this ability to combine the artistic world that is a person’s inner vision, which is so personal, with text and values that have been around for a couple of thousand of years,” Kirsch said. “That’s pretty amazing to me.”

***

For information about the curriculum, visit: www.jewishlens.org. For information on the local program, contact Kirsch at 952-417-2327 or: hkirsch@mplsfed.org, or visit: www.edgemn.org.

(American Jewish World, 5.11.12)