Uncategorized
Judaism doesn’t want you to wander and live just anywhere — or does it?
(JTA) — I was a remote worker long before the pandemic made it a thing, but it was only last month that I really took advantage of it. Early on the morning of New Year’s Day, I boarded a plane from Connecticut bound for Mexico, where I spent a full month sleeping in thatch-roofed palapas, eating more tacos than was probably wise and bathing every day in the Pacific. I’ll spare you the glorious details, but suffice it to say, it wasn’t a bad way to spend a January.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found myself again and again coming into contact with expats who had traded in their urban lives in northern climes for a more laid-back life in the tropics. There was the recently divorced motorcycle enthusiast slowly wending his way southward by bike as he continued to work a design job for a major American bank. There was the yoga instructor born not far from where I live in Massachusetts who owned an open-air rooftop studio just steps from the waves. There were the countless couples who had chosen to spend their days running beachfront bars or small hotels on the sand. And then there were the seemingly endless number and variety of middle-aged northerners rebooting their lives in perpetual sunshine.
Such people have long mystified me. It’s not hard to understand the lure of beachside living, and part of me envies the freedom to design your own life from the ground up. But there’s also something scary about it. Arriving in middle age in a country where you know nobody, whose language is not your own, whose laws and cultural mores, seasons and flora, are all unfamiliar — it feels like the essence of shallow-rootedness, like a life devoid of all the things that give one (or at least me) a sense of comfort and security and place. The thought of exercising the right to live literally anywhere and any way I choose opens up a space so vast and limitless it provokes an almost vertiginous fear of disconnection and a life adrift.
Clearly, this feeling isn’t universally shared. And the fact that I have it probably owes a lot to my upbringing. I grew up in an Orthodox family, which by necessity meant life was lived in a fairly small bubble. Our house was within walking distance of our synagogue, as it had to be since walking was the only way to get there on Shabbat and holidays. I attended a small Jewish day school, where virtually all of my friends came from families with similar religious commitments. Keeping kosher and the other constraints of a religious life had a similarly narrowing effect on the horizons of my world and thus my sense of life’s possibilities. Or at least that’s how it often felt.
What must it be like — pardon the non-kosher expression — to feel as if the world is your oyster? That you could live anywhere, love anyone, eat anything and make your life whatever you want it to be? Thrilling, yes — but also frightening. The sense of boundless possibility I could feel emanating from those sun-baked Mexicans-by-choice was seductive, but tempered by aversion to a life so unmoored.
The tension between freedom and obligation is baked into Jewish life. The twin poles of our national narrative are the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Sinai, each commemorated by festivals separated by exactly seven weeks in the calendar, starting with Passover. The conventional understanding is that this juxtaposition isn’t accidental. God didn’t liberate the Israelites from slavery so they could live free of encumbrances on the Mayan Riviera. Freedom had a purpose, expressed in the giving of the Torah at Sinai, with all its attendant rules and restrictions and obligations. Freedom is a central value of Jewish life — Jews are commanded to remember the Exodus every day. But Jewish freedom doesn’t mean the right to live however you want.
Except it might mean the right to live any place you want. In the 25th chapter of Leviticus, God gives the Israelites the commandment of the Jubilee year, known as yovel in Hebrew. Observed every 50 years in biblical times, the Jubilee has many similarities to the shmita (sabbatical) year, but with some additional rituals. The text instructs: “And you shall hallow the 50th year. You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land for all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: each of you shall return to your holding and each of you shall return to your family.”
Among the requirements of the Jubilee was that ancestral lands be returned to their original owners. Yet the word for liberty is a curious one: “d’ror.” The Talmud explains its etymology this way: “It is like a man who dwells [medayer] in any dwelling and moves merchandise around the entire country” (Rosh Hashanah 9b).
The liberty of the Jubilee year could thus be said to have two contrary meanings — individuals had the right to return to their ancestral lands, but they were also free not to. They could live in any dwelling they chose. The sense of liberty connoted by the biblical text is a specifically residential one: the freedom to live where one chooses. Which pretty well describes the world we live in today. Jewish ancestral lands are freely available to any Jew who wants to live there. And roughly half the Jews of the world choose not to.
Clearly, I’m among them. And while I technically could live anywhere, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to. I like where I live — not because of any particular qualities of this place, though I do love its seasons and its smells and its proximity to the people I care about and the few weeks every fall when the trees become a riotous kaleidoscope. But mostly because it’s mine.
A version of this essay appeared in My Jewish Learning’s Recharge Shabbat newsletter. Subscribe here.
—
The post Judaism doesn’t want you to wander and live just anywhere — or does it? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Human Rights Watch’s top Israel-Palestine staffer quits over shelved report criticizing Israel
(JTA) — The former executive director of Human Rights Watch is defending the group after two staffers quit over allegations that a report accusing Israel of a “crime against humanity” was blocked from publication.
Omar Shakir, the director of Human Rights Watch’s Israel-Palestine team, and assistant researcher Milena Ansari tendered their resignations after they said the organization refused to publish a report concluding that Israel’s denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees amounted to a “crime against humanity.”
“I’ve resigned from @hrw after 10+ yrs—most as Israel/Palestine Director—after HRW’s new ED pulled a finalized report on the right of return for Palestinian refugees on eve of its release & blocked for weeks its publication in a principled way,” Shakir tweeted earlier in the week.
He linked to an article about the resignations in Jewish Currents. Shakir, who formerly worked as a legal fellow for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long engaged in pro-Palestinian legal advocacy, is on Jewish Currents’ advisory board.
In a resignation letter obtained by Jewish Currents, Shakir wrote, “I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law.”
Multiple former Human Rights Watch staffers panned Shakir and his critique, including Ken Roth, the group’s former executive director and himself a vociferous critic of Israel. Roth’s replacement, Philippe Bolopion, was named in November.
“The new @HRW director was right to suspend a report using a novel & unsupported legal theory to contend that denying the right to return to a locale is a crime against humanity,” tweeted Roth, whose father was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. “It had been rushed through the review process during a leadership transition.”
Danielle Haas, who served as the senior editor at Human Rights Watch from 2009 to 2023, criticized Shakir sharply in a post on X.
“‘Nourish a wolf,’ Aesop said, ‘and it will eat you.’ For years, @hrw tolerated, placated, excused, and incubated @OmarSShakir as BDSer-turned-Israel/Palestine director. Now it’s their turn to get the ideological mob treatment,” wrote Haas. “His old tricks used v. others, now turned v. them: petitions, division, politics. Appeasement always bites you in the end.”
Shakir served as the lead researcher and author of a 2021 Human Rights Watch report that argued that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians had crossed the threshold into apartheid. The report was widely criticized by Jewish groups at the time. In 2019, he was deported from Israel in accordance with a law that banned entry to foreigners who publicly call for boycotting the Jewish state or its settlements.
NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel advocacy group, wrote in a post on X that the internal dispute at Human Rights Watch served as “a reminder of what happens when an NGO promotes the most extreme activists to positions of influence.”
The episode is casting light on the issue of Palestinian refugees, who many pro-Palestinian advocates believe should be able to return to the homes and communities their families left in 1948. Such a right is widely seen as both out of step with international precedent and a tactic to undo a Jewish majority in Israel.
While Human Rights Watch has long supported a right of return for Palestinian refugees, Shakir told Jewish Currents that the group is more hesitant when applying that principle in practice.
“The one topic,” he said, “even at Human Rights Watch, for which there remains an unwillingness to apply the law and the facts in a principled way is the plight of refugees and their right to return to the homes that they were forced to flee.”
In a statement shared with Jewish Currents and the New York Times, Human Rights Watch stated that the report “raised complex and consequential issues” and its publication was “paused pending further analysis and research.”
“In our review process, we concluded that aspects of the research and the factual basis for our legal conclusions needed to be strengthened to meet Human Rights Watch’s high standards,” the group said.
The post Human Rights Watch’s top Israel-Palestine staffer quits over shelved report criticizing Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Protests roil Australia ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit
(JTA) — Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit to Australia this weekend, which was scheduled in the wake of the Bondi massacre in December, has drawn widespread opposition and planned protests, including from some Jews.
Following Herzog’s invitation to visit the country by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, some Labor party members and pro-Palestinian groups called for the invitation to be rescinded.
Those calls have reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, with Australian human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti calling on Albanese to rescind the invitation or arrest Herzog on arrival for inciting “genocide.”
Australia’s minister of foreign affairs, Penny Wong, defended the visit in an interview with ABC radio, telling the station that it was the wishes of the Jewish community following the December terror attack on a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney that killed 15.
“We have the Australian Jewish community who have been targeted in an overtly antisemitic terrorist attack. We have had 15 Australians die, we have families mourning, and this was a request from the Jewish community for President Herzog to visit,” said Wong, herself a staunch a critic of Israel.
In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald published Friday, Herzog called Sidoti’s statements “another lie and another distortion of the facts,” adding that he was visiting the country to “visit my sisters and brothers of the Jewish community to console and pay our respects to the grieving families and to the community.”
Herzog is expected to visit the country from Sunday to Thursday and is slated to meet with Albanese as well as the survivors and the families of the victims of the shooting.
Multiple groups have petitioned for Herzog’s possible arrest. On Thursday, Human Rights Watch cited a U.N. Commission of Inquiry report accusing Herzog and other Israeli leaders of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” in calling on Albanese to consider deploying local laws to prosecute him.
“While showing appropriate concern for the Jewish community, the Australian government should not shy away from denouncing and pushing for an end to the Israeli government’s longstanding serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law,” the human rights NGO said.
The progressive Jewish Council of Australia lodged a legal complaint last week calling for Herzog to be “arrested or barred from entering Australia.”
The complaint, which was jointly filed with the Hind Rajab Foundation and the Australian National Imams Council, alleges that Herzog “incited genocide and aided and abetted war crimes, rendering him unfit to enter the country under Australian law.”
Widespread protests against Herzog’s visit have been planned throughout Australia by the Palestine Action Group, including in Sydney, where New South Wales Police have announced restrictions on protests, citing the behavior of some protesters who “continue to incite violence and cause fear and harm.”
New South Wales Police have deployed thousands of officers to ensure the mandate is upheld. They have also warned that they will arrest protesters who breach the restrictions in place.
While officials said during a press conference earlier in the week that there was “no particular known threat” to Herzog known by police, a 19-year-old Sydney man was granted bail on Thursday after he being charged with making online threats to Herzog.
The executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Colin Rubenstein, condemned the protest efforts as the group issued a rebuttal on Friday to claims against Herzog.
“We are disturbed and saddened by the groups and individuals determined to politicise this visit by labelling it ‘divisive’ and attempting to misrepresent Herzog’s words after October 7,” he said in a statement. “Our view is that, after Bondi, Herzog’s visit is not only appropriate, but an essential part of the healing process — and we are very confident we represent the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews in saying as much.”
The post Protests roil Australia ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The coffee capital of the world
צו הערן דעם אַרטיקל און אַנדערע אַרטיקלען דורכן פֿאָרווערטס־פּאָדקאַסט, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ:
אין מײַנע יונגע יאָרן האָב איך געקוקט סײַ מיט ביטול, סײַ מיט רחמנות אויף די אַלע דערוואַקסענע, קאַווע־אַדיקטן, וואָס קענען ניט אויפֿשטיין אין דער פֿרי אָן אַ טעפּל, אָדער אַ גאַנצן טאָפּ קאַווע. דאָס הייסט, אויף איבער 80% אַמעריקאַנער. זעענדיק ווי דער טאַטע גיסט אָן אַ טערמאָס מיט קאַווע, ער זאָל האָבן מיט וואָס איבערצולעבן די נסיעה צו דער אַרבעט, האָב איך געשוווירן צו זיך אַליין, אַז איך וועל קיין מאָל ניט ווערן פֿאַרשקלאַפֿט פֿון דעם דאָזיקן אומווערדיקן געטראַנק.
אָבער די יוגנט איז פֿול מיט נאַרישע געדאַנקען, און נאָר די יאָרן ברענגען חכמה און פֿאַרשטאַנד. איצט דערמאָן איך זיך אין יענע אידילישע צײַטן און וווּנדער זיך, ווי אַזוי האָב איך אָן קאַווע אָנגעשריבן די אַלע אַרבעטן פֿאַר דער שול און געלייזט די אַלע מאַטעמאַטישע רעטענישן? הײַנט וואָלט איך די רעטענישן ניט געלייזט אַפֿילו מיט קאַווע. נאָר צום גליק, האָב איך אַנטדעקט, אַז די קאַווע איז ניט אַזאַ געפֿערלעכער סם־המוות, ווי איך האָב זיך דעמאָלט פֿאָרגעשטעלט.
פֿאַקטיש שאַדט די קאַווע ניט צום געזונט, פֿאַרקערט, זי היט אָפּ דעם טרינקער פֿון פֿאַרשיידענע קרענק, ווי ראַק און פּאַרקינסאָנס. זי פֿאַרשטאַרקט די מוסקלען, קלאָרט אויס דעם קאָפּ, און גיט צו מער ענערגיע און שוווּנג. ניטאָ קיין ספֿק, אַז אַ גרויסן חלק פֿונעם מענטשלעכן פּראָגרעס אין די לעצטע 400 יאָר האָבן מיר צו פֿאַרדאַנקען דער קאַווע, וואָס אָן איר וואָלטן אונדזערע דערפֿינדער אַנטשלאָפֿן געוואָרן אין מיטן דער אַרבעט און אפֿשר גאָרניט דערפֿונדן.
פּונקט אַזוי וויכטיק ווי די קאַווע אַליין, איז די קולטור אַרום דער קאַווע. אין יאָר 2011 האָט „אונעסקאָ“ אָנערקענט די ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור ווי אַ טייל פֿון דער „אוממאַטעריעלער קולטור־ירושה“ פֿון עסטרײַך, און דערמיט באַשטעטיקט ווין ווי די קאַווע־הויפּטשטאָט פֿון דער וועלט. דאָרט איז קאַווע ניט בלויז אַ געטראַנק, נאָר אַ גאַנצער לעבנס־שטייגער מיט אַ טראַדיציע פֿון הונדערטער יאָרן.
לויט דער לעגענדע איז דער ערשטער ווינער קאַפֿע אויפֿגעקומען נאָך אין „מלך סאָביעסקיס צײַטן“ — טאַקע אין 1683, ווען דער פּוילישער קעניג יאַן סאָביעסקי האָט באַפֿרײַט ווין פֿון דער טערקישער באַלאַגערונג. צווישן די זאַכן, וואָס די טערקישע אַרמיי האָט דאָרט איבערגעלאָזט, זײַנען געווען זעק מיט קאַווע־בעבלעך. סאָביעסקי האָט זיי איבערגעגעבן צו זײַנעם אַן אָפֿיציר, וואָס האָט דערנאָך געעפֿנט דעם ערשטן קאַפֿע.
די בליצײַט פֿונעם ווינער קאַפֿע איז אָבער געווען סוף 19טן, אָנהייב 20סטן יאָרהונדערט, ווען די שטאָט האָט געקאָכט מיט קאַוועהויז־ליטעראַטן און קינסטלער. זיי פֿלעגן באַשטעלן איין טעפּעלע קאַווע און זיצן איבער אים אַ גאַנצן טאָג, און דער דעמאָלטיקער קעלנער האָט זיי ניט געטשעפּעט. אין זײַנע זכרונות האָט דער פּראָזאַיִקער שטעפֿאַן צווײַג באַשריבן דעם קלאַסישן ווינער קאַפֿע אַזוי:
„ער שטעלט מיט זיך פֿאָר אַן אינטסיטוציע פֿון אַ ספּעציעלן סאָרט, וואָס מע קען זי ניט פֿאַרגלײַכן מיט קיין ענלעכער אין דער וועלט. דאָס איז טאַקע געווען אַ מין דעמאָקראַטישער קלוב, צוטריטלעך פֿאַר יעדן איינעם פֿאַר אַ ביליקן טעפּל קאַווע, וווּ יעדער גאַסט האָט געקענט פֿאַר אַ גראָשן זיצן שעהען לאַנג, שמועסן, שרײַבן, שפּילן אין קאָרטן, באַקומען זײַן פּאָסט און, דער עיקר, קאָנסומירן אָן אַ שיעור צײַטונגען און זשורנאַלן. יעדן טאָג זײַנען מיר געזעסן שעהען לאַנג, און האָבן גאָרנישט פֿאַרפֿעלט.“
זינט די 1990ער יאָרן איז די קאַוועהויז־קולטור צוריק אַרײַן אין דער מאָדע און די ווינער האָבן מזל, וואָס ניט ווייניק פֿון זייערע אַלטע קאַפֿעען זײַנען נאָך פֿאַראַן — כאָטש ווי ערטער ניט פֿאַר שרײַבער און קינסטלער, נאָר פֿאַר גבֿירים און טוריסטן. אין דער אַלטער קײַזערלעכער קאָנדיטערײַ „דעמעל“, למשל, מישן זיך די ריחות פֿון קאַווע און שאָקאָלאַד מיטן גלאַנץ פֿון שפּיגלען און גאָלדענע הענגלײַכטערס. אַז אַן אָרעמער שרײַבער וואָלט זיך דאָרט געזעצט צו דער אַרבעט, וואָלט ער ניט פֿאַרענדיקט אַפֿילו די ערשטע זײַט, ווײַל די ניט זייער העפֿלעכע קעלנערינס וואָלטן אים אַרויסגעטריבן.
צו דער ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור געהערט אויך אַ רײַך־אַנטוויקלטער קאַווע־וואָקאַבולאַר: באַליבט איז דער „מעלאַנזש“ — האַלב קאַווע, האַלב געשוימטע מילך; די „אײַזקאַווע“ — אַ דריטל קאַווע, אײַזקרעם און קרעם (זייער געשמאַק!); דער „פֿאַרלענגערטער“ — האַלב מאָקאַ (קאַווע מיט שאָקאָלאַד), האַלב הייס וואַסער. ווי אויך מער עקזאָטישע מינים: די „קאָזאַקן־קאַווע“ — אַ מאָקאַ, געמישט מיט צוקער, רויטווײַן און וואָדקע; דער „אָטעלאָ“ — אַן עספּרעסאָ מיט הייסן שאָקאָלאַד; און די „צאַרן־קאַווע“ — אַן עספּרעסאָ, באַדעקט מיטן פֿאַרצוקערטן געלכל פֿון אַן איי. דערצו קומט יעדע קאַווע מיט אַ גלעזל וואַסער און אַ קיכל אָדער ביסקוויט, וואָס מאַכט פֿונעם קאַווע-טרינקען אַ גאַנצע צערעמאָניע.
אין די לעצטע יאָרן איז די ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור נאָך „באַרײַכערט“ געוואָרן מיט אַן אַמעריקאַנער אימפּאָרט — די פֿירמע „סטאַרבאָקס“ האָט געעפֿנט אַ צענדליק פֿיליאַלן אין דער שטאָט. איינער אַזאַ קאַפֿע שטייט אַנטקעגן דער „הויפֿבורג“, דעם קײַזערלעכן פּאַלאַץ, וווּ עס האָט אין משך פֿון 600 יאָר רעזידירט די האַבסבורג־דינאַסטיע. דערווײַל זײַנען די ווינער אפֿשר צופֿרידן, וואָס זיי האָבן נאָר אַ צענדליק „סטאַרבאָקס“, און ניט 250, ווי ניו־יאָרק.
איין וויכטיקע זאַך האָב איך זיך געלערנט פֿון די ווינער: דרך־ארץ פֿאַר דער קאַווע. זי איז ניט סתּם אַן אַדיקציע, וואָס האָט פֿאַרשקלאַפֿט כּמעט די גאַנצע מענשהייט. זי איז אַן אַדיקציע מיט אַן אַריסטאָקראַטישער טראַדיציע און מיט אַ לאַנגער היסטאָריע פֿון קינסטלערישער שעפֿערישקייט. אַזוי דאַרף מען טראַכטן, ווען מע פֿילט אָן דעם טערמאָס מיט קאַווע אין דער פֿרי.
The post The coffee capital of the world appeared first on The Forward.