Why Donors like Chabad Part 2

Why Donors like Chabad Part 2

By Dovid Efune

When attending the annual conference of Chabad emissaries in New York, I am frequently tempted to contrast it with similar conventions whose attendees are mandated with securing the Jewish future. Particularly the Jewish Federations' General Assembly comes to mind as it often takes place around the same time.

Last year, following the Chabad conference, in an article entitled 'Why Donors like Chabad,' I pointed to a structure that secures almost immediate ROI for venture philanthropists free from red tape and bureaucracy. This year, surrounded by over 4000 emissaries at the grand banquet, I was inspired to expand on this idea from a different angle.

Chabad's rapid growth and unbridled success is undeniable, as Britain's Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks expressed in his keynote address to the gathering, "You, the Shluchim (emissaries) are among the most important people in the Jewish world today." Even for many of the other successful Jewish outreach groups that have emerged since the era of Chabad dominance, admittedly or not, it has been through a borrowed page from Chabad's book. So what is the secret to Chabad's success?

Since as early as the Israelite slavery in Egypt, the greatest threat to Jewish continuity hasn't been physical, but spiritual. Today, it is well known that far more Jews are lost to assimilation and out-marriage than to Islamic terror or any other threat.

In dealing with this crisis, two divergent groups emerged among activists. One group, pioneered by the founders of the Haskala movement argued that Judaism had to be brought to the people. The laws needed to be loosened, and the rituals modified to suit the more cosmopolitan zeitgeist. For the Orthodox, the opposite was true. The only way to secure the Jewish future they argued was to double down, expel all external influences and distractions, and create closed communities of Jewish observance and tradition.

The founders of the Chabad movement recognized the strengths and weaknesses in both schools of thought combing the ideologies in a winning formula. The Jewish principles of faith could never be diluted; after all, the process of dilution never ends. As such, Chabad maintains absolutist principles of authentic Jewish traditionalism. For some adherents they are practical, for others aspirational, but the core ideals are sacrosanct.

However, Chabad vigorously opposes isolationism, and endeavors to hand-deliver its messages to every single Jew on whatever level of practice they are comfortable with. The flexibility is within the Jew, not within Judaism.

Chabad has got it. Chabad has categorically answered all the questions and has understood the secret to guaranteeing the Jewish future. Now, their only focus is on the task at hand, getting the job done.

It is interesting to note, that at most grand Jewish conventions, the vast majority of attendees are donors. Conferences and banquets are peppered with organization staff. At the Shluchim convention however, donors are by far in the minority, illustrating the centrality in Chabad of the mission over the means.

Last Friday, commemorating three years since the horrific attacks on Mumbai that left a Chabad emissary and his wife dead, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Warren Kozak. He wrote, "In another community, the violent deaths of such a young and promising couple might have sent shivers through the leadership, prompting them to pull other emissaries from the field. But Chabad's leadership did the opposite, immediately sending another couple to take their place," This bold act demonstrated yet again the degree of commitment and dedication that the movement's followers have ascribed to their mission.

Investor Warren Buffett famously said, "Wide diversification is only required when investors do not understand what they are doing." Chabad donors understand exactly what they are doing.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.algemeiner.com for more information.

Which Republican Presidential Candidate Is Best for Israel?

Which Republican Presidential Candidate Is Best for Israel?

By Dovid Efune

In a November 12^th interview with The Algemeiner, ADL National Chairman Abraham Foxman declared that when it comes to positions on Israel, "with the exception of Ron Paul, there is not much difference between the parties." I cannot imagine how he arrived at this conclusion, as in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

It is correct, that in the United States, due to overwhelming popularity among the general populace, Israel as a political issue stands alone. Candidates take sides on every issue, from abortion to gay rights, to the size of government and deficit reduction. However when it comes to Israel, a mainstream American politician that openly champions an anti-Israel stance, more than likely renders himself unelectable.

In order to bypass this inconvenience, many politicians with divergent views on sticky Israeli issues have attempted to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel by formulating their own definitions on what is in Israel's best interests. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to run for Congress, he would first proclaim his great love for the Jewish State and then go on to explain that in his well-considered opinion it is in Israel's best interest to be nuked.

This is precisely the collective point of Republican divergence from Obama Administration positions on Israel. Every single candidate, including Ron Paul (with the exception of his opinion on aid) would look to Israeli government positions as the guide to its interests and for use as a barometer by which to gauge support.

While this is the case, for the sake of clarity and definitive evaluation, I set out to rank the Republican candidates purely in order of 'how good they would be for Israel.' Some of their positions on various intricacies have yet to be clarified, and not all relevant information was available to me at the time of publication. As the primary process progresses I suspect that this list will need to be tweaked, but for now, here is my assessment from worst to best:

8. Ron Paul
Paul's positions on Israel have been almost uniformly derided. Whilst claiming to be non-interventionist on the issue, he has routinely adopted Arab talking points on Israel, even comparing Gaza to 'a concentration camp.' His Isolationist mantra may appeal to fiscal conservatives, but in the real world its implementation would create a global power vacuum that would likely be filled by supporters of Israel's enemies.

7. Jon Huntsman
Although highly critical of Obama administration policies toward Israel, in a recent National Review article, he explained the unilateral Palestinian bid for statehood, saying that "when Israel lost confidence in its ally (the United States), their position understandably hardened. This led to the Palestinian Authority also losing hope in the peace process." While sympathetic, Huntsman blames PA actions on Israeli positions, representing a fundamental misunderstanding of Israel's predicament.

6. Herman Cain
At a recent New York fundraiser I heard Herman Cain firmly proclaim "if you're messing with Israel you're messing with the U.S.A." While his sentiments seem to be in the right place, his lack of experience and knowledge of the intricacies may mean that he will leave major decisions in the hands of others, which could prove more risky for Israel. This unfamiliarity was demonstrated when he was recently asked by Fox News host Chris Wallace about the Palestinian Arab 'right of return' claim, where he responded "Yes, they should have a right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make."

5. Rick Perry
At a press conference in New York and earlier Jerusalem Post column, Perry outlined his positions on Israel. He strongly opposed the Obama induced settlement freeze, and called on Palestinian Arab leaders to "publicly affirm Israel's right to exist, and to exist as a Jewish state." Like Romney, Perry favors 'Negotiated Settlement,' and in the absence of Arab compliance, would refrain from placing the onus of the blame on Israel.

4. Mitt Romney
Famously accusing President Obama of "throwing Israel under the bus," in his book 'No Apology' Romney shows sympathy for and understanding of Israel's challenges. While still favoring and pledging to support a negotiated two state settlement, based on a position paper posted on his website and his comments in a recent National Review Online article, he would allow Israel to take the lead on security issues and he would fight against unilateral Arab actions and anti-Semitic attacks on the State. At Tuesday's televised foreign policy debate Romney was the first candidate to pledge that his first foreign trip as president would be to Israel. His policies would likely be most similar to those of George W. Bush.

3. Newt Gingrich
"No country can be expected to conduct peace negotiations with a terrorist organization, or with a Palestinian Governmental Authority that joins forces with such a terrorist organization," declared Gingrich at a Republican Jewish Coalition event. Like many of the other candidates, he supports the status of Jerusalem as the "undivided capital of the Jewish state." Widely viewed as the smartest candidate, his views translate into nuanced and comprehensive pro-Israel policy. 

2. Michelle Bachmann
A video posted on Bachmann's website demonstrates a notable understanding on Middle East issues. Her first trip to the Holy Land was in 1974, when, at age 17 she joined a group of Minnesota teens to spend a summer in Israel. At a recent dinner for the Zionist Organization of America she said "if I am President, not one inch of Israel will ever be on the chopping block," uniquely expressing the view that any territorial concessions are dangerous for Israel.

1. Rick Santorum
In a recent off the cuff campaign trail interview, Santorum broke ranks when he schooled a reporter on Israeli history. Regarding development in the territories of Judea and Samaria, he said, "the bottom line is that that is legitimately Israeli country. And they have a right to do within their country just like we have a right to do within our country." He also denied the existence of 'Palestinians' as a distinct people, thus dismissing calls for the establishment of another hostile Arab state on Israel's border. He did not clarify what the legal status of West Bank Arabs should be. 

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.algemeiner.com for more information.

God is Doing Well in the Polls These Days”: Over 1000 Watch Senator Joseph Lieberman Deliver 6th Annual Gershon Jacobson Lecture

"God is Doing Well in the Polls These Days": Over 1000 Watch Senator Joseph Lieberman Deliver 6^th Annual Gershon Jacobson Lecture

New York - Senator Joseph Lieberman was warmly welcomed by over 1000 people as the featured speaker at the Sixth Annual Gershon Jacobson Lecture, held on October 3^rd in Manhattan's famed Park East Synagogue. Sponsored by Shefa Yamim, Senator Lieberman's historic lecture on "the two subjects banned from most families' dinner tables" – Religion and Politics – was hosted by the Gershon Jacobson Foundation and The Algemeiner.

Lieberman opened his speech with glowing praise for The Algemeiner and the GJCF, pointing out that these entities serve as the "independent truth telling advocates for the Jewish people and Israel" and bridge builders to bring the "wisdom of Jewish tradition to the modern world." He   noted especially the paper's use of modern media to reach algemeiner – everyone.

 

Lieberman's talk went on to combine the best of an exhorting sermon, an exciting rally, and an extraordinary commencement speech.

 

Emphasizing throughout his lecture America's founding fathers' cornerstone dream of national religious freedom and acceptance, Lieberman asserted passionately that America defines itself by "its values and its purposes," and was, from its beginning, an "initiative" based on faith. "Elected officials are not polling well ," the Senator quipped, "but God continues to do very well in America." The Senator attributes God's "edge in the polls" to the Declaration of Independence, where America's founders expressed the fundamental right to personal religious freedom – and the national freedom from establishment of an official religion. By guaranteeing this level of freedom, the Senator said, they founded a nation that lives by what President Lincoln termed "a kind of civic religion… (where) people of all religions are welcomed and given their pla ce in the public square."

And for that, the Senator said, "God Bless America," going on to note that in 5772 years of Jewish history, Jews have had more freedom, success and opportunity in America than anywhere except Israel. In the Senator's opinion, the only stumbling block to Jewish success in America is the limitations Jews place on themselves: "Fear of anti-Semitism among Jews is much greater than the reality of anti-Semitism among Christians," he said. When a hand lettered sign reading "Viva Chutzpa" appeared at an Hispanic presidential rally, said the Senator, it represented to him the "basic sense of opportunity that America provided…a ticket with a Jewish American got a half million votes more than the other ticket – an objective indicator of the religious tolerance that was the dream of our founders."

Commenting on the upcoming 2012 Presidential election, Lieberman said he "does not share the anxiety about candidates' open professions of faith…Jews get nervous, remembering that such discussions are often a precursor to bad times," he said, but quickly advised, "Keep in mind the extraordinary history of religious freedom, tolerance and acceptance, and the constitutional framework that protects us." Further, said the legislator, we are living in a "remarkable time when the relationship between Christians and Jews is at an unprecedented good level." He gave special recognition to the "great movement of change" among Christian Evangelicals.

Lieberman warned that the 2012 campaign "will be partisan, bitter, and personal." Clearly stating that he was "not endorsing any candidate," he noted that, should one of the two Mormon candidates in the Republican be nominated, "it will break a barrier – the first time a Mormon will be running. I hope the Jewish community is…in the lead to make sure they are judged in the American way – based on qualities and not based on their faith."

"It's a tough time in American life," Senator Lieberman acknowledged as he wrapped up his speech. "Hundreds of millions of Americans are pessimistic about America's future. I don't buy this pessimism. This century will be another great century for America. Don't ever sell such a nation short!"

GJCF/Algemeiner

This annual lecture is a program of the Gershon Jacobson Jewish Continuity Foundation (GJCF), established in 2005 after the death of Gershon Jacobson, the long-time editor and publisher of the The Algemeiner. Jacobson, one of the most respected and influential Jewish journalists of recent history, was described by Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel as a "warrior for truth." He served as a courageous, independent advocate for the most important issues facing the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

The GJCF, which bears Jacobson's name, is dedicated to perpetuate his pioneering spirit by serving as a valiant media voice addressing the most compelling issues of our time, with vision, integrity and moral clarity, informed by the power of 4000 years of Jewish experience and wisdom. The organization is directed by Simon Jacobson and Dovid Efune, and is overseen by a highly prestigious tribute committee. The GJCF is responsible for publishing the weekly Algemeiner and has recently been referred to by Fox News as the fastest growing Jewish newspaper in America. For a comprehensive description of Algemeiner and GJCF activities, please visit www.gjcf.com or www.algemeiner.com.

The Ultimate Jewish New Year Greeting

The Ultimate New Year Greeting

By Dovid Efune

For many Jews this time of year provides an opportunity, not just for personal renewal, but for the revival of thinning bonds and the reestablishment of relationships that have withered. A pervasive mood of collectivism descends upon Jewish communities around the world and a numerous variety of well-wishing expressions are mutually exchanged.

Among the shared sentiments are the usual suspects of health, wealth, success and any number of cliché greetings. Although well-meaning, most are superficial and at some point develop an aura of monotony. So I found myself considering, what in truth would be the most meaningful blessing one could impart on a good friend, a significant other, a family member or colleague. What would I wish most for myself?

 

I came across inspiration last weekend while working my way through the epic two volume biography of Vladimir Jabotinsky entitled 'Lone Wolf,' which was authored by famed historian Shmuel Katz over a period of seven years. Jabotinsky, as a very young man, before he had been introduced to Zionism, enjoyed tremendous popularity as a writer. In fact Katz points out that the writer and dramatist Ansky was quoted as saying, "there isn't a beautiful woman in the world who enjoys as much adulation as did Jabotinsky in his young days in Odessa." Then something occurred that changed his life forever. It didn't happen to him but to others, yet it affected him so deeply that his life's focus and purpose radically shifted. From the sixth to the eighth of April 1903 a pogrom took place in the Russian city Kishinev, during which fifty Jews were killed, hundreds more injured and many women raped. Katz writes that "Jabotinsky went to Kishi nev to distribute food and clothing. He visited hospitals talked to eyewitnesses and burrowed through the ruins." From that point on, he adopted the cause of Zionism with all his being, championing it as a path to preserving Jewish pride, dignity and life.

 

One can't help but wonder what it was about Jabotinsky that compelled him to give up a life of comfort, renown and achievement to focus all his efforts and talents on attempting to actualize a distant dream which had a small chance of succeeding. How many people do you know who are that sensitive to the needs of others, who care deeply enough to uproot themselves from their set path of comfort and routine for the sake of the greater good?

 

The tragedy of Kishinev took place one hundred and eight years ago and the furor that it and other similar horrors provoked ultimately led to the rebirth of Jewish independent sovereignty. There is no question that to some degree the goal of Zionism has been achieved and Jews around the world are safer now than they have been throughout the last millennium. But one could argue that as long as Jewish lives are at risk on a day to day basis anywhere in the world Zionism has failed to deliver on all of its promises, necessitating that we establish for ourselves new goals and set about compiling a manifesto that will chart the course to their realization.

 

Modern day manifestations of Jewish persecution live on. On Friday Asher Palmer and his one year old son Yehonatan were killed in a terror attack. Did even an act as horrific as the Fogel family murder change anybody's life so significantly as to fuel a movement whose goals where designed to forever prevent it's repetition? I know in New York, most shook their heads, attended a memorial service and went about their daily lives.

 

It seems that the most profound New Year wish is one that calls for not only a better future for the recipient but on their capacity to create a better future for others. One that challenges their apathetic and indifferent status quo and calls upon them - in the words of Holocaust Survivor Elie Wiesel in a recent Algemeiner interview– to 'think higher and feel deeper.' To actually care.

 

British statesman Benjamin Disraeli said it best, "Life is too short to be little. Man is never so manly as when he feels deeply, acts boldly, and expresses himself with frankness and with fervor." 

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.algemeiner.com for more information.

A Little Help for Terror Attack in Norway

"A Little Help" for Terror

 

By Dovid Efune

 

As Friday's horrific events unfolded in Norway, I was reminded of a scene from the 1997 dark comedy film Wag the Dog starring Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman. The ever pertinent movie, written by David Mamet and Hilary Henkin, explores the crossroads between, power, the media, public relations and show biz.

 

In the plot, less than two weeks before Election Day, a sitting President is caught in a closed room making advances on an underage girl. He drafts De Niro's character to handle the PR crisis, who, as a diversionary tactic, promptly sets about staging a fake war against Albania with the aid of an eccentric Hollywood producer played by Hoffman. "Why Albania?" asks a Presidential aid, "why not," answers De Niro as he instructs her to encourage media interest in the 'war' by outright denying it. At a press conference shortly afterwards, attention has already shifted away from the President's misdemeanor and members of the media pry for more information on the 'war,' suggesting possible catalysts. One journalist asks, "Is the situation in Albania anything to do with the Muslim fundamentalist, anti-American uprising?" "Now they're getting this," says De Niro, "there you go, there&r squo;s a little help."

 

In the movie, the press not only swallow whatever they are fed, but also serve as useful fools in furthering the false narrative by jumping the gun, presupposing and making false assumptions.

 

As the initial news coverage of the atrocities was unfolding, there was still much uncertainty over the particulars. Whilst most of the programming pertained to the events alone, much of the commentary was focused on suggesting who was responsible for this horror and why. The initial general assumption in the media was that this attack bore all the hallmarks of an Islamist group, shortly afterwards this appeared to be confirmed when an Islamist organization claimed responsibility on its website and the New York Times, as well as other newspapers, carried the headline. A few hours later it became clear that this was not the case.

 

What happened in the interim was disturbing, as journalists and commentators rushed to provide a 'little help,' albeit likely inadvertently, by suggesting a litany of possible agitators that may have prompted this bloody outburst. Among the suggestions repeated by terror experts and anchors on the BBC, was Norway's involvement in the ongoing NATO strikes of Libya, having soldiers in Afghanistan and the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad in a Norwegian newspaper.

 

It is interesting to note that once it was confirmed that the suspect was actually an anti Islamist extremist, there were no explanations from the media, only blame leveled at other anti Islamist writers and activists most of whom have never advocated violence. The hypocrisy is just stunning; when the belief was that the perpetrators where Muslim extremists the blame was directed towards those at the polar opposite of the political spectrum for fueling the Islamist hatred of the West. However once this was discovered not to be the case, the blame fell yet again on the same side of the political spectrum as media pundits pointed fingers at the political right. The logically consistent approach, which is of course nonsensical, would have been to lay blame with stalwarts of politically leftwing multiculturalist ideology for inspiring the rampage.

 

Herein lies an important lesson that is to be learned. It is a point that has been made before but still hasn't been internalized; there is no catalyst for terror, no excuse, cause, justification or explanation and it is time that members of the press stopped acting as useful fools in delivering a 'little help' to its protagonists by presupposing that there is.

 

At an August 2006 speech to the World Trade Affairs Council in Los Angles former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "Still now, I am amazed at how many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget entirely that September 11th predated either. The West didn't attack this movement. We were attacked. Until then we had largely ignored it."

 

British Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove makes this point at length in his book, Celsius 7/7, where he demonstrates that Western activities around the globe have had no impact on the spread of Islamic terror. He quotes ICM polls that show "the proportion of Muslims supporting either September 11^th or al Qaeda or similar organizations' attacking the United States was 15 percent in 2001, 11 percent in 2002 and 13 percent in 2004."

 

Despicably, Norway's Ambassador to Israel, Svein Sevje, even went so far as to tell the Israeli newspaper Maariv that there are "distinctions between the Norwegian attacks and terrorism in Israel." "We Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel," he said. "Those who believe this will not change their mind because of the attack in Oslo."

 

Killers need no excuse to kill, barbaric ideologies will thrive regardless of the allegiances and activities of the public, and the principles of the victims are certainly not to blame. Evil demands no invitation in rearing its ugly head, and we dare not provide justification.

 

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.algemeiner.com for more information.

Never Again Is Not Just a Slogan

Never Again' Is Not Just a Slogan

By Dovid Efune

Following the Holocaust, two phrases stand out above all others as concrete universal Jewish resolutions. The first, 'Zachor' (to remember), is to ensure that the past will never be forgotten and its memory will always serve as a guide for the future. The second,  'Never Again,' is not limited to the horrors of a particular time or place, nor by extent or methods, but rather it symbolizes the Jewish people's collective resolve to never stand by the blood of their brethren and to never allow innocents to be brutalized for the crime of being Jewish. Yet it was only days ago that communities around the world were devastated once again by news emanating from Israel, that five innocent souls were murdered in cold blood.

Holocaust remembrance has been a commitment that the Jewish community has consistently lived up to, but what of securing a safe Jewish future?  What is the purpose of a moving memorial or museum, if not to serve as a stark reminder of what human beings are capable of and what is likely to occur if the guardians of moral justice are not vigilant in their duties?

Whilst mindful of a history of tragedy, Jews must not be defined by their victimhood but by the strength of their moral resolve. It is the Jewish ability to act as the vocal moral conscience of the world that will ensure that 'Never Again' is not just a slogan, but a universal clarion call to concrete action.

Today, the Israel Defense Forces stand at the forefront of this battle, and one can have no doubt that they will spare little effort in capturing the killers and bringing them to justice. Their ongoing efforts to ensure the safety and security of Israel's citizens will be intensified as the gravity of what they are fighting for has become more real.

But Israel is not only defended by its brave soldiers; everyone can take action – specifically within the US – where silent or active facilitators, excusers, and those who seek to misdirect the blame abound. It is crucial that they are held responsible and accountable for their public positions and statements and are never allowed to embolden the wretched hand of terror.

In this particular case there are two specific morally perverse agendas that many are working to propagate.  The first is the myth that Jewish development in Judea and Samaria is the motivating force behind Arab barbarism. The second is that this attack was an isolated incident with no context or responsible party beyond the direct perpetrators.

The first and obvious culprits are the Palestinian Arab Authority, who, with a statement by Mahmoud Abbas on Israeli radio, denied outright that incitement is rampant. Even as the Itamar victims were buried on Sunday, Fatah named a square in El-Bireh after the leader of the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre.

There is much that can be done to combat Arab incitement. First and foremost, a concerted domestic political effort to keep this issue at the forefront of all Arab-Israeli discussions, and support those groups that monitor and bring attention to the daily fever pitch vitriolic anti-Semitism rampant in state-sponsored Palestinian Arab media.

The News Media reporting was atrocious, with various networks using neutral terms to describe the killers whilst other generally buried the story.

The BBC of course was worst of all, as was pointed out by honestreporting.com:

"The BBC, however, virtually buried the Fogel family's massacre, once again demonstrating its obsession with the settlement issue above all other issues relating to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. No dedicated reportage of the brutal attack was featured elsewhere on the site. Instead, subsumed in a story of settlements, it warrants only a few lines. The BBC does, however, report that the attack "has shocked many Palestinians". Of course, the BBC failed to mention that Hamas described the attack as a "heroic operation" while sweets and candies were handed out in Gaza in celebration. The BBC has exercised its own moral judgment that says that the issuing of building permits in settlements is the cause of terror. Otherwise, the story may have included statements from Israel's Prime Minister Netanyah u attributing the terror attack to Palestinian incitement."

Many have partaken in letter writing campaigns to various media outlets, but what is far more effective is an active campaign to discourage advertisers from using these platforms. Protesting to companies that support CNN and the BBC with their advertising by explaining the moral implications of their activities may go a long way. When businesses are made aware that the overwhelming majority of Americans are favorable to Israel, they may think twice about establishing affiliations with the guilty networks.

What was most disturbing of all was the statement issued by the White House that to the untrained eye may have appeared appropriate. However, statements of this significance are very carefully crafted and every word is expertly positioned; it opened by saying: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms the murder of five Israelis in a terrorist attack in the northern West Bank, and we offer our condolences to their loved ones and to the Israeli people," and concluded with this troubling statement, "we call on the Palestinian Authority to unequivocally condemn this terrorist attack and for the perpetrators of this heinous crime to be held accountable."

By juxtaposing the request for Palestinian condemnation with the desire for the perpetrators to be held accountable, the Obama administration effectively exonerated the PA from Netanyahu's accusation of incitement.

It will take constant vigilance and courage on the part of Jews around the world to combat the tide of injustice and to impart the narrative of truth to misguided decision makers. Over time this is a feat that can be achieved, and is crucial to fulfilling the eternal Jewish promise of 'Never Again.'

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit Algemeiner.com for more information.

The Politics of Altruism: What Obama can Learn From the Judaism

The Politics of Altruism: What Obama can Learn From Judaism

By Dovid Efune

As widespread unrest throughout the Muslim world continues, A Case for Democracy by former Soviet dissident and Israeli politician Natan Sharansky is a must-read. Almost prophetic in nature, he outlines and expertly presents multiple arguments and counterarguments relating to the building and maintaining of a free society. He authoritatively concludes that the power of freedom can overcome tyranny and terror.

In the introduction to the book, Sharansky arguesthat the Nixon/Kissinger Realpolitik approach to handling the Soviets was in fact fundamentally flawed:

"The term détente, a French word meaning "relaxation" was used during the cold war to describe a policy approach that was supposed to 'ease tensions' between the superpowers. Its detractors saw it as a euphemism for appeasement. "

It was Reagan, he says, who got it right, in understanding the fundamental weakness of a society whose population lives in fear. He pursued "an activist policy that linked the Soviet Union's international standing to the regime's treatment of its own people."

Upon reflection, it seems that political policy is very much a manifestation of the specific worldview of those individuals who are responsible for its implementation.

Nixon and Kissinger practiced the politics of realism, seeing the world for what it was; their primary concern was how to maintain the status quo and preserve their interests, hence the implementation of policies such as 'containment' and 'détente.' These policies were largely reactionary and pacifist and ultimately self-defeating as Sharansky continues to explain in his book.

Reagan, on the other hand, was a forward-thinking visionary, who practiced the politics of altruism, seeing the world for what it could be. He demanded more from friend and foe alike. Decisions were implemented based on what was right and moral, not on what was safe and predictable. It was Reagan's policies that facilitated the unleashing of the power of freedom on the Soviet regime and hastened its demise.

Today as history repeats itself once again, this conceptual view has renewed significance. But as many turn towards the leader of the free world to take a stand for morality and justice, they will be disappointed to find that President Obama seems to be more concerned with the politics of realism.

Obama has displayed repeatedly that what is right is not the determining factor; what is moral and just is not the priority. Failing to utter a word of support in favor of anti Islamist movements in Iran and Libya and rallying against a staunch ally in Mubarak, he has hedged his bets, and congratulated the winner.

As Jeffrey T. Kuhner points out in the Washington Times:

"Even today, as brave Iranian democrats battle the forces of tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president cannot muster the indignation he demonstrated toward former Egyptian autocrat Hosni Mubarak. Mr. Obama refuses to demand that the Persian strongman step aside - as he did with the Egyptian pharaoh."

This week saw one of the administration's more morally perverse moments. Ambassador Susan Rice sided in principle with a UN resolution that condemned Israeli settlement building as she sat alongside a Libyan representative, whose government was indiscriminately massacring unarmed dissenters in Tripoli.

Under president Obama the United States has lost its moral standing, trust, and status as a voice of freedom in a world of tyranny and terror. For now, the politics of altruism is all but lost.

Perhaps this also explains why the relationship between the Obama administration and Israel has been under constant strain. Belief in a better future and in the altruistic nature of human beings is fundamental to the Jewish worldview. The concepts of striving towards a perfect world and the belief in the innate goodness of man are ingrained in Jewish tradition and thought. Judaism demands altruistic politics and America was founded on Jewish values.

It may be up to America's Jews to lead this country back to its roots.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com . Please visit www.algemeiner.com.

Algemeiner Journal Launches Jewish Answer to Huffington Post

Algemeiner Journal Launches Jewish Answer to Huffington Post

The Algemeiner Journal, the legendary Yiddish icon, has now been referred to by Fox News as the fastest growing Jewish Newspaper in the United States.

Beginning last month, readers have been wowed by a cutting edge new design that is completely unique in the world of Jewish media. Additionally 15,000 new homes around the tri-state area received complimentary subscriptions to the paper.

Simultaneously a new website, Algemeiner.com, styled as a Jewish version of the Huffington Post, has been launched, with a large and rapidly growing database of prominent contributors and bloggers, Including Dr. Elie Wiesel (who is also chair of the advisory board), Ed Koch, Dore Gold, Ronn Torossian, William Rapfogel, David Brog and many more. Additionally many new young talented Jewish writers from around the world have been recruited as contributors to the site, and it is has rapidly become a hub of activity and conversation.

Following the launch of the English edition 18 months ago, the NEW English Algemeiner has experienced unprecedented growth. Building on the extensive history as a trusted source for news and commentary, coupled with the most advanced media tools and cutting edge methods of proliferation.

"The majority of our staff is under 30" said Dovid Efune, the paper's young director, "we intimately appreciate the shifting new age media environment and are able to harness cutting edge media tools and strategies to that end." He continued, "Businesses are constantly looking for new and creative ways to generate interest and we have had a very positive response from our advertisers."

But the success is not only in the business model; "we are filling a serious market gap" said publisher Simon Jacobson, "On the one hand people are looking for an authentic Jewish perspective on the news, but on the other hand, many feel alienated by the insular style of many of the orthodox papers, we have been successfully able to bridge that gap."

The NEW Algemeiner is under the umbrella of the Gershon Jacobson Foundation, based in New York, the foundation is mandated to 'serve as a valiant media voice addressing the most compelling issues of our time, with vision, integrity and moral clarity, informed by the power of 4000 years of Jewish experience and wisdom.' Advisory board members include, Malcolm Hoenlein, Abraham Foxman, Arthur Schneier, Israel Lau, Julius Berman, Norman Lamm and others.

Democracies Dancing with the Devil

Democracies Dancing with the Devil

By Dovid Efune

The continuing chaos that has drawn all eyes to Egypt, has led many to pontificate the flaws of democracy. More specifically called into question, is the universal value of a democratic system. Perhaps, the argument goes, not all are ready or capable of making their own decisions, after all, Hitler was democratically elected, as was Hamas in Gaza. And, the argument continues, that if Egyptians are left to their own devices, who is to predict the 'devil we don't know ' that will arise.

This ongoing debate is of great interest and relevance to leaders and heads of state. But what is perhaps of greater interest to political observers, is what the Egypt scenario has brought to light in terms of the dealings of democracies and free nations, with autocrats, theocrats and dictators around the world.

Of course the governments of any country are responsible for the overall safety and security of their citizens, and at times it appears that this may necessitate an occasional 'dance with the devil.' It is rare that even long established democratically elected governments make altruistic decisions, and as such, it comes as no surprise that President Mubarak of Egypt has been propped up by the West for over 30 years. Now that power is shifting, and Mubarak has less to offer, Western powers are looking elsewhere for a broker that will facilitate their needs.

In the world of realpolitik, it is unlikely that this scenario will change in the near future. However there are certain lessons that need to be garnered from the Egypt situation, that have extreme relevance to the way democratic governments interact with dubious regimes around the world. Although to some it may seem elementary, one lesson that has relevance to Israel more than any other country is that there is no such thing a permanent agreement with an undemocratic government.

One of the simple reasons that this is the case is that an agreement between the governments of two elected democracies is an agreement between two peoples. A treaty with a figurehead or dictator or unelected leader is dependent on the whim of that individual or the ruling elite and thus can never be guaranteed. Additionally as we are seeing in Egypt, the ruling elite themselves are bound to be overthrown at some point or other and it is highly unlikely that the new leadership that takes control will want to preserve any remnants of their predecessors' legislation and dealings.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently announced that 'he expects any new Egyptian government to keep the peace treaty with Israel.' He 'expects,' and what if that expectation is not carried through? Did Israel really pawn the Sinai and forever jeopardize the safety of its citizens in return for an 'expectation'?

What makes matters worse for Israel is that it is constantly under pressure to formulate agreements of various kinds with Syria, the Palestinian Arab Authority and other Arab dictatorships or theocracies. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times naively went so far as to suggest that now is the best time to engage in treaty signing. What drivel! Arab figureheads do not represent their people and can't be taken seriously in any long term treaty.

Additionally, for years Arab leaders have misled Western governments, declaring one position when in their company and a drastically different one to their own people. The flip side benefit is that in the rare event that true open democracy takes hold in the Arab world, the will of the people will be more transparent and Western leaders will have a much better idea of exactly what and who they are dealing with, as is the case with Hamas in Gaza.

This clear lesson from Egypt is very straightforward. While backhanded handling with imposed leadership structures throughout the world may be a sad necessity for democracies; comprehensive agreements with concrete commitments including the ceding of land is downright irresponsibly dangerous.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.algemeiner.com.

The Israeli Vacuum: What Happens Next?

The Israeli Vacuum: What Happens Next?

By Dovid Efune

In the recent past there seems to have been a decline in overt aggressive hostility towards Israel. Defense Minister Ehud Barak was even prompted to announce that 2010 had proven to be the "quietest in many years." Few, however, have serious expectations about the long term sustainability of the status quo, and many are anticipating imminent escalation.

The looming dangers that Israel faces are numerous and complex in their nature, as is the array of individuals who have been tasked with addressing them. As we enter another new calendar year, perhaps an assessment of what some of the key players are currently preoccupied with will grant us a glimpse into what the future holds.

Ehud Barak - heavily engaged with growing discontent within his own party and with strong voices calling for them to boot the veteran of dovish Israeli policies, there seems to be a possibility that Barak will withdraw Labor from the current governing coalition and join the opposition. Netanyahu could save his coalition and secure a narrow Knesset majority that leans even further to the right by bringing the National Union party on board. Either way, while working to survive politically, the good news is that Barak is hardly focused on driving policy.

Barak Obama - after months of relentless pressure on Israel and flurries of heated activity, a deafening silence is emanating from Washington. Almost as if completely stumped, the White House is reevaluating its position and there is speculation that a new plan will soon emerge. One can have no doubt that whatever they come up with will be far from innovative, and many expect the arm-twisting to restart. There is a good chance however, that their expectations from Israel will be less presumptuous.

Benjamin Netanyahu - busy playing the blame game at the moment, he blamed the US for not going through with an extension of the settlement freeze, although it clearly should have been his default position, he slammed the PA for what he termed the 'new three no's policy.'  No to recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, no to dropping their demand for a Palestinian refugee "right of return," and no to agreed-upon security arrangements on the ground. Netanyahu is still operating in the world of reactionary politics and his coalition looks shakier. Whilst still high in the polls, the future is beginning to look a little bleaker for the Prime Minister.

Palestinian Authority - whilst mourning the loss of his brother, Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is struggling to enforce his position as the propped up public figurehead stewarding the Palestinian Arab fantasy narrative. Abbas recently cracked down on a supposed coup attempt said to be orchestrated by Fatah strongman Mahmoud Dahlan. However, his duality will only be sustainable as long as his position is enforced by Western world leaders, as the very Palestinian Arab populace that he has fed anti Israel and Anti-Semitic poison to for years, won't support his false overtures of reconciliation.

Ahmedinejad and Assad - these two are leopards with unchanging spots, orchestrating a token gesture here and there to keep the West wistful. This week Assad welcomed American Jewish leaders to Syria and Ahmedinejad invited some European leaders to tour Iran's nuclear facilities 'as a gesture of goodwill;' it is however clear that their maniacal ambitions will not be stunted.

Hamas and Hizbullah - these growing terror organizations have recovered exceptionally well from their recent confrontations with the IDF and have restocked their arsenals to frightening capacity with new anti aircraft machinery and state of the art new weaponry from Iran. Whilst publically all but ignored by Western leaders, their street popularity and military prowess leave Israel with much to worry about. With their finger on the trigger, it is only a matter of time before they unleash a barrage on Israeli towns and cities. This time it won't just be the north and south.

Avigdor Lieberman - shunned by many world leaders and the cause of many sleepless nights for American Jewish leaders, Lieberman is the most prominent Israeli leader with a plan B. Recognizing that the Peace Process is a fallacy, he wants to formally stabilize the current situation. A master strategist, his star is rising and in the event that new elections are forced, he will be ready and waiting to gobble up the scraps.

When weighing in on the factors of the current players, it seems that Lieberman is best poised to gain from the outcome of events; he is proactive, out of the box, and forward thinking, bringing new ideas on how to deal with Israel's threats. His suggestions, however, are also temporary and cosmetic.

In conclusion, the frustration and stagnation on important issues affecting the security of Israel has opened a gaping vacuum in the world of Israeli leadership. The stage is set for a new leader to emerge with new ideas and solutions, and sweep the country off its feet.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.GJCF.com for more information.

What Is Wrong With Jewish Media?

What is Wrong with Jewish Media?

By Dovid Efune

Media - defined as the means of communication, such as radio, television, newspapers, and magazines that reach or influence people widely.

In seeking to label the period in which we currently live, time and again the term 'Information age' has been used. Rapid global communications and networking made possible by breakneck technological advances, have undoubtedly made the world a smaller place and facilitated the unsurpassed spread of knowledge. This has led in many ways to greater understanding between various cultures and communities around the globe. So let's have a look at how the 'People of the Book' have fared in a world of Notebooks and Facebook.

In a basic sense, Jewish media can be divided into two categories.  The first, communication amongst Jews and Jewish communities around the world; the second, Jewish communication with the world at large. Whilst in the first category there is certainly much room for improvement, progress in the second category is minimal, if existent, and remains a pressing challenge to Jewish leaders. Let us analyze and consider some of the opportunities that are out there.

If one had to ask a young Jew if there is a media outlet that they regularly turn to for news and information in the Jewish world that imparts them with a sense of belonging and involvement, it is likely that the most frequent response would be Jdate.  My own recent experience in advising an established sports promotion company on how to target advertising for a sports event to young Jews, soon made me realize that we would be hard-pressed to locate an outlet that could deliver this audience.

Secondly, in the world of Jewish media, the relationship between the content provider and consumer appears to be quite limited. The existing Jewish news outlets largely operate in somewhat of a parochial fashion, essentially dictating to their audiences what they should be reading, what they should be thinking about, and what they should be interested in. There is a serious need for an outlet that will strive to close the gap, and listen carefully to and involve the Jewish community and audience in order to supply the most relevant content that truly addresses their concerns, interests and ideals.

Thirdly, Jewish media is primarily localized, with independent news providers serving many of the world's largest Jewish communities. Whilst there are some larger outlets that report on happenings from around the globe, there is no comprehensive global media outlet that acts as a one-stop destination for all international Jewish news.

Perhaps a global Jewish news outlet could serve as a stepping stone for progress on the second category, namely, Jewish communication with the outside world. To be fair, there is one website that was launched for this purpose by Italy's Jewish community.  It is the first of its kind, quite groundbreaking in nature as it strives to act as a Jewish news source for non-Jews. The need and demand for similar projects is certainly widespread as there is an almost universal interest in what the Jewish nation is up to. Many around the world, from decision makers to the culturally curious are anxious to learn about Jewish ideas, opinions, and the issues that matter most to the Jewish community at any given time.

Whilst when delivering news, there are certain standards for reporting and presenting information in an informative fashion, the world of media is by no means limited by this and outlets can be utilized to represent a position and even a worldview. It is high time that Jewish communities begin to effectively communicate Jewish positions and interests on a global scale.

The strength of the media in today's world has been widely acknowledged and its influence and impact in its various forms have had great affect. As Jews, if we are to fulfill our mission to serve as a light unto the nations, we must strive to better harness these powerful tools of our time.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visitwww.GJCF.com for more information.

Salvaging the United Nations

Salvaging the United Nations

By Dovid Efune

Opposite the United Nations, on the northern wall of Ralph Bunche Park, is engraved the famous quotation from Isaiah 2:4: "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." Founded on such utopian ideals, the UN is mandated with 'reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person' and 'saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war.'

During Shabbat services last week at the Park East Synagogue in New York, the congregation was addressed by the Secretary- General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon and the President of the General Assembly, Joseph Deiss. In attendance was a diverse group of UN Ambassadors and Consuls General representing countries from across the globe. This remarkable gathering could only have been orchestrated by the synagogue's highly regarded Rabbi Arthur Schneier. The event was held in honor of Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27th.

Ban Ki -moon spoke of the UN as an organization that was created "in part to prevent a Holocaust from ever happening again," and "to speak out for those who would otherwise not be heard." He presented a replica of the 'B' that appears in the infamous inscription in the gates of Auschwitz: 'Arbeit Macht Frei,' and explained that, "prisoners at Auschwitz had been ordered to make that sign, and in their anger they decided to take a stand. If you look carefully at pictures of the gate, you will see that the 'B' is upside down. What might appear as a mere piece of design is actually a daring act of defiance. Hidden within the German message emblazoned on that gate, the prisoners of Auschwitz delivered a message of their own: all is not right here. Something is upside down, brutally so."

The speech was moving and his sentiments were echoed shortly after by the President of the General Assembly, Joseph Deiss.

But let's face it; despite these principled ideals that were no doubt expressed in genuine sincerity, many agree that the UN in its current state is a sham, an absolute mockery of the very ideals on which it was founded.

An organization that has allowed Libya a seat at its Human Rights Council, can never be taken seriously as an authority on Human Rights. Sadly, the UN has become not only a place of refuge but a platform for many of the world's most oppressive regimes and worst human rights violators.

At her last public appearance prior to completing her tenure, Israel's previous Ambassador to the UN, Prof. Gabriela Shalev, harshly criticized the UN saying:

"Sadly, there are countless human tragedies and immeasurable human suffering around the globe. Yet the United Nations reserves the overwhelming majority of its condemnation only for Israel. This can only be interpreted as the "politically correct" modern anti-Semitism. We cannot stop the witch-hunt against Israel that regularly takes place at the United Nations today." She then concluded by saying that, "this hypocrisy, this double standard, this double talk, which is unleashed inside the United Nations, is checked only by one country, Israel's best and closest ally, the United States of America."

Both Prof. Shalev and the current Israeli representative to the United Nations shared with me that what they find hardest about working at the UN, is the volume of libelous accusations leveled against Israel on a regular basis.

Many believe that there are rare instances when the right to freedom of speech and expression is forfeited by an individual or organization, namely when this speech endangers the lives or jeopardizes the safety of others. Whilst there are others that may argue that no voice ever that deserves to be silenced, all should agree that to empower these individuals by placing them in positions of responsibility is simply criminal.

In truth, if the UN is to serve as an organ of morality it certainly can't be achieved within the current framework and some serious restructuring is in order.

The first thing that needs to be made clear is that membership at the table of civilized nations is not a free ticket, and there are certain principles that member states will need to uphold. Not all methods of government are equal, and often the yardstick is the level of equality that is shared by all citizens of a particular state.

The UN must implement a thorough grading system whereby countries are assessed based on their human rights records, the freedom of their societies, and the extent by which the government was democratically chosen to represent its citizens. Membership at the UN should be multi-tiered, with levels of authority granted according to the above grades, and only those nations led by representative governments will wield the power to form resolutions and implement policy.

In some ways the system would be similar to the criteria used by other international alliances, except that the level of economic stability, education or natural resources of a country will not be taken into account. What will set the UN apart is that the grounds for acceptance and thus becoming a voice of authority on an international stage will be purely moral.

What would it take to implement change on this level? Perhaps a failure similar to the one that prompted the disbanding of the League of Nations? After all, what is the value of the UN, if it is unable to sustain peace among the world's peoples? What is the value of an international body that has strayed so far from its charter that it has all but lost the voice of morality that is so urgently needed?

For some of the world's nations, we live in an unprecedented age of freedom and opportunity; for others, oppression and prejudice live on. If the UN is to truly serve as "a voice for those who would otherwise not be heard," drastic change is essential.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit algemeiner.com for more information.

The Finkler Question and Answer

The Finkler Question and Answer

By Dovid Efune

In most cases, when a good book is written and published, it is read, reviewed and then critiqued, assigned to a library shelf and often soon after forgotten.  The Finkler Question by British author Howard Jacobson started out the same way but has since sharply veered off the beaten path and found for itself a position of prominence in the arena of public discourse, specifically on matters relating to Jews and Israel.

The book was awarded the highly prestigious Man Booker Prize and has received many reviews, the vast majority of which were overwhelmingly positive.  Whilst I certainly agree that Jacobson is a highly talented wordsmith and his book is a masterpiece, I am by no means a literary critic and therefore instead of reviewing the book I would like to bring attention to some of the Jewish issues that it highlights.

Through his primary characters, Julian Treslove, a middle-aged non-Jew who is somewhat obsessed with Jews and his Jewish friends Libor Sevcik and Sam Finkler, Jacobson cleverly presents a multitude of arguments and counter arguments on the Arab-Israel conflict. Libor is an older widower who seems ready to bury his head in the sand when it comes to addressing Jewish causes, and Finkler heads a group called ASHamed Jews who are actively embarrassed by 'the way Israel conducts itself.'

The Finkler Question also cleverly explores various expressions of Jewish identity and the struggle of many modern Jews to find the contemporary relevance in their heritage, providing a vivid illustration of the challenges that they are faced with.

One such issue that arises on multiple occasions throughout the narrative is the relationship between being Jewish, and identifying with Israel. There are many Jews that are of the opinion that the two don't necessarily go hand in hand, that what the Israeli's are up to in Israel has no bearing on how Jews are   the world. This is the case of Sam Finklers' group in the novel who claim that it is possible to accuse Israel of war crimes, and yet remain proudly Jewish.

But what they fail to realize, as the author keenly illustrates, is that haters and bigots rarely compartmentalize, and more often than not, in their eyes, anti Israel and anti-Jewish are wholly interchangeable. Israel is the Jewish State, the homeland of the Jewish people and association with Israel is an inherent part of being Jewish whether one admits it or not.

There is also another bigger and thoroughly disturbing malady highlighted by Jacobson that faces Jewish communities around the globe, namely; that very few Jews are actually aware of what Judaism is really about. For the story's characters, being Jewish at times means being smart, at times it means belonging to a group, at times it is ritualistic, guilt ridden or family centric. But most of all, throughout the book, the characters' Judaism is defined by their victimhood. In truth this may be one of the greatest Jewish challenges of our time.

About a year and a half ago, Britain's Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks told me the following:

"The challenge to a new generation of Jewish leaders is to think differently about the Jewish future, to stop thinking of ourselves as victims, stop thinking of ourselves as the people that dwell alone and start thinking about Judaism as a way of life, as a faith and as an approach to the world.  I offer my one line definition of Judaism "Judaism is the voice of hope in the condescension of humankind".  Nowadays when you read about Jews it's about Antisemitism, the Holocaust, boycotts, Israel,  50% out -marriage rates, but that is not who we are, these are the problems."

He then continued to say, "Where do I read in the news about Judaism having a message of hope for humankind, yet when I lecture in America at various institutions, they are hungry for a Jewish message and they certainly don't want a Jewish message which says " the world hates Jews". We are the world's oldest and most persistent victims, I don't think anyone wants that message. If you tell a young generation of Jewish teenagers, we want you to know about Jewish history come to Auschwitz, Bergen Belsen and Treblinka and you'll know what it is to be a Jew, then they will have two or ten thoughts before marrying another Jew and having Jewish children. Who wants to confer the status of victimhood onto their children and grandchildren?"

He concluded by saying, "I'm afraid we have been walking in precisely the wrong direction by focusing on all the negatives of recent Jewish history and the Jewish present and have failed to connect with the spirit. We have failed to connect with the positives and we have failed to connect with the message of Jews to humankind "through you will all the families of the earth be blessed". When you give over this message everyone responds, Jew and Non-Jew alike so I challenge the next generation of Jewish leaders and the generation after to think about Judaism in a completely new way."

The Finkler Question portrays this Jewish struggle in a comprehensive and intimate fashion, the sad fact that most Jews today simply don't know what being Jewish means. Perhaps the Finkler answer comes with a shift in focus; the new generation must direct all of its resources in striving to convey the authentic Jewish message of positivity, hope and belief in a better future.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.GJCF.com for more information.