March 16, 2006
Not Our Movie
Contrary to Rob Eshman's analysis, protests against "Paradise Now" did not increase the film's potential audience ("Not Our Movie," March 10). It already commanded attention because of its Golden Globe Award and Oscar nomination and because it was made by a Palestinian (actually an Israeli Arab who lives in Europe) and had a riveting subject: Palestinian suicide bombers.
But Eshman should not be excusing -- let alone praising -- the film. The film is intentionally dishonest. It whitewashes suicide terrorism, portraying it as a normal response to frustration, political conflict or even, as filmmaker Abu Assad told a University of Judaism audience, to delays at a checkpoint. That's not normal. It's pathological.
Furthermore, the film ignores the cultural sickness that creates suicide bombers: the Palestinian Authority's relentless indoctrination and incitement to hate and violence, the jihadist clerics promoting genocide, the glorification of shaheeds in schools and the media.
In addition, it is absurd to claim, as Eshman did, that the film did not show Israeli victims only because it was made from a Palestinian perspective.
The suicide missions are not about despondent young men driven to suicide, although this is exactly what Assad wants audiences to think. They are about committing mass murder.
Dead and dismembered Jews, including children, are the suicide bombers' prize trophies, the reason they are adulated. The more Jews maimed, the better.
Finally, the film relentlessly and falsely blamed Israel for the Palestinians' self-destructive choices. Just as Leni Riefenstahl made an effective film about Nazism, so Abu Assad has made one about Palestinian terrorism. Both are rank propaganda and hide monstrous facts.
Protests of "Paradise Now" were not just in order: It would have been the height of irresponsibility not to raise a cry of outrage.
While I always appreciate the clarity, independence and appropriateness of your editorials, I have to say that the ["Not Our Movie"] editorial was really special. It reminded me -- particularly in these times when the pursuit of truth seems so undervalued -- of what is best about being Jewish.
Whether laughing or crying, Jews survive and thrive in democratic societies, not by pandering to their own weaknesses and insecurities, but by a zealous faith in truth. Your lucid explication of the Palestinian movie moved me the way that only the best journalism can.
Michael B. Lehrer
Thanks Rob Eshman for your perceptive and brave defense of a controversial film that carries the same message as "Munich." We, as Jews, must try to see our enemies not just as monsters who commit inhuman acts with the intent to destroy us, but as human beings driven by circumstances and infected by unscrupulous religious and political leaders to do their dirty work, often left with conflicting feelings and doubts about the meaning of their own actions.
Since we must share our world with them, we must keep searching for a way to reach them, to communicate with them, or we will never get beyond the horrendous deadlock in which we are stuck. Film is an effective tool to achieve this.
Jill Stewart ("A Definite Maybe," March 10) scolds Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for opposing Proposition 227, the initiative that dismantled bilingual education in California. But Villaraigosa was right. Contrary to Stewart's claim, English-language reading and writing skills have not improved dramatically among Latino children since Proposition 227 passed.
A recent and widely publicized report from the American Institutes for Research and West Ed found that dismantling bilingual education did not result in any improvement in the English language of minority children in California.
Less widely known is the scientific research. Scientific studies consistently show that children in bilingual programs typically score higher on tests of English than do children in all-English immersion programs. In fact, three major reviews coming to this conclusion were published last year in professional, scientific journals.
Klinghoffer vs. Berenbaum
David Klinghoffer is not fooling anyone in his response to Michael Berenbaum's letter (Letters, March 3) requesting he withdraw his op-ed piece defending convicted felon Jack Abramoff. Yes, Klinghoffer's op-ed piece did include a plea for sympathy for Abramoff, but the real subtext of the article was a not-so-subtle argument that Abramoff's sins are understandable, explainable and excusable.
Erin Aubry Kaplan
On Feb. 10, we were proud to be members of Temple Emanuel ("A.M.E., Rhythm and Jews," Feb. 24). Approximately 700 people filled the congregation with an energy we had not previously experienced at a synagogue service.
This is the beginning of a journey that is generating much enthusiasm in both congregations, a journey toward becoming neighbors in a very divided city. It is unfortunate that the perceived faux pas described by Erin Aubry Kaplan clouded her experience of the evening.
If we are to tell each other our stories through music or words, we will stumble at times. As we get to know each other as individuals instead of congregations, we hope those awkward moments, experienced when we first reach out to each other, will evolve into bonds of friendship as we work to make our city a better place. We are proud to be participants in that journey.
Diane Vanette and Janet Noah
Get a Life
I read the article, "Get a Life, George," (March 10) with great interest. However, I was -- both as a Jew and "Seinfeld" fan -- appalled to find George Costanza being compared to the notorious Jew-haterHaman.
Rabbi Daniel Korobkin writes the following: "This annoyed Haman to no end (I think his last name was Costanza)." Hence, the Costanzas, who are never portrayed as anti-Semitic, are compared to one of the most notorious Jew-haters of that time and in general.
This is especially gruesome, since both Costanza [men] are played by Jewish actors: Jason Alexander (né Greenspan) and Jerry Stiller (Ben Stiller's father). Should they be hung like Haman? Should their names be cursed with a chorus of groggers, clanging pots, cap guns and sirens like Haman's name every time it is mentioned? I hope not.
Furthermore, the Costanzas, who never hurt anyone physically, Jewish or not, are compared with a historical figure who planned a pogrom that would have all Jews of Persia murdered. A family that couldn't harm a fly, not to speak of humans, is compared to a descendent and heir of Amalek, about whom the Torah says the following: "Remember what Amalek did to you as you were leaving Egypt. He happened upon you, and struck the weakest people trailing behind, when you were exhausted. And he did not fear God" (Deut. 25:17-18).
Is this really as bad as the quote by George: "Yes! Yes! Everybody has to like me. I must be liked!"
Korobkin writes: "Because of Haman's obsession with image, he decided that ... he had to wipe out the entire Jewish people." Where does George Costanza fit in here?
In conclusion, it can be said that Korobkin might be very well versed in Tanakh and Talmud but not in "Seinfeld." Comparing harmless characters of this TV show to one of the worst Jew haters and pogrom planners is nothing short of historical relativism.
We are obliged to drink so much on Purim that we can't differentiate between "Haman is bad" and "Mordechai is good." However, no matter how much I'll drink, I think I'll be able to differentiate George Costanza (may he live to 120) from Haman (may his name be cursed).
Rob Eshman's review of "Paradise Now" adds credibility to the movie's critics ("Not Our Movie," March 10). By admonishing one of the would-be bombers that his act would "destroy us" (Palestinian recognition) is precisely the point. We should not be bothered about innocent civilians about to be murdered; our only concern is to have the world believe in our cause.
Contrary to the two anti-heros' impoverished circumstances, many of the bombers have been identified as middle class (at least by Palestinian standards), so their intended murderous act is not out of economic desperation but cold blooded and motivated by a warped ideology.
"The film and its director were warmly received at a sold-out audience of nearly 500 at the University of Judaism [UJ]" (Where in the World Is 'Paradise'?" March 3).
I was at the screening at the UJ for "Paradise Now." The moderator was insensitive to some of his audience for the reason that some of the audience have family in Israel who are members of the Israel Defense Forces and citizens of Israel.
This moderator, who contributes to your paper, opened with the greeting, "Did you enjoy the movie?" What's to enjoy? Watching murderers being groomed and selected from poor people and being brainwashed?
I think the audience was mostly left wing. I didn't stay for the panel, as we had to leave, but the director of the movie and the movie should not be glorified, because it sends a message of "murderers who are really human beings" -- a contradiction in terms.
Whatever the cinematic skill of the film, it should not have been shown in that venue. I wrote the UJ and many of the rabbis and teachers there, and I am writing you -- there were objections to the screening.
Your March 10 opinion page contained articles by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post ("Every Jew Is on the Front Lines of War") and Wafa Sultan an Arab American psychologist (Middle Ages and 21st Century Clashing"). Glick whines that Jews are perpetual victims and that the Kadima gang stinks, whereas Sultan extols Jewish virtues and accomplishments.
Unfortunately, Glick refuses to see the forest (either Israeli or Palestinian) for the trees. Glick does not realize that the cause of anti-Semitism is jealously.
The enormous accomplishments of so few people in Israel and the Diaspora foments hatred by those who are failures in our modern world. Smart Jews know that Israel cannot be destroyed militarily and that the West Bank is an unnecessary burden. The Gaza disengagement gave Israel a great worldwide public relations boost.
I believe that when a Palestinian state is finally established, whether behind a wall or not, worldwide anti-Semitism will no longer be as fashionable as it is today.
Martin J. Weisman
Jonathan Klein may not realize it, but he is indeed helping to save countless lives by "refusing to consume the flesh of once-living, breathing animals" ("I Love You, Carnivore," March 3). It is estimated that each vegetarian saves 83 animals every year.
The Jewish religion has an entire code of laws mandating that animals be treated with compassion. "Tsa'ar ba'alei hayim" is the commandment to prevent the suffering of all living beings.
In addition to saving animals, vegetarians also save more water, land and resources than just about anyone else on the planet. And, of course, vegetarians are far less likely to die from heart disease, cancer and other diseases, so we can spend more time with our loved ones.
I have been vegan for 17 years, and I don't miss meat one bit, because mock meats have basically the same taste and texture as meat. There is a lot of helpful information on vegetarianism at JewishVeg.com. I encourage everyone to check it out.
To read more letters this week, visit www.jewishjournal.com. THE JEWISH JOURNAL welcomes letters from all readers. Letters should be no more than 200 words and must include a valid name, address and phone number. Letters sent via e-mail must not contain attachments. Pseudonyms and initials will not be used, but names will be withheld on request. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Mail: The Jewish Journal, Letters, 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010; e-mail: email@example.com; or fax: (213) 368-1684