The word for J Street: irrelevance

Where’s a J Street when you really need one?

For a very long time, I could not voice differences over Israeli policies without being shouted down by hard line advocates for Israel. It was very difficult to defend Israeli policies. The military undertook operations that seemed excessive and settlements were built amid a hostile Arab population in Gaza and the West Bank.

I could have benefited from the supportive presence of a strong organization willing to raise legitimate concerns about Israel. None existed. Now we have J Street, which bills itself as “the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement” and lobbies Congress and President Obama to take positions that are considered leftward of those stances supported by most other pro-Israel organizations.

A series of events transformed my thinking on Israel, as said events transformed the thinking of many on the right. The most agonizing moment came during summer 2005 when Israel evacuated all settlements in Gaza, thus eliminating the threat to the lives of settlers and troops there. I fume whenever I recall reports of Arabs burning down the synagogue structures that were left behind, and then they subsequently launched rockets into southern Israel.

There are still times when criticism against Israel is merited, but now I am on the same page with one-time adversaries on most key issues. I have been close to the point where I do not care what Israel does.

So why does J Street inject itself into such a volatile situation? J Street offers a new take on the theory that some groups outlive their usefulness. J Street would have been helpful prior to the Gaza evacuation, but J Street’s usefulness vanished before J Street was even created.

Israel’s new ambassador, Michael Oren, launched a frontal assault on J Street in Cherry Hill, N.J., a Philadelphia suburb, while addressing a convention of Conservative synagogue leaders on Dec. 7. The weekly Forward reported that Oren called J Street “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.
“This is not a matter of settlements here (or) there. We understand there are differences of opinion. But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke.”

Perhaps Oren’s outburst was more forceful than necessary. On its Web site, J Street denies that it is the disloyal monster portrayed by its detractors. However, a single word defines J Street: irrelevance.

I objected to some Israeli policies a decade ago despite the peacemaking strides of Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak. Israel played with fire by allowing settlements in Gaza and the more isolated reaches of the West Bank. I was willing to support the creation of a Palestinian state even with its capital in East Jerusalem if it would produce a peace settlement. When Ariel Sharon was prime minister, I was appalled by Israel’s fierce military incursions that contributed to a skyrocketing casualty rate.

Circumstances changed my perspective.

Nearly two years ago, J Street joined a sprawling network of Jewish advocacy organizations that tend to trip over one another and prove themselves useless when some important issues arise. The money spent on their bureaucratic operations can be better directed to Jewish social-service needs. To be fair, many of these organizations serve the Jewish people well in numerous ways, but not all the time.

Most of these organizations take moderate or hawkish positions on Israeli issues that can change with circumstances and political arrangements here and in Israel. J Street sets itself apart by firmly urging the creation of a Palestinian state and sending mixed messages on whether the Arabs should control East Jerusalem. I might be able to find common ground with J Street to eliminate West Bank settlements, but existing organizations share this view.

J Street’s arguments collapse against the backdrop of the past decade. Israel offered the Arabs an independent state with no strings attached during the 2000 Camp David summit, despite the lies of the late Yasser Arafat. Arafat rebuffed the offer and facilitated a war against Israel, and then refused an expanded offer shortly before President Clinton left office. After Sharon defeated Barak for prime minister in February, 2001, he intensified the hostilities which mainly played out in Gaza and the West Bank. Most civilian casualties were caused by terrorist bombings and other attacks within Israel proper and the bulk of military casualties occurred in the territories.

Sharon presided over the Gaza evacuation in 2005, eliminating concerns about settlements being retained there amid hostile neighbors. Arabs responded by burning synagogues and greenhouses, and then firing rockets into Sderot and other towns in southern Israel. They provoked a two-front war in 2006 after kidnapping a soldier near Gaza and two soldiers in or near southern Lebanon. That effectively delayed plans to evacuate settlements in the West Bank.

Both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have built war machines, and Hamas provoked Israel into another fight last year. The leadership of Fatah in the West Bank has shaky support and Hamas persists with its intent to destroy Israel. Have I mentioned Iran’s threat to demolish Israel with a nuclear device?

These events helped satisfy my prime concerns about Israeli policies. Israel no longer controls land in Gaza and its attention to West Bank settlements was diverted by military conflicts. Flaws with the military infrastructure were exposed during the 2006 war and some improvements were implemented, though probably not enough.

It is foolish to take fixed positions on issues that will be subject to negotiations between Israel and the Arabs. All parties should be open to the question of an independent Palestinian state and consider all pros and cons. Yet, J Street adamantly supports a state while right-wing groups such as the Zionist Organization of America adamantly oppose it. Too many questions must be answered.

As for Jerusalem, Arab leaders must justify why they need any part of it. Israel fought for control of East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it shortly after that war. I cannot see why they need any section of Jerusalem.

I presume that J Street and myself share common ground on arguments for evacuating some West Bank settlements, but existing organizations share these concerns.

Perhaps it should be comforting that J Street is here for me now. Not that I need it.

Insanity defense could snag justice

‘Naveed Haq’s intention was to frighten Jews…The jury held that holding extremist views does not make you insane, but it does make you dangerous’

- King County (Wash.) Prosecutor Dan Satterberg


With two trials, Naveed Haq could not snow his second Seattle jury with an insanity defense.

After 2 ½ days of deliberations, a more prudent jury convicted Haq last Tuesday, Dec. 15, of aggravated murder and seven other offenses in the murder of Pamela Waechter and the wounding of five other women inside the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on July 28, 2006.

Haq is at least the third thug to employ the insanity defense after killing or assaulting Jews. All three defendants were convicted, but Haq came close to getting away with his crimes when the first jury deadlocked in June 2008 and the judge declared a mistrial. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, which by legal tradition means he could not distinguish between right and wrong. Haq believes there is nothing wrong with killing Jews.

Imagine what Adolf Hitler could have done with the insanity defense had he lived to stand trial. In San Francisco a few years ago, a defendant who assailed Nobel Prize-winning author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel was found guilty in spite of using the insanity defense. In March 1994, Lebanese-born Rashid Baz murdered Ari Halberstam, 16, and critically wounded another Jewish teen-ager in a school vehicle on the Brooklyn bridge. He exercised his right to claim insanity, but a jury compelled him to take responsibility for his acts by convicting him.

The insanity defense is dangerous. True, this legal instrument is more complicated than the right-from-wrong standard, but we have reached the point where a person can be acquitted simply because s/he believes it is justified to murder someone who belongs to a given minority group.

Among Jewish victims alone, the line of reasoning that saved Haq the first time could have protected the Georgians who lynched Leo Frank in 1915; the Ku Klux Klan members who slaughtered three civil rights workers in 1964 (two were Jewish, one was black); and the teen-ager who fatally plunged a knife into Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights in 1991.

Pam Waechter, a campaign director for the Seattle Federation, was at least the ninth Jew to be murdered in the United States because they were Jews. Waechter converted to Judaism when she married years earlier, but Haq made no such distinction when he entered her building and killed her because of his anger against Jews.

In his first trial run with the justice system, so to speak, Haq lucked out when Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas declared a mistrial after a jury deadlocked over 14 of 15 charges against him. Haq did not dispute charges that he shot Ms. Waechter to death and seriously wounded five other women inside the Federation building; Federation raises and allocates funds for Jewish causes. Haq would have gotten away with murdering a Jew had the entire jury agreed with the attorney’s arguments.

After the second trial, jurors said they were not provided with evidence that Haq was insane and in fact heard taped jailhouse statements from Haq that he regretted none of his acts and was proud to be a martyr, a typical honor for Islamic terrorists. Fortunately, the jury dismissed any possible arguments that Haq saw nothing wrong in killing Jews, but a different jury could have interpreted it differently.

Haq was not mad at the world but specifically at Jews because of their supposed oppression of his Muslim brethren in the Middle East, as he told witnesses. His shooting spree did not result from a spontaneous explosion of outrage. Media reports in The Seattle Times and The Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s coverage describe a methodical progression of events which led to the slayings.

I developed strong doubts about the insanity defense after covering criminal trials on and off for a few daily newspapers. In Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, a mother claimed religious motives for attempting to murder her children, one by one. The prosecutor demonstrated that the defendant committed the crimes in a meticulous manner, yet the jury bought her insanity defense.

It is inherent that anyone who commits a crime must be mentally unstable. A person in their right mind automatically knows that a criminal act is wrong and recognizes there is always a strong chance of getting caught and facing prosecution.

Nor is it convincing that a defendant should be excused for their acts if they cannot distinguish right from wrong or do not understand the nature and quality of their acts. Haq did in fact shoot six women, one fatally, even though he did not believe he was wrong to harm these people.

A defendant’s state of mind should be taken into account during sentencing because such conditions as emotional duress could trigger a person’s criminal acts, but not the process of determining guilt. He shot those six women, no question about it.

In both of his trials, the defense was persuasive in establishing that Haq suffered from serious mental-health problems, which included being on medication and having a history of child abuse; he was a self-proclaimed Muslim of Pakistani ancestry. Even his background fails to meet standards as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Haq’s reasoning should repulse anyone who is specifically concerned with anti-Semitism and generally with bigotry.

Haq singled out Jews. Since when does use of medication or experience with child abuse provoke someone to pick and choose among ethnic and religious groups? As JTA reported, Haq told a 911 operator, “I’m not upset at the people. I’m upset at your foreign policy. These are Jews. I’m tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East.”

The Seattle Times reported these additional comments from Haq to the 911 operator: “I want these Jews to get out. I don’t care…just want to make a point…all the media’s being controlled by Jews. I’m sick and tired of it…Patch me into CNN.”

Obviously, he must have drawn on his upbringing and mental-health history to believe it was not wrong to kill Jews. Hitler could have exploited this argument.

The prosecution was methodical in proving, well, how methodically Haq carried out his plans. JTA reported that Haq went on the Internet two weeks before his shooting spree to research Jewish organizations. He got directions to the Federation building from Mapquest. He drove 227 miles from his home in eastern Washington to kill Ms. Waechter and injure her colleagues. Some were Jewish, some were not. Along the way, he test-fired the two handguns he brought with him. To gain entrance into the building, he kidnapped a 14-year-old girl and started firing when he reached the Federation’s second-floor reception area.

Dayna Klein, who was pregnant at the time, testified that Haq shot her in the arm when she covered her abdomen with her arm to protect her unborn child. The wound left her without use of the arm. Klein coaxed him into talking with 911 operators. Police officers testified that Haq surrendered to police without further incident.

Haq saw nothing wrong in shooting these women because they were Jews or worked at a Jewish facility. Such a belief could still help any defendant attain an acquittal in the future, and that endangers all of us.

On your way, 'Christian' lawyers

So, a religious group for aspiring attorneys claims the right to discriminate. A law school refuses to accept the organization if it will not accept gays and other so-called heathens. The victims of this group’s discriminatory policies are unlikely to seek membership in this organization.

There is a joke in here somewhere. Correction: We can assemble a rollicking monologue out of this which writes itself. It is nonetheless a grave matter when an organization discriminates against any group since Jews and others could ultimately be affected.

In San Francisco, a public law school withdrew recognition of a chapter of the Christian Legal Society as a school organization because of its refusal to comply with school policy barring discrimination against religion, sexual orientation and related grounds.

If the society complies, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco - part of the University of California - would allow it to use meeting space, bulletin boards and other school services as it does for 60 existing student groups.

However, the society will only permit students to become voting members or assume leadership positions if they affirm the group’s orthodox Christian beliefs and disavow “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” according to The New York Times. That would include “sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”

The society sued for its right to discriminate and was rebuffed last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. On Monday, Dec. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the society’s appeal.

Filing a lawsuit is an instinctive action for an attorney, one would think. Actually, a responsible attorney would not attempt to violate the policies of its host to begin with.

Ironic that an anti-gay group would organize in America’s homosexual capital. Then again, these law students will be challenged by a test of temptation to rival their bar exams.

Obviously, the very people who are not welcome by the society would have no perceptible reason to join, so there does not seem to be any likely possibility of a problem.

There is the principle, of course. It is a public university, and therefore the school leadership cannot permit discrimination. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn put it this way: “Groups that wish to engage in discrimination should not expect public subsidies.”

Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which filed a brief in support of the law school’s case.

Especially, any law school student who would join a discriminatory organization is making a categorical argument for why they should pursue another line of work.

The legal system was created to allow the pursuit of justice on the basis of the law and the facts of a given case. The Christian Legal Society bases its policies on its interpretation of the Bible. Its beliefs are far removed from more liberal Christian denominations.

The pursuit of justice must inherently be flexible. An attorney, like any professional, must be imaginative and aggressive, and not let an unconfirmed philosophy get in the way of a good case.

To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would not hire an attorney who would join an organization like the Christian Legal Society.

“Christian” lawyers have their employment opportunities. Some will get jobs with conservative organizations and Republican politicians. They will win some religious-oriented cases; there are times that they have been in the right. The Bush administration’s Department of Justice was filled with “Christian” lawyers.

Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are among the “Christian” lawyers named to the U.S. Supreme Court by recent Republican presidents. Many from this mold were recommended and/or confirmed to lower court judgeships.

That does not make them quality attorneys.

The Christian Legal Society is no poor victim. This is the second time that one of its chapters filed legal action to challenge their college host’s policies. Their pockets must be fairly deep if they can afford to file lawsuits.

Law schools are supposedly training grounds for men and women to play by the rules. An organization that discriminates does not play by the rules. That makes them dangerous.

World has Israel's back...for now

It qualifies as an important event in Jewish history: An international body stands by Israel in its life-and-death dispute with Iran.

The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency - described as the nuclear watchdog for the United Nations - censured Iran by demanding that its government freeze operations at a uranium enrichment plant right away. The United States was joined by China, Russia and 24 other countries in voting overwhelmingly for the resolution on Friday, Nov. 27 - two days short of the 62nd anniversary of UN approval to establish the state of Israel.

The IAEA’s vote is the strongest UN action I can recall on behalf of Israel since it was accepted as a member of the General Assembly on May 11, 1949. It holds historical significance in part because of the brutal treatment of the Jews during our 2,000-year diaspora, but especially with recent history as a backdrop.

Member states of the UN have probably never stood so staunchly behind Israel since the Jewish state’s very creation. The UN adopted Resolution 181 to endorse creation of the Jewish state on Nov. 29, 1947, as part of a partition plan for two states, one for Israel and the other for Arabs, according to the Israeli Mission’s Web site. Of course, it did not work out that way as the surrounding Arab nations rejected the plan and invaded Israel.

Israel proclaimed its independence on May 14, 1948, turned back the Arab armies and joined the UN nearly a year later.

Relations between Israel and the UN have often been hostile. The UN injected itself into the 1973 Yom Kippur War once Israel was in position to lay siege to Cairo. The world body also pressed for a truce in 2006 before Israel could cause Hezbollah any real damage. Interestingly, Michael Oren noted in his book, “Six Days of War,” that Israeli leaders intentionally withheld news of Israel’s early victories in the Six-Day War, in 1967, for fear that the UN would seek to shut down the war before Israel could make further progress.

Among its many slights to Israel, the UN General Assembly in 1975 adopted a resolution equating Zionism with racism and rescinded it in 1991. It is not historic that the majority of member states undid their previous damage.

Still, on Nov. 27, delegates from 27 nations lined up behind Israel to cast a vote for the first time demanding that Iran immediately halt construction of a uranium enrichment facility in Qum, according to The New York Times.

By no means is this vote conclusive, but it is a good start. Surprisingly, China and Russia joined the vote, as did such countries as France, Germany, England and Canada.

The Times explained that the vote does not go so far as to finding Iran in formal “noncompliance” or violation of its nonproliferation commitments. That would afford strong evidence to support the drive for a new round of sanctions.

The conditions that shaped the IAEA vote are wide open to speculation. It may be that some countries recognized that voting to censure Iran was the right thing to do. We have a president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who repeatedly denied the Jewish people’s tragic history while threatening Israel’s destruction, and his government steadily develops a nuclear program. What gray areas can there be for reasonable people?

Plenty of backroom maneuvering evidently ensued. President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and their people were certainly lining up their ducks, even those likely to vote their way, anyway.

Obama had met individually with the leaders of Russia and China. Before meeting in Beijing with China’s president, Hu Jintao, two senior National Security Council officials, Jeff Bader and Dennis Ross, were sent to China to make a personal case for the United States’s concern about Iran’s nuclear programs, the Times reported.

One must wonder what carrots or sticks were used. Maybe American officials reminded Russia and China that they could face international trials for alleged human rights abuses, just as the Goldstone report on the Gaza war threatens that fate for Israel. Americans could have promised their help if this kind of situation arose.

I wonder if guilt over the Goldstone report was a factor for some of the western nations. There are legitimate concerns over the Gaza war earlier this year, but even some of these countries probably recognize that the upshot of the report was way over the top and tilted too far against Israel.

The IAEA vote resolves nothing at this stage, and Iran’s subsequent defiance underscores that. In addition, the 27 nations that voted in the affirmative are hardly a majority of the U.N. membership itself.

However, Israel and its supporters have reasons to take heart. The IAEA vote at least held symbolic importance, and that is historic there.

Abort this nonsense

Thomas J. Tobin, Bob Kunst and Frank Cannon share political tactics that can drive any rational person to groan, or much worse. Kunst at least redeemed himself, and the two other chaps have time to do the same.

Tobin, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, R.I., lent his name to the long list of big, fat and not-so-fat idiots who distort issues by questioning U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s qualifications as a Catholic because of his support for covering abortion as part of health-care reform. The lesser-known Cannon reminded U.S. Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania that his late father, a popular governor and abortion opponent, will turn over in his grave if he votes for abortion coverage.

On a less charged issue, Kunst got needlessly charged up when Florida Gov. Charlie Crist scheduled a special election on the last day of Passover to replace U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Jewish Democrat who represents parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties. Though Crist’s action bore all the earmarks of an honest mistake, the Miami Beach activist called it “a direct attack” on religious Jews.

All three have every right to express their views on political issues big and small, but their crude and abrasive approaches ruined anything positive that their involvement might have accomplished.

The bishop aided and abetted his enemies by trying to intimidate Kennedy, a Democrat who represents part of Rhode Island. Kennedy revealed in late November that Tobin asked him to stop receiving communion, which Tobin acknowledged, and accused Tobin of telling diocesan priests to refuse to give Kennedy communion, which the bishop denied.

According to The New York Daily News, Tobin wrote Kennedy, “In your letter you say that you ‘embrace the faith.’ Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your position (on abortion) is unacceptable to the church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church.”

The bishop must have time on his hands to exchange letters of this sort with his errant congressman. No priest shortages. No schools losing enrollment. No abusive priests to explain away. Tobin focuses attention on what is really important.

Kennedy, son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, must vote according to what he believes is best for all his constituents, not only the bishop. Tobin has a lot of gall to question Kennedy’s religious convictions for his position on any public issue. The bishop does have authority over Catholics in his diocese, but the government has authority over the limits of religious institutions, such as tax breaks.

Too bad Tobin did not express opposition to abortion without getting personal. Now Kennedy might be tempted to back abortion coverage just to spite Tobin.

In my state, Pennsylvania, Casey supports strong health-care reform, but he also carries on his family tradition of opposing abortion. The New York Times reported that Casey has been working on a compromise to allow spending taxpayer money for abortion as part of the larger health-care bill.

Cannon seized on the policies of the senator’s father, the Gov. Robert Casey, who was staunchly against abortion. The Times piece quotes Cannon’s column on the National Review Web site, which reads: “The governor’s son and namesake, the current junior senator from Pennsylvania, will be tested by the standard his father set.”

Casey’s diplomatic reaction: “My father’s situation was a broader discussion about the issue. This is a huge piece of health-care legislation, and what I am trying to do is to recognize that we had a consensus about public funding for abortion, and we are trying to continue that.”

Like Kennedy, Casey represents the people of Pennsylvania, not only his family.

I have worked with Kunst on occasion for some Jewish causes and was not surprised when he all but accused his governor of declaring war on Florida’s 800,000 Jews. Kunst, who is president of Shalom International, sent Crist a letter a few days before Thanksgiving asking him to change the date of the special election to succeed Wexler.

He wrote: “The problem with this date is that it falls on the last day of Passover, which is a direct attack upon the religious Jewish community…We do not know who is advising you, but this is a direct slap at religious Jews, very many who also vote Republican…This is an affront to all Jews and everyone else who believes in religious tolerance. An attack has been made that needs to be rectified IMMEDIATELY.”

I assumed that Crist or his scheduler made an honest mistake, so I was not offended and figured he would change the date even if he was asked in a civil manner. For the record, I am somewhat religious, but not strictly observant. I wrote to Kunst asking him for evidence that the governor knowingly scheduled the election during Passover.

On the day before Thanksgiving, Kunst notified me that Crist rescheduled the election from April 6 to April 13. He sent me a copy of his follow-up letter to the governor, which was headlined, “Shalom International Thanks Gov. crist for Supporting US and being a ‘Mensch.’”

He wrote: “In supporting religious freedoms for everyone, this is a model for everyone not to infringe on these constitutional and moral rights for all peoples of faith. You were sensitive to our concerns and you acted on them.”

I e-mailed Kunst: “I appreciate the gratitude you expressed to Gov. Crist. It’s a big improvement over the previous letter, and it is much shorter.”

Hopefully, Tobin and Cannon will follow Kunst’s lead. Does either want to be remembered as the anti-Mensch?

A train wreck threatened

As if I forgot that public transit is in a state of crisis, I had two jarring reminders in early November, simultaneously: the week-long strike in Philadelphia and the shocker that Boston is faced with imminent safety hazards which might cost $500 million to repair.

Not to mention news elsewhere of potential fare hikes in New York City; a renewed attempt to save South Florida’s 70-mile rail link between Palm Beach and Miami; and a $144 million deficit in Washington, D.C., that has only one way to go - up, that is.

Preserving public transit and improving upon it is crucial. It is no less important than health care and education. A system needs to be established to guarantee that transportation continues as the vital service it is. Long before the economic meltdown, fares continued to rise, services were threatened and safety was compromised. Many Jewish communities are connected by public transit, and substantial Jewish populations even comprise a large share of metropolitan areas with the more advanced systems.

I was lucky during the Philadelphia strike, when the two subway lines and city bus routes ceased running; still operating were suburban buses and commuter rail trains. During my first day vacationing in Boston on Tuesday, Nov. 3, I learned that the strike began hours after the Phillies played their last World Series home game against the Yankees. When I returned to Philly by Amtrak at 30th Street station on Nov. 7, I still escaped the strike’s consequences because I transferred to a commuter line for the 10-minute ride downtown.

I was relieved to be spared of most of the strike, especially since I endured the cruelty of past walkouts. I walk to work, but I still rely on public transit for many reasons. With the strike still going strong, I had planned to attend a Kristallnacht commemoration on Wednesday, Nov. 11, at the Germantown Jewish Centre in West Mount Airy, in the evening. The bus would drop me off a half-block away, but if necessary a train station was located further away in a more isolated spot. I did not feel safe walking to the station and waiting there in the dark. The strike ended beforehand as the workers settled, and I was unable to attend the synagogue event, anyway.

While buses and subways were idled back home, I received my first clue as to why riding Boston’s commuter trains could be hazardous to one’s health. I rode a westbound commuter train from Boston’s South Station (Boston’s mini-version of Penn Station in Manhattan) to the West Newton station in the town of Newton, which is comprised of one of the largest Jewish populations in the metropolitan area.

I learned abruptly that riders do not detrain, so to speak, onto solid ground. When the conductor directed me to leave the train for West Newton, I peered out the exit door and spotted a narrow platform separated from the train by a pair of railroad tracks.

To reach the platform, I jumped from the train’s stairwell three feet onto the gravel separating the tracks, and I could have slipped on oil covering parts of the track I needed to cross to reach the platform. Maybe an eastbound train might rumble by just as I was crossing the tracks. Hopefully, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which oversees the system, knows enough to schedule the trains to prevent accidents.

The West Newton hazard is among a massive amount of maintenance risks. A report commissioned by Gov. Deval Patrick revealed that the MBTA has a maintenance backlog on its hands that could cost $3 billion to remedy, and it will take $500 million of that to fix critical threats.

The study projected spending up to $80 million to remove and replace rail ties damaged by flooding along the northern end of the Red Line subway immediately after the Harvard University stop. Otherwise, corrosion and damage could destabilize track alignment and lead to a train derailment, The Boston Globe reported. A new state board approved a $2.5 million contract for an engineering firm to design a longterm correction for a track repair project.

By chance, I waited for a Red Line train at the underground Porter Square stop, the first station north of Harvard, and noticed that a pond of ice had formed on the other side of the tracks.

While Boston has a good system overall, the state is intent on expanding both subways, which serve the city and immediate suburbs, and commuter trains that extend to the outer suburbs - despite the expensive maintenance backlog. Most commuter trains run sporadically; off-peak, many run a maximum of every two hours apart. Trains in New York and Philadelphia typically run every hour.

Transit systems that I have patronized elsewhere continue to struggle. A $144 million deficit for Washington’s Metro operation that was announced a few months ago could be the start of its troubles, according to a Washington Post editorial. The Nov. 12 editorial predicted significant fare hikes and service reductions because of declining ridership and a recent arbitration ruling to raise the salaries of unionized employees.

The Tri-Rail train line that passes through Florida’s three most populous counties is in danger of extinction. Officials in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties have been seeking a $2 tax on rental cars to finance the continued operation of Tri-Rail, but the state legislature has refused to approve it. Lawmakers may reconvene in December to consider funding of Tri-Rail and creation of a rail line in the Orlando area.

On Saturday, Nov. 21, I bought a “fun-day pass” for $8.25 to ride New York City’s buses and subways, the same amount I spent during my last visit in October. Earlier in the week, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority introduced a budget that is actually balanced after the state allowed new revenue sources. No fare increases or cuts in services, according to The New York Daily News.

But among his first words as MTA chairman, Jay Walder declared: “The MTA remains in a very fragile financial situation…There is no more money for us in Albany, and we will learn to do more with the funding we have.”

If, that is, the state does not plug its unsettled deficit with cuts in transportation subsidies. Besides, a four-year fiscal plan projects 7.5 percent fare and toll increases in 2011 and 2013.

Fare hikes in New York in two years? Maybe Philadelphians are fated to pay more after the post-World Series strike. This pattern has been ongoing for years and getting worse as more low- and middle-income people who can afford less are the ones being victimized.

The variety of reasons for these problems - neglect of cities, loss of tax revenues, political rivalries, corruption and so on - have never been sufficiently addressed. I wish I can be optimistic that significant measures will be taken to remedy these problems. It is a train wreck ready to happen.

Goldstone banters in Boston

It was a rare opportunity. Not only did I visit Brandeis University for the first time, but I observed two of the world’s most respected Jewish figures review the severe accusations against Israel contained in the United Nations document known as the Goldstone report.

The speakers were South African Judge Richard Goldstone himself, who headed the commission which produced the report, and Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United States. Hundreds of students, faculty and Boston-area residents comprised the heavily Jewish crowd that listened to Goldstone and Gold on the same day as a United Nations vote on the report; by coincidence, I was vacationing in Boston.

The experience of personally witnessing these two prominent figures laying out their conflicting positions merely served to enhance my take on the Goldstone report: It is a sideshow of an appalling, senseless 61-year-old conflict that refuses to end.

The aftermath of Israel’s invasion of Gaza in late December and January has endured so many contortions that it is impossible to take the Goldstone report seriously. The United Nations Assembly voted 114-18 on Nov. 5 to call for UN Security Council action if Israel and Hamas fail to investigate alleged war crimes within three months. The United States is expected to veto further movement in the Security Council.

The report singles out Israel to account for its actions in a military strike that, overall, was necessary and justifiable. I recognize that the report charges Hamas with war crimes, but the commission’s mission was originally to investigate only Israel. Goldstone saw to it the commission probed both parties, but critics in the U.N. focused on Israel’s role and Israel responded with uneven defenses.

As for the Arabs, since when have they been concerned about deaths of their own people? They have launched countless wars that placed Arab civilians in the cross-fire, pressured their own to battle Israel and murdered Arab leaders and individuals who sought peace.

There is only one significant consequence of the Goldstone report: In pressing for action on these charges, Arab extremists admit that Israel won this round and they can’t stand it. It is another “Nakba,” the Arab world’s term describing their failure to destroy Israel in 1948.

Meanwhile, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are locked in gridlock over a peace settlement, and Israel must deal with a nuclear threat from Iran and potential aggression from Gaza and southern Lebanon. The UN habitually ignores human rights abuses committed by Russia, China, Sudan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Gold and other advocates for Israel repeatedly understate Israel’s reason for invading Gaza in late December last year. Israel had every right to attack Gaza after rockets were fired into Sderot and other parts of southern Israel, which is the routine defense of Israel and its supporters. If that is all of it, I would need to agree that the attack on Gaza was, literally, a case of overkill.

However, Hamas - the force that controls Gaza - was clearly building a war machine to cause far more damage to Israel. The Israel Defense Forces had no other choice but to move in, and they were compelled to endanger civilians in order to reach Hamas troops, supplies and facilities. Israelis would sound far more reasonable and less flippant if they employed this argument.

Both Goldstone and Gold were disingenuous in some of their assertions. After cataloguing much of the destruction of Gaza, Goldstone declared: “If that isn’t collective punishment, what is?”

Well, the planned destruction of a sovereign nation - namely, Israel - might constitute “collective punishment,” a phrase beaten to death by advocates for inhabitants of Israel’s territories. Could Goldstone have discovered this term independently of this persistent mantra?

Goldstone even attributed the report’s blanket accusation that Israel intentionally targeted civilians to past statements of high-level Israeli officials who projected that attacks on Israel would instigate excessive harm to the offending country or territory.

Such a prospect deserves serious consideration, but none of their statements prove anything. It is not even direct evidence of formal policy and it is my educated guess that these comments would be inadmissable as evidence in court. Goldstone’s claim of evidence is loosely comparable to introducing a suspect’s criminal record into a trial. Maybe they allow that in South Africa, but not in American criminal courts.

The Israeli government complicated the conflict by refusing to cooperate with the investigation. No question that the UN discriminates against Israel, but Israel’s failure to participate leaves the impression that it has something to hide.

The swiftest way to antagonize a prosecutor is to stonewall him. Israel succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Any self-important prosecutor will slam the subject of his investigation if they refuse to cooperate. At Brandeis, Goldstone made a point of Israel’s obstinence. His words were civil and evenhanded, but his tone was sarcastic. Internally, Goldstone was probably boiling.

Already, anything that Israel’s defenders would say is highly suspect.

Gold’s sleep-inducing rebuttal was flawed partly because he expended too much time on details to bolster his position. That is fine for a book, as demonstrated with one he authored, “The Fight for Jerusalem,” but not a public discussion in which time is limited. He should have summarized his arguments and complemented them with brief examples.

The effectiveness of Gold’s response - in part that “Hamas deliberately embedded in the civilian population” - recedes because the Israeli government waited until after the investigation to defend itself.

We still cannot dismiss the question of whether Israel’s military committed war crimes. My educated guess is that the truth lies somewhere between the report’s accusations and Israel’s reaction.

It is possible that some commanders and soldiers at least acted recklessly, without regard for the safety of civilians. The single documented clue is that the 2006 two-front war with Lebanon and Gaza exposed severe weaknesses in military prepardness. Reservist training was inadequate and soldiers could not find weapons and other supplies. Prior to the 2006 war, terrorists breached security three times at military bases, which includes the kidnapping of Sgt. Gilad Shalit.

Not so clear is whether extremists belong to the IDF who ignore policies and disregard the safety of Arab civilians. J. J. Goldberg, a respected veteran of Jewish journalism, said in a commentary in the weekly Forward that soldiers informally complain about fanatics in their ranks.

While Goldberg offers no hard evidence, this concern makes sense. There are plenty of extremists in Israel, and nearly every Israeli is required to serve in the IDF. It stands to reason that there could be an overabundance of abuse on that basis.

If the IDF is burdened with serious shortcomings, it is long overdue to clean up its act. Otherwise, the military will not only jeopardize the lives of Arab civilians but its own troops, and the world will keep demanding explanations.

One Goldstone report is one too many.

Opt-out amounts to selective secession

If it becomes law, the opt-out public health care plan will amount to a form of selective secession, which may not be a bad result.

The opt-out scheme is being offered in Senate legislation to ensure that health-care reform provides a government-run system in lieu of health insurance afforded by private companies and other operations. Each state will have until 2014 to “opt out” of the public system, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid explained it in media reports.

The predictable assumption would be that more conservative states controlled by Republicans will be inclined to forgo a public option while moderate and liberal states will embrace it. Obviously, New Yorkers and Californians will savor the public option while someone in Idaho or South Carolina might be denied medical insurance because of the reaction of their legislature and governor.

Many would readily concur that the Civil War never ended, as the war re-emerged in different forms since 1865. The war is ongoing between those who seek to help the have-nots and those who think they are protecting their wealth. The issue was slavery at one time, segregation at another time, now it is health care.

After the last three decades of conservative dominance, I have often wondered if South Carolina had the right idea when it seceded from the Union and touched off the Civil War. To say the least, I am certainly glad that slavery ended, but bear in mind that Southern states and other conservative enclaves have often straight-jacketed our government from improving opportunities for the less fortunate and, in general, allowing progress.

What would have happened had President Lincoln just permitted South Carolina and other southern states to secede from the Union? We can make speculative arguments for both pros and cons, especially the question of slavery, as to what might happen. Getting into these arguments need to wait for another column.

The opt-out concept is intriguing because of its genuine potential to lead to comparable arrangements for other policies. States that wish to avoid participation in a national policy can go their own way. Of course, secession meant that a state or states would go their separate ways entirely.

In the case of health-care legislation, most states with the largest Jewish populations will almost certainly accept the public option, while many small states with low Jewish populations, in addition to Texas, might opt out; more than 100,000 Jews are estimated to live in Texas.

Florida would be especially tough to predict. Would seniors who inhabit much of Florida believe the public option will threaten Medicare or help them? One-third of Florida’s 18 million citizens live in the heavily Democratic and Jewish southern counties of Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, while northern and central Florida is much more conservative.

While some members of Congress belong to the opposition, political figures in their own states could opt in, anyway. The wooing of U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine was silly. Both of Maine’s representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives - Democrats Chellie Pingree and Michael Michaud - have posted announcements supporting a public option, and in fact Pingree’s daughter is speaker of the Maine House of Representatives. Gov. John Baldacci led the formation of a state-run health-insurance program six years ago, so I cannot imagine Maine leaders resisting a national system if it beats their own system.

Three years ago, Pennsylvania’s two senators could be expected to oppose a public option had the issue arisen, but now the state’s two senators are among its advocates. Republican Rick Santorum was ousted in 2006 by Democrat Bob Casey in 2006 and Arlen Specter switched from Republican to Democrat earlier this year because he feared he would lose next year’s primary to an ultra-conservative challenger; it is no secret that President Obama would support his re-election bid in return for his support on core issues. Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell clearly wants affordable health insurance, but the Pennsylvania legislature might be sharply divided on this issue because of party loyalty and ideological differences.

Disputes over tax dollars allocated for some states and not others is barely pertinent. The heaviest flow of federal tax revenues originates in places such as Beverly Hills, Manhattan’s Upper East Side and Fairfield County in Connecticut, all states with substantial support for a public option; SenatorsChristopher Dodd and Joe Lieberman are split and all five House members openly support it or are seriously considering it.

Even states whose leaders are dead set against a public option might come around later if the public option succeeds elsewhere. Public demand could eventually pressure them into accepting the option.

Lawsuits from both sides of the issue could be filed. Individuals who live in no-option states might complain that they are being deprived of a federal service. Opponents could argue that a law which only benefits some states violates the constitution.

The same opponents never complained about disproportionate spending for projects in their states.

The opt-out clause is fine so long as my state, Pennsylvania, permits all its citizens - including moi - to be covered by affordable health insurance. Though people may question the constitutionality of this provision, but the constitution says nothing about selective secession.

The founders would not have been so surprised. They experienced plenty of convoluted politics themselves.

BIGOTS STILL DO NOT KNOW: SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH IT

Oops! There goes the tourist trade. Too bad for the fine citizens of the city of Hammond in northeastern Louisiana.

Hammond caught the world’s attention after Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, stood his ground after refusing to marry an interracial couple, a violation of a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows interracial marriage.

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” he told an Associated Press reporter on Thursday, Oct. 15. “There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage. I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”

A biracial child will never be accepted by blacks or whites, and he or she need not dream of being elected president of the United States.* Like Barak Obama. Louisiana is part of the United States. Technically.

A news release was posted on the city of Hammond’s Web site imploring reporters to alter their dateline from Hammond to nearby Robert, La., where Bardwell lives. The city stressed that Bardwell was independently elected and has no formal affiliation with Hammond whatsoever.

The Bardwell account coincides with nearly a half-dozen other domestic instances rooted in prejudice, including the beating of a gay man, the nauseous Limbaugh-Sharpton confrontation and an Irish singer’s anti-Semitic rant; I’m excluding the South Carolina flap about Jews because of mixed feelings. I have never been able to comprehend the thinking - or lack thereof - behind these attitudes or at least why some people cannot grow out of them. I am left trying to second-guess their motives, but I can think of some responses to them.

The episode that affects me personally was Irish tenor Ronan Tynan’s offensive comment about a Jewish woman seeking an apartment in his East Side building in Manhattan. A real estate agent who accompanied the woman told Tynan, who sometimes sings “God Bless America” at Yankees playoff games, that “they are not Red Sox fans.”
To which Tynan shot back: “I don’t care about that, as long as they are not Jewish.”

The woman complained to the Yankees after the Oct. 15 encounter, and they swiftly suspended his gig, The New York Daily News reported. He apologized to her and claimed to be joking, but the victim said it did not sound like that. What was he thinking? I’ll get to my theory later.

Back to Bardwell: I do notice that this justice lives in the South some distance from any big city. Is this a southern thing? A backwoods vantage point? I do not wish to lump all southerners and/or rural residents with this guy. If there is any truth to this, TV host Jay Leno said it best when he suggested Bardwell clings to the belief that a married couple should not be of the same race but from the same family. West Virginia is not alone.

Returning to the North, a 49-year-old gay man was beaten to a pulp in the College Point section of northern Queens on Oct. 8, as his assailants spewed out anti-gay slurs, police told the News. I concede that my attitudes about homosexuals have been less than perfect, but I generally do not care about one’s sexual orientation. It is ghastly that anyone would discriminate or physically harm someone because of their sexual orientation. There is something wrong with it, as Seinfeld might say.

Friends of the two suspects, both in their twenties, rationalized their actions when they showed up at a rally against anti-gay violence. “This whole rally is so pathetic,” said Camelisse Kiana, 15. “I don’t think this is a hate crime because he doesn’t have nothing against gay people.” Added Marcel Gelmi, “It was an assault but it wasn’t a hate crime.” We suppose that makes it okay.

Most bizarre is the ongoing duel of the dolts: Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton…sorry, that’s the Rev. Al Sharpton. Sharpton threatened to sue Limbaugh for accusing him of taking a “leading role” in the 1991 Crown Heights riots. Sharpton did take a “leading role” of forcing Limbaugh out of an investment team that sought to purchase part of the St. Louis Rams because of his well-documented racist rants on his radio show.

“I am definitely going to prove he makes reckless, unaccountable statements,” Sharpton said of Limbaugh.

Sharpton should know what he is talking about. During the funeral of 7-year-old Gavin Cato, whose death in an auto accident touched off the riots, Sharpton dubbed Crown Heights Jews as “diamond merchants” and referred to the “apartheid ambulance” service operated by ultra-Orthodox Jews there. Cato was fatally injured when struck by a vehicle operated by an Orthodox driver.

No reasonable person could side with either of these boneheads, but the merits favor Sharpton. His advocacy style has evolved to a more respectable level, though he has at best hinted at remorse for his revolting past. The right-wing Limbaugh still spouts absurdities like a little brat. Sharpton contends that Limbaugh’s accusation suggests that he committed a crime, which is true.

Limbaugh could clarify what he meant, but Sharpton still owes the Jewish community an explanation and apology after all these years.

It is not hard to speculate about what prompted Ronan Tynan’s conduct. I am not one to link a person’s drinking habits to an ethnic stereotype, but I am reminded of an incident in which a crude comment applies to Tynan.

A few years ago, a friendly but eccentric woman who had just flown into Boston from Ireland sat next to me on an Amtrak train headed for Maine. As the trip progressed, so did her eccentric ways. The more she spoke, the sooner I realized that she was soused.

As our conversation waned, she subsequently addressed a middle-aged couple across the aisle. After 10 minutes of chat, the husband chided her: “A little too much Irish whiskey, eh?”

Ouch. The woman was obnoxious, but responding to her with an ethnic slur was way out of line. It would have been a touche-moment if the Jewish woman in New York responded to Ronan Tynan with a line like that.

*I am not the only person to make the connection between Justice Bardwell’s remarks and the election of a biracial president, but this connection did occur to me soon after I learned of the episode and before I heard or read of it by others.

CONGRESS DOUBLE-CROSS AT MOJAVE

The upshot of the Mojave cross dispute is simple: The federal government discriminated against a minority religion.

The government went to unusual lengths to retain a cross on public land after rejecting an application for a Buddhist shrine. A decade ago, the National Park Service turned down an application for the shrine and decided to remove the cross from a rocky outcropping at the 1.6 million acre Mohave National Preserve in southern California.

Congress intervened. It declared the site a national monument, forbade the NPS from spending funds to take down the cross and in 2003 voted to swap land with the Veterans of Foreign Wars so that the VFW would control the single acre of land surrounding the cross, which was erected by the VFW in 1934 to commemorate fallen soldiers.

The five relatively sane members of the U.S. Supreme Court will do well to consider this sequence of events before they cast their votes in the case of “Buono v. Salazar,” in which the feds claims that switching the property to private ownership makes the existence of the cross there constitutional.

When the Court heard arguments on Wednesday, Oct. 7, Justice Antonin Scalia left little doubt how he will vote, and the other three simplistic justices hinted that they will side with him.

Many Jews like myself resent having to observe religious symbols on public property, but even some of us recognize that these situations can often become convoluted. I personally interpret the First Amendment to mean that no religious symbols are permitted on taxpayer-funded property, but it is obvious that adhering to strict legalities means we would have to remake Arlington Cemetery.

The cross was repeatedly characterized as being located in the middle of nowhere, so why should anyone care? It is not as if the 8-foot high cross stands in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia or atop an abandoned fort on New York City’s Governor’s Island, both busy National Park Service sites. Mohave, which is 200 miles east of Los Angeles and 60 miles southeast of Las Vegas, is low on my vacation priority list.

Actually, Mohave does brisk business, with 628,000 visitors in 2008, according to the NPS Web site. Many visitors probably spot the cross while traveling on a nearby road, which means they see it once and briefly at that.

The fact remains that our government discriminated against a minority religion. Attorney Peter J. Eliasberg, who represents the American Civil Liberties Union, made a good case for that during a televised news conference. Republican U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis, whose district covers Mojave, reported on his congressional Web site that he coordinated the legislative measures at the behest of veterans groups.

This legal train wreck opened when then-preserve assistant superintendent Frank Buono proposed that the Buddhist shrine application be rejected and the cross removed, and NPS officials agreed to both. Congress subsequently blocked the NPS from spending any money to take away the cross, The Washington Post reported.

Buono, now retired, sued in 1999 and a federal district judge agreed that the cross violated constitutional standards; the ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Congress subsequently declared the spot a national memorial and launched a deal to swap land with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, leaving the VFW with an acre of land surrounding the cross. Buono returned to court with the American Civil Liberties Union, and the appeals court stated that the transaction “would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve,” according to the Post.

Buono is a practicing Catholic who keeps a cross in his home, but he opposes allowing a religious symbol on federal land.

Congress passed all these measures when Republicans were in control, yet Democrats neglected to overturn Lewis’s legislation when they took over after the 2006 midterm elections. It is no stretch to guess that they feared getting tangled up in a church-state issue, as did President Obama by persisting in defending the legislation in court. Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar, an Obama appointee and former Democratic senator from Colorado, is the “Salazar” in “Buono v. Salazar.”

Long forgotten has been the applicant for the Buddhist shrine even though Congress jumped through hoops to accommodate advocates for a Christian symbol. That is discrimination.

Three justices bolstered the point, if inadvertently, that these steps constitute discrimination during legal arguments. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned if the land swap was “a sensible interpretation” of previous rulings, so acknowledging Congress’s far-reaching efforts to retain the cross.

Scalia patronized minority religions when he declared that the cross is the “common symbol of the resting place of the dead”; like most Jews, Eliasberg offered a different take as he reminded Scalia that “there is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”

Justice John Paul Stevens automatically recognized the lengths to which Congress went when he asked the Obama administration attorney, “Do you think anyone thought there is the remotest possibility they (VFW) would put up a different memorial?”

That means Congress indeed discriminated against a minority religion. Buddhists in America are justified to claim they were, well, double-crossed by their own government.

UNLIKELY COALITION RE: IRAN

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is doing to his people now what he wants to do to mine.

Iran’s president could not get away with jailing, terrorizing and murdering thousands who demonstrated against him at the United Nations and in several other cities on Thursday, Sept. 24, since leaders here and in other Western countries, however imperfect, allow citizens the freedom to protest. More than 40 organizations created the Stand for Freedom in Iran coalition to demonstrate against Ahmadinejad’s brutality of his fellow Iranians and his plans to destroy Israel.

Most notably, Jews and Iranians joined together to send Ahmadinejad a blunt message. It is hard enough to motivate members of any single group affected by a given issue, but here are two unlikely groups that gathered for a common cause. This event presents an opportunity to sustain ongoing pressure on Ahmadinejad from our part of the world.

It is hardly coincidence that Ahmadinejad antagonized both Jews and his own people. As natural bullies, tyrants will subjugate their own when they must and intimidate external groups or nations whenever they can get away with it. He picked on Israel partly because there is already an anti-Israel groundwork and he holds the strategic high ground.

The convergence of American Jews and Iranians, including Muslims, is a minor miracle. The Sept. 24 rally launched a coalition between two interest factions with life-and-death stakes in Iran’s future. Iranians are struggling for freedom and Jews are confronting a threat to Israel’s existence. Their pressure on Ahmadinejad can only help their respective peoples. To put it mildly, they face an uphill fight, but their failure to organize will help give Ahmadinejad a free hand.

For that matter, let’s hope that the other organizations which sponsored the rally, including African Americans and Puerto Ricans, continue to work with them. Ideally, all concerned people should be involved.

The lives of both Jews and Iranians could depend on what we do. Ahmadinejad no doubt exploited the levers of government to steal the June 11 election. Ordinary Iranians faced retaliation for protesting the election results. Though they swamped the streets of Tehran and other cities, people of Iran risked death, torture and imprisonment. Some were murdered or jailed simply because they chose to marched for their liberty.

Interestingly, Americans who filled the block-long Dag Hammarskjold Plaza for the Stand for Freedom in Iran rally reflected a relatively low turnout. The rally was scarcely covered by the New York dailies, and the few news reports I could locate suggested a range of 3,000 to 10,000. That’s light by New York standards.

Rally participants griped to a New Jersey Jewish News reporter that turnout was insufficient. “Where were all the people?” asked Gail Kushner of West Orange, near Newark. “There should have been a stronger representation of adults,” added Stan Shapiro of Roseland, also a Newark suburb.

I had planned to attend, but I was sick that day. A bus was chartered to pick up demonstrators from the Philadelphia area in Elkins Park, a northern suburb. Besides, the rally was held on a weekday when most people are working.

Jews must be concerned with Ahmadinejad’s obvious threat to demolish Israel with a nuclear device, still in development, while denying that Hitler wiped out 6 million Jews; thousands of Holocaust survivors still live to testify to Nazi Germany’s crimes.

In fact, Israel is already engaged in a war with Iran. Ahmadinejad initiated the war when Iran supplied its first weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah. Israel fought a two-front war in 2006 against Hamas and Hezbollah and invaded Gaza last December. This is reason enough for Israel to attack Iran.

Ahmadinejad built his nuclear development sites with the intention of preventing Israel or anyone else from eliminating these places, and he claims Iran can effectively retaliate. An Israeli attack would likely incite outrage among Arabs who will mass behind Ahmadinejad.

On the plus side, Ahmadinejad must worry about the fury and resentment among his people, but one cannot be optimistic that they will succeed in ousting him.

It is ironic that masses of Iranians face jail or death for exercising the rights we take for granted, yet opponents here constitute a relatively small number in a city where the police consistently facilitate demonstrations.

The Sept. 24 rally possibly contributed to progress in dealing with Iran. One week later, Iranian delegates made small but significant concessions aimed at preventing development of a nuclear weapon.

No time to rest. It should embolden opponents of Iran in America to persist with their protests. This sums it up neatly:

“This has to be a sustained effort,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, as quoted in The Jewish Standard, a weekly in Bergen County, New Jersey. “What we have to show is we’re committed to a course of action that will be effective.”

THE POWER TO COUNTER RACISM

Joe Wilson’s rebuke was hardly partisan overkill but rather a momentous event in the history of Congress.

Race unquestionably factored into Wilson’s disruption of President Obama’s address before a joint session of Congress, held in the House of Representatives chamber. The first president ever to be told “you lie” at such an occasion is partly black, and many people who rallied around Wilson, a white Republican, were driven by racial bias and refusal to accept an African-American as president. We cannot read Wilson’s mind, but maybe on some level he feels some prejudice.

African-Americans were subjugated for centuries because of the power white society held over them, and those who sought to free the slaves or later end the Jim Crow laws were punished for their good deeds. Since black Americans can now engage in politics on an even playing field, House members like Rep. James E. Clyburn employed their power to punish Wilson’s conduct.

Clyburn carried out a solemn responsibility when he led the drive to rebuke Wilson. Here was a black man who could use the system to advocate for himself, the black community and anyone who believes in justice. Clyburn and the other black House members received plenty of help to accomplish this; the Sept. 15 vote was 240 to 179. It was impressive that the House acted six days after Wilson told Obama “you lie” when the president said to Congress that illegal immigrants will not receive free health care.

Interestingly, Clyburn holds the title of House Majority Whip and represents a district that adjoins Wilson’s district in and around Columbia, S.C.

Wilson apologized to the president, but Clyburn and other House Democrats deemed it crucial that he apologize to the House itself because his behavior violated House rules and reflected on the House as an institution. The silence of House members would have meant assent.

Wilson displayed his arrogance by refusing to apologize in the well of the House, on grounds that he had already apologized to Obama. It did not matter that telling his colleagues he was sorry would have restored honor to the House. He must have regarded such an act as humiliation that Democrats wanted to impose on him.

Clyburn’s feat constitutes a significant episode in history. He made a formal statement to reclaim a sense of psychic dignity for every black man and woman who labored in the fields, felt a whip cracked across their back, was lynched by a white mob or assaulted for the legal act of registering to vote. He also validated the endeavors of those who tried to end slavery and marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, which often required courage.

This resolution especially honored the extensive efforts of Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner to end slavery. He was severely injured when Rep. Preston Brooks repeatedly struck Sumner at his Senate desk in 1856 partly because of his abolitionist stands. Like Wilson, Brooks represented a district in South Carolina and, like Obama, Sumner was a Harvard-trained attorney.

The measure also sent a message to opponents of health-care reform and other progressive policies. Yes, they can express their opinions, but disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.

As a caveat, these people are driven far more by issues than concerns over Obama’s race. They would not lay off a white male who pushed a similar agenda, and I cannot imagine anyone calling a President Colin Powell a liar as he addressed Congress, even if he richly deserves it. What we have is the combination of having a black person in the Oval Office who happens to be, as they say, quite uppity.

On that note, the Clyburn resolution sent this stern message to anyone who cannot accept an African-American, or at least an uppity one, as president: Get used to it.

SOAKING GRANDMA

Now Mayor Bloomberg is soaking Mother Russia, so to speak, while New York City tax revenues have gone with the wind.

NYC is no better than other cities and government entities that exploit measures to raise funds to compensate for lost tax money. Has it reached the point where they are wringing what change they can from grandma?

The Kings Courier, part of a Brooklyn chain of weekly newspapers, reported that some women described as elderly Russian émigrés were fined $250 each for swimming in shallow water after hours at Brighton Beach. The community is a hub for Russian Jews and one-time home for an earlier generation of Jews; Bloomberg is Jewish.

As Parks Department spokesperson Philip Abramson explains it, New York state law bars swimming without lifeguards on duty and the city is concerned because of recent drowning.

NYC should send a message to offenders, but the city’s take is excessive since working-class residents are often vulnerable to this kind of ticketing. Police departments are notorious for setting parking and traffic ticket quotas. I was victimized on two occasions by what appeared to be this quota mentality. A friend pointed out how one city jacks up penalties for vehicular violations.

At Brighton Beach, Parks officers fined the women for bathing in shallow waters at 6:45 p.m., while it was still light out. If the city should be ticketing the bathers at all, why is the fine so high? A $25 fine would be reasonable, but $250 is probably a colossal chunk of their paycheck.

On a Web site called Gothamist, Irina Kovaneva griped that she can only swim after work; the lifeguards work from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. She asks how the city can operate the park police unit instead of paying lifeguards to remain on duty until 7 or 8 p.m.

Kovaneva recalls life in Mother Russia: “We came to the U.S. to escape the Communist regime, the regime when every step is watched and controlled by the government. What I am facing with this incident is a liberal fascism, when government interferes in your personal life and tells you what you should do, how and when.”

The Courier also reported that Sanitation police previously distributed tickets to small shop owners in Benson Hurst for failing to post signs in their shops designating recyclables. They went through the garbage in a pizzeria and ticketed the owner after finding a plastic bottle here.

Bloomberg denied that the ticketing system is intended to balance the books when he met with editors and reporters for the newspaper. He claimed that a quota system is needed to ensure that enforcement agents meet their responsibilities. Huh?

My friend recalled how he was initially fined $20 for a vehicular violation. He was late to respond, and by the time he did the fine rose to $70.

More than a year ago, I was ticketed for a $70 even though I already paid for a ticket on the River Line light rail operated by New Jersey Transit. I had forgotten to punch the ticket to mark the time I purchased it, but the officer did not care. He was probably under strict orders to ticket anything that moved. I fought this in court, without any attorney, and the judge dismissed the charges.

In central Pennsylvania several years ago, a police officer ticketed me after I drove around his car while it was stopped in the right lane. He was talking to someone and in the process blocked traffic. I was just trying to stay out of his way. He would not give me a chance to explain.

These quota systems are insane. It is a symptom of desperation in cities and other government entities that are deprived of needed tax revenues. The problem is deeper because suburbs benefit from middle-class flight and the cities send more money to Washington and their respective state capitals than they get back.

Those ladies in Brighton Beach did not leave Russia for a city that increasingly resembles a third-world country.

OLMERT'S TROUBLES COULD BE OURS

Thanks a bunch, Ehud.

You have created the potential for a new backlash against Jews throughout the world. It is a very real possibility in Europe and Middle East countries, and American Jews are vulnerable.

Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister of Israel, was formally indicted Sunday, Aug. 30, for accepting $600,000 in cash from a Long Island businessman; fraudulently billing multiple entities while in government; and promoting the the interests of a former law partner’s clients, according to The New York Times.

Practically speaking, severe repercussions in the United States are unlikely even if Olmert is found guilty. However, the possibility is always there, and Olmert’s case involves more significant inferences.

It is bad enough that American Jews must contend with Bernard Madoff, who demolished family fortunes, and a Brooklynite who stands accused of trafficking in human organs.

Olmert’s situation is more serious. He was prime minister of a young, vulnerable nation heavily dependent on the United States for money, arms and diplomatic support. He is the first Israeli prime minister ever to have been indicted on corruption charges, though some of his predecessors have come close. A conviction will mean that he cheated his own country.

Any American citizen has a right to question if Olmert, while he was at it, cheated the United States. Did he misuse American funds? Did he steer the president and Congress in the wrong direction in relations with other Arab nations? Did he employ military weapons for aggressive purposes?

Israel is accused of transgressions from different corners. Some allegations were true and others were flat-out lies.

Olmert probably never needed to trick the previous administration into anything. President Bush’s crowd was staunchly pro-Israel, and initially it backed right-wing policies. Olmert’s mismanagement of the 2006 war could well have been based on reckless advice from the Bush administration. After Hezbollah committed acts of war at the Israel/Lebanon border, the Israeli military mainly responded by hammering Lebanon with excessive air strikes while delaying ground troop action to the best advantage.

Olmert united all ideological factions in Israel toward the same goal: kicking him out of office. He could not quell a crisis adequately, which is the most fundamental skill required of an Israeli leader. He was also criticized for the unnecessary deaths of civilians and his government’s failure to maintain the military for a state of war.

Olmert’s departure as prime minister was welcomed by Israelis and their supporters for any number of reasons, though the corruption allegations finally drove him out. Because Olmert was indicted, what are outsiders to think? American taxpayers could finally decide it is time to cease sending aid to Israel. That would be understandable, and in a more volatile environment it should be expected.

As one non-Jewish friend told me, most Americans will view Olmert as another corrupt politician whose acts do not reflect on the Israeli people. In fact, people probably agree that Israel makes serious mistakes from time to time, but it is generally in the right and deserves America’s help.

That would be a valid assessment. I find that, overall, Americans have become more fair and reasonable in their judgment of situations. They are more apt to base conclusions on what individuals do, not on their race, religion or nationality. An American Jew won the popular election for vice president in 2000 and we now have an African-American president. Even Europeans who despised Bush knew better than to lump all Americans with him.

Still, the prospect for a backlash should never be underestimated. Too bad that Olmert never considered that possibility.

The Great White Liar

The great WHAT hope?

Lynn Jenkins is either a liar or a blithering idiot. Probably both. The freshman Republican congresswoman, who edged out a Democratic incumbent in a close election last year, invoked the phrase “great white hope” in the search for a Republican savior and then denied that she meant this as racist.

How else could she mean it? She employed the word “white” in the context of an African-American president who is swiftly trying to shift the nation’s ideology, all anathema to right-wing Republicans. Interpretation is not possible here. The words are just too starkly stated.

Jenkins’ comment was not only disgusting but downright silly. True, racism probably accounts for some attacks against President Obama, but would Republicans lay off a white male who leads a comparable policy shift?

In Hiawatha, Kansas, at a forum on Aug. 19, Jenkins proclaimed: “Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope. I suggest to any of you who are concerned about that, who are Republican, there are some great young Republican minds in Washington.”

How vague. Really, how much plainer can one get?

When she got caught, Jenkins told the Lawrence Journal-World: “I was unaware of any negative connotation, and if I offended anybody, obviously I apologize.”

Unaware? Jenkins has a college education and has held a number of responsible positions. How couldn’t she figure out that that was insulting?

Jenkins’ phrase originated nearly a century ago when Jack Johnson, a black boxer, became heavyweight champion, which was sufficient to incite white boxing fans to long for a “great white hope,” according to The New York Daily News. James Earl Jones portrayed Johnson in both the play and movie entitled “The Great White Hope.”

Even if this wasn’t a time-worn remark, the semantics alone are offensive.

Other notable aspects raise concerns. Is she yet another model of a Republican woman in politics? Like Sarah Palin, Republican women advocate for women’s concerns, yes, the concerns of wealthy women.

It was also quite the compounded oxymoron when she referred to “some great young Republican minds.” “Mind” and “Republican” in the same sentence?

She might have taken the edge off her assault when she identified three possible “white hopes” in Congress by characterizing Eric Cantor of Virginia as “the great Jewish hope,” Kevin McCarthy of California the “Baptist hope” and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin the “Catholic hope.” Cantor, who reps suburbs of Richmond, is the last remaining Jewish Republican in Congress, so he is the only one left to embarrass me.

One last misrepresentation: To seek a “great white hope” to challenge Obama is inaccurate. Obama’s father was black, but his mother - a native of Kansas - was white. That makes Obama half-white, and contributes to making Jenkins a half-wit.

SICKLY SENATE NEEDS SURGERY

Because James Madison compromised to enact a Constitution, President Obama is now willing to compromise to transform our health-care system.

Had Madison known that Americans would now be debating health-care reform, he probably would have predicted that the U.S. Senate might be the real stumbling block. The man who would become our fourth president believed 222 years ago that the compromise Connecticut plan to create the Senate as we know it would be unhealthy for democracy.

Madison and other delegates to the Constitutional Convention proposed proportionate representation for a national legislature precisely because the minority in this country can obstruct legislation that the majority wants. It is safe to figure that the majority in 23 states with a combined population of 168 million are demanding health-care reform; if we count swing states, including Florida’s 18 million residents, the number would likely top 200 million.

The largest Jewish communities are concentrated in many of these states.

Madison probably would have expected Sen. Kent Conrad’s pronouncement that “there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option.” Conrad, a Democrat, represents North Dakota, third from the bottom in population, at 641,000 people. New York and California, whose senators all back a government program for health insurance, together represent one-sixth of the population with a combined population of 55 million.

Conrad and other Democratic senators representing at least five swing states fear they may lose their seats if they vote for a health plan with a public option.

As a result, Obama is willing to compromise, just as Madison was in 1787. Madison’s Virginia delegation introduced its Virginia plan which proposed proportionate representation in the national legislature, but delegates from small states balked out of fear their interests would be subjugated to that of the larger states.

The delegation from New Jersey, a smaller state then but now 11th highest in population, introduced the New Jersey plan to protect their clout. Then came the compromise Connecticut plan - Connecticut is now the 29th most populous state - which left us with our current system requiring a crucial difference in voting powers between the House and the Senate.

Every member of the House has nearly equal clout, each representing the same number of constituents. Each state is represented by two senators, and they hardly have equal clout. California’s senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, afford their 36.7 million constituents as much power as Wyoming’s senators, Michael B. Enzi and John Barrasso, whose state is the least populous with 532,000 people.

Madison and other delegates ultimately came around simply because they wanted a Constitution. He even helped sell the Constitution to the public when he wrote one-third of the Federalist Papers. He supported the Senate plan, but even then he warned that the system could be “injurious.”

Obama cannot be blamed if a health-care bill as he wants it will be discarded by Conrad and company. The President cannot convince them to come on board so long as they are convinced their constituents oppose the public option. In the Senate, the will of the majority does not matter. What counts is what the majority in the majority of the states want. The tail wags the dog in the Senate.

The system is doubly unfair because we all pay the same tax rates and, presumably, the larger states pour the most tax money into the federal treasury, especially from places like Beverly Hills, New York’s Upper East Side and Greenwich, Conn.

Nice racket. It gives the term “other people’s money” new meaning. The racket must end. That the present Senate should be replaced by a chamber that affords more proportionate representation is long overdue. However, the Constitution itself makes that difficult at best. Two-thirds of both chambers and three-fourths of the states must approve any amendments.

On a practical level, lawmakers from the more progressive states can exploit their power of the purse. If any smaller, conservative states clog up a proposed national policy, the House can withhold money for these states. Maybe they can authorize a nuclear waste dump next door to North Dakota’s state capitol.

Interestingly, Senate Democrats began considering a Senate procedure which would circumvent a filibuster and require only a majority vote to pass a reform bill.

Meanwhile, liberals from Greenwich Village and Berkeley can move to these states to offset the old-school votes. Not me. To paraphrase film satirist Al Brooks, you spend the winter in North Dakota.

CRIME AND HEALTH CARE

Is it a war? Abortion? Israel? A racial clash? An election in Florida? No, health care.

It is really about far more - a shift in ideology and balance of power.

The wonkish health-care debate has degenerated into lynch-mob rage bonded with racist and other bigoted expressions. It has grown into the political lynching of our first President of color, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Their conduct is inexcusable. They have been crude, racist, disruptive, insulting, somewhat criminal and hypocritical. They resemble the white mobs who taunted black schoolchildren as they entered newly integrated schools 40 or 50 years ago. Organizers of the town-hall meetings have effective means at their disposal to respond, mainly by having police arrest anyone who is disruptive.

These people monopolized the early hearings, shouting at members of Congress who hosted the sessions and drowning out voices in support of health-care reform. That in itself constitutes disorderly conduct, not to mention some of the fights which erupted. Someone painted a swastika on a sign outside the office of U.S. Rep. David Scott in Georgia. The African-American congressman told the Associated Press that some of his mail contained a racial epithet and references to President Obama as a Marxist.

In Portsmouth, N.H., a man carried a sign that read “Obama and Pelosi = Mein Kampf” outside a high school where Obama hosted a town meeting; Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Sen. Arlen Specter was confronted in Lebanon, Pa., by Craig Miller, 59, who told him: “One day, God is going to stand before you, and he’s going to judge you,” as The New York Daily News reported. Specter is Jewish, and one must wonder what Miller was thinking when he spouted these words.

Calvin Montgomery, 39, of Exeter, N.H., opposes a governmental role in health care, but he makes his living off the government. He told the Daily News that his employer provides him with health insurance, and his employer is a government contractor. Former Pennsylvania insurance commissioner Herb Denenberg chided Congress in a commentary for rushing into a vote, yet I do not recall Denenberg or other health-care critics scolding Congress seven years ago for rushing its vote to invade Iraq.

These spectacles are bad for our health - the health of our democratic process. The critics have every right to speak out, and they should. They may well have legitimate concerns that should be communicated to Congress for the betterment of us all. However, it is very hard to distinguish between rhetoric and genuine concerns amid all the bombast.

It is clear that the Republican Party is trying to undermine Obama; prominent right-wingers are whipping up a frenzy; and companies that will lose profits are probably financing this uproar. However, there are real people who are speaking their minds and identifying themselves for the public record.

Why do we hear from them now? For 28 years, they had no need to assert themselves so forcefully. The Republican Party turned hard right when Ronald Reagan was elected president, and has generally had its way whether it had partial or nearly complete powers during those years. The party has since collapsed of its own weight and now its hard-core followers have very limited clout in Washington.

With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, Obama and his congressional allies are moving government in a direction abhorred by right-wingers. Obama and his supporters call it public service, and his critics call it “socialism.”

As an aside, racism was injected partly because of Obama’s race, but these goons would be no less obnoxious if a white male led this movement.

The only legitimate response to such uproar is to alert police and press criminal charges. These thugs figure that their hosts are such easy marks that they can get away with anything they want short of violence. However, disrupting these meetings amounts to harassment and disorderly conduct, if not other relatively minor criminal offenses.

They’re bullies. They figure that nothing will happen to them. If the senators and House members sought arrests and criminal prosecution at the outset, these free-for-alls would have been ended swiftly. No self-respecting instigator is going to risk punishment he so richly deserves.

On a communal level, supporters of health-care reform can stand up and be counted. The lynch-mob movement provoked a backlash. U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Senate candidate who represents a suburban area, shrewdly hosted a meeting in downtown Philadelphia on Tuesday, Aug. 11, drawing far more supporters than critics. I stood in line and participated in a mini-debate where an opponent was alone against four of us health-care backers. A large crowd turned out for a rally in Jenkintown, a Philadelphia suburb, the following Saturday in support of reform.

A sure way to convert Calvin Montgomery, the New Hampshire guy whose employer contracts with the government, would be for the government to cancel the company’s contract, which would in turn lay off Montgomery. Then he’ll become a devoted supporter of health-care reform.

TWILIGHT ZONE OF PREJUDICE

Racial guilt, of sorts, gnaws at me.

With the Cambridge flap looming large, two African-American women were handed a legitimate reason to wonder if I was dissing them. I stepped off a train at Penn Station in Manhattan, entered an elevator holding four other people and stood directly in front of the button panel. I spotted the two women standing outside the elevator and plenty of room was still available for them. Why should I deny them entry?

I never did. The doors closed on the women and I scrambled to find the “open” button. A man’s finger poked the air to my side as he uttered something about finding the right button. He pushed the button that sent us spiraling upward to the station concourse. I was the only white guy there; the others appeared to be Asian. These poor women had a right to wonder if I deliberately barred them from the elevator because of their race.

I felt incredibly stupid. I was tempted to tell the other guy, “Thanks a bunch.”

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. bungled his reaction to a Cambridge police officer’s visit on July 16, but his actions were nonetheless fully understandable. The officer’s investigation touched a nerve, tapping a deep reserve within Gates of centuries-old racism toward him personally and African-Americans in general. The celebrated scholar’s sensitivities were compounded by struggling with a cold and enduring an extremely long flight from China.

Lucia Whalen was performing her civic duty by alerting 911 that two men seemed to be breaking into a house. Sgt. James Crowley responded to a call of a break-in. He claimed that Gates was confrontational from the outset and showed him a Harvard identification which excluded his address, The Washington Post reported.

A smart, responsible citizen always cooperates with any symbol of authority. Gates should have waited until the incident was done and, if he was still upset with the officer’s conduct, report his concerns to the police department. Maybe Gates would have done this if he was thinking clearly at the time. If Crowley was truthful, then he might have been attempting to sort out the matter as Gates harangued him. This would mean that Gates interfered with an incomplete investigation.

Yet, Gates cannot be blamed. Gates could have been responding to the perception of prejudice. We all know the depth of racism in American history - the common practice of lynching young black men in the South; pervasive segregation only 40 years ago; widespread poverty in the black community; and even the barring of African-American campers from a suburban Philadelphia swim club weeks ago.

Boston itself is known as the North’s bastion of racism. I am sometimes the only white person when I ride Philadelphia’s buses and subways, and while visiting Boston I discovered that most passengers on its subways and trolleys were white. The few African-Americans on board were visibly nervous. Maybe Gates was irritated with persistent racial attitudes there.

Who knows what racism Gates experienced in his own life?

Gates might have been stressed out by his long flight from China and his struggle with a cold. He arrives home and maybe can only think about flopping down on his bed. Then a white police officer enters his house demanding that he provide identification on his own property. That sets him off, possibly.

With America’s history of racism and other forms of bigotry, prejudice has dimmed somewhat in this country. That presents an interesting and vexing problem. A situation may bear all the earmarks of bigotry, but it turns out not to be the case. Jewish groups seeking to build schools or synagogues in congested suburbs have charged anti-Semitism when their neighbors - less observant Jews among them - object to their grandiose plans. If a black athlete is arrested, is the “man” trying to bring him down or did he commit a crime? When an imam denounced Jews at a Muslim conference, did he represent only himself or did he verbalize what most Muslims are thinking?

Unlike the bad old days, it is often difficult to figure out what these things are all about. A white social worker who removes a child from a black mother’s home is doing exactly what many black social workers would do. There are non-Jews who criticize Israel because they genuinely believe the government misused its powers. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s assertion that “wise Latinas” know best does not mean she hates white males.

Few of us can forget the context of our history. It is hard to trust other groups after centuries of discrimination. Some conservative Jews are already calling President Obama an anti-Semite because of his demands on Israel. Lucia Whalen was accused of racism before Cambridge police tapes proved that she did not inject race into her 911 call. Many whites cease considering any arguments on a racial issue the instant that Jesse Jackson Jr. or Al Sharpton open their mouths.

On a personal level, the harsher critics of Israel have called me an apologist and hawkish Jews likened me to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister accused of appeasing Hitler. A black jury foreman told me, during a break in deliberations in a case with racial overtones, that there were things I needed to learn. Like what? How to be abrasive and antagonize a somewhat liberal white man?

We have reached a stage that resembles a twilight zone of prejudice, where we must separate the wheat from the chaff. That’s hard work, but who said that keeping a free society free was easy?

THOUGHTLESS AMERICA

What were they thinking? They weren’t.

Not many of Bernie Madoff’s victims. Not two-thirds of Congress in October 2002, among other instances. Not voters who often entrust incapable candidates with public office.

The fury voiced by Madoff’s victims in past weeks begs this question: How could they take such chances with their fortunes, large or small? Would they gamble their entire paycheck on slot machines each week? It is one thing to invest part of their money with Madoff or anyone else, but nearly everything?

I sympathize with these people, but their grousing affirms that they refuse to take personal responsibility. Hirschhorn family members were quoted by at least three news organizations complaining about Madoff. Carla Hirschhorn of Manalapan, N.J., was quoted in The New York Daily News as saying, “He has destroyed us. We are not wealthy, fancy people. Never were, never will be.”

Her family’s loss was $7 million, according to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article. That’s not wealthy? Who couldn’t live on $7 million?

Madoff blew $21 million of the American Jewish Congress’s endowment, 90 percent of the account, JTA reported. In fact, Madoff was once a board member of AJCongress, which meant that he influenced the agency’s policies while being entrusted with much of its cash. That’s a conflict of interest.

Alluding to Madoff’s 150-year prison sentence for defrauding clients in a Ponzi scheme, acting co-executive director Marc Stern said, “Mr. Madoff is not going to find any sympathy from us…It doesn’t give us our $20 million back…It is satisfaction mixed with the reality that it does not undo the harm that he did?”

That he did? Perhaps the 25 former staff members who lost their jobs lack “any sympathy” for their old bosses. Did Madoff force them to invest the money? Madoff was no doubt skillful in convincing them to invest the money with him, but in the end it was still their decision.

It is this kind of thinking - true, that is a contradiction in terms - which produces so much trouble in our society. People neglect to consider the consequences of their actions. It is common sense to take into account the potential results of a major decision. If they had that kind of money accrued by Madoff‘s victims, many people would make certain to bank a substantial amount of it before considering investments.

Examples throughout history abound of failure to think things through: Custer’s last stand, the Confederacy’s split from the Union, the North’s application of Reconstruction, the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam war, to name a few. Recently, tax cuts for the rich, the mortgage scandal and, especially, the invasion of Iraq.

Congress in October 2002 voted to authorize military action in Iraq without bothering to consider the risks.

There were risks, among them a ghastly civil war and an administration which set the stage for thousands of deaths, drained hundreds of billions from our treasury, left government buildings vulnerable to looting, tortured prisoners and furnished multi-billion dollar assignments to private firms tightly linked to the White House.

The public either supported the war or did not care. The relatively few dissenters could not gain traction during the early part of the war. President Bush and Congress were warned repeatedly that the invasion of Iraq would be a high-stakes gamble. All anyone needed to do was follow history.

An acquaintance suggested that Congress’s decision to permit the invasion of Iraq resulted from an emotional reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Congress was not created to act on emotions but to deliberate on the pros and cons on given issues that come before them.

If Congress was to operate according to the emotions of the people, there would be no need for Congress. A form of mob rule would be adequate. The idea of bringing together representatives of the public amounts to a meeting of the minds, presumably some of our best minds.

In other words, they are expected to think before voting on measures which could decide the fate of the world.