June 16, 2008: How would Ruth have fared at Bet Din Elyon?

By Michael Regenstreif

Last week was the Festival of Shavuot, which commemorates the receiving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. During Shavuot, the Book of Ruth, one of the books of Ketuvim – Writings – from the Jewish Bible is read at synagogue services.

Ruth was a Moabite woman – the biblical Land of Moab was located in what is now Jordan – who converted to Judaism. One of Ruth’s great-grandsons was King David, one of the most revered figures in Jewish history.

A lesson we learn from the Book of Ruth is about the imperative to fully accept those who, while not born to Judaism, have embraced it. Conversion is not a modern phenomenon. It has been part of our religion since ancient times. And were it not for conversion, David would not have been Jewish as the tradition dictates matrilineal descent. If he weren’t Jewish, he certainly wouldn’t have been king, Jerusalem would not have become his capital, there would have been no King Solomon and the Temple would not have been built. We could speculate endlessly on the what-if consequences of Ruth not having converted to Judaism.

It’s not only because we’ve just celebrated Shavuot that I’m thinking about the story of Ruth. I’m thinking about Ruth because a recent high rabbinical court ruling in Israel has called non-haredi conversion into question. The ruling grew out of a messy divorce case in Ashdod. The wife had been converted, 15 years before, by Rabbi Chaim Druckman. The Orthodox rabbi is the head of an Israeli yeshiva and has been the director of the Israeli government’s Conversion Authority for years.

The husband in the case argued that because his wife was not living a strictly Orthodox lifestyle, her conversion was illegitimate and, therefore, the marriage never really took place. The haredi – or ultra-Orthodox – rabbinic court agreed and so ruled. The couple’s three children, having been born of a woman now considered a gentile, were also stripped of their Jewishness.

The case was appealed to the Bet Din Elyon in Jerusalem, Israel’s highest rabbinic court, where the ruling was upheld. The ruling went further and declared that all conversions performed by Rabbi Druckman, or under the authority of his office, were nullified.

In Israel, there are no provisions for civil marriage. All marriages there are under the aegis of the religious authorities. Thus, all marriages involving couples where one of the partners was converted by Rabbi Druckman, or under his authority, were similarly nullified. The ruling, written by haredi Rabbi Avraham Sherman, further said that when converts from other countries come to Israel to be married, the marriage must not be allowed to take place if they did not “look” religious. Conversion papers from a religious court in, say, Canada or the United States would not be enough if they didn’t “look” religious enough.

The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), a body that represents more than 1,000 Orthodox rabbis in North America, issued a statement that said, “The ruling itself, as well as the language and tone thereof, are entirely beyond the pale of acceptable halachic practice, violate numerous Torah laws regarding converts and their families, create a massive desecration of God’s name, insult outstanding rabbinic leaders and halachic scholars in Israel, and are a reprehensible cause of widespread conflict and animosity within the Jewish people in Israel and beyond. The RCA is appalled that such a ruling has been issued by that court.”

One article I read recently, written by Rabbi Martin Lockshin, a modern Orthodox rabbi who teaches Jewish studies at York University and who is currently on sabbatical in Jerusalem, spoke about modern Orthodoxy having to fight back against the religious fundamentalism being imposed by haredi rabbis on religious life in Israel and beyond.

The contemporary Jewish world is pluralistic. Some of us are very religious, others of us not at all. In communities like ours, we respect all Jewish denominations – ultra-Orthodox, modern Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform – as equally legitimate. As the homeland of all Jewish people, I believe Israel needs to do the same.

In most arenas, Israel is among the most modern countries of the world. As a democracy, I think its democratic principles should be extended to the religious affairs of the state and that Israel should recognize the legitimacy and equality of all of our Jewish denominations.

I wonder how Ruth would have fared at the Bet Din Elyon.

May 19, 2008: Fugitive Pieces – a moving film adaptation of the acclaimed novel

By Michael Regenstreif

The film version of Fugitive Pieces, which opened across Canada earlier this month, is director and screenwriter Jeremy Podeswa’s adaptation of the acclaimed novel by Anne Michaels about the life of Jakob Beer, a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust as a young boy only to be haunted by it through the rest of his life.

As the film opens, we witness seven-year-old Jakob at home in Poland with his parents and 15-year-old sister, Bella, a talented pianist adored by Jakob. From a hiding place in the house, the young boy witnesses Nazi soldiers murder his parents and abduct his sister. Bella’s uncertain fate at the hands of the Nazis is one of the things that will continue to affect Jakob.

Jakob flees the house and hides in the forest where he’s rescued by Athos Roussos, a Greek archeologist. Athos smuggles Jakob back to his home on Zakynthos, the Greek island that managed, against all odds, to protect the Jews living there during the Nazi occupation of Greece.

Athos raises Jakob as a son and, after the war, moves with him to Canada.

As an adult, Jakob channels his childhood memories into his writing and becomes an acclaimed poet.

His first marriage, to Alex, a woman who doesn’t really understand him, fails. But Jakob eventually finds love and the promise of happiness with Michaela.

As the film ends, Michaela is pregnant; she and Jakob have found happiness and are looking forward to the arrival of their child. It is an ending that leaves audiences happy for Jakob and his wife.

Fugitive Pieces convincingly shows how the psychological devastation of living through the darkness of the Holocaust affected Jakob and those around him, at the time, and throughout his life.

It also captures the trauma of other Holocaust survivors, like the couple who are neighbours of Athos and Jakob in Toronto, and whose son, Ben, finds with Jakob, the kind of relationship his father was unable to give to him.

Another aspect of the film that is particularly moving is the portrayal of the righteousness of Athos and the other Greeks of Zakynthos.

In the book, Jakob and Michaela are killed in a tragic accident and do not live happily ever after. After Fugitive Pieces was shown last year at the Toronto International Film Festival, director Podeswa and producer Robert Lantos – both the sons of Holocaust survivors – decided the deaths of Jakob and Michaela left film audiences too devastated and exchanged the tragedy for a happy ending; reportedly to the chagrin of author Michaels.

Despite the changed ending, and that the character of Ben, central to the book, is of lesser importance in the film, Fugitive Pieces, set in Poland, Greece and Canada, is a sensitive and moving adaptation of Michaels’ novel.

* * * * * * * * * * *

The May 5 edition of the Bulletin was a special issue that focused on Israel @ 60.

The issue of Maclean’s magazine dated the same day had a front cover that screamed, “60th ANNIVERSARY: WHY ISRAEL CAN’T SURVIVE.”

Turning to page 28 of the magazine, the sensationalistic line from the cover is repeated as the headline of the article. But underneath the title is a qualifying statement: “Sixty years on, the country is facing a choice of two futures: it can be Jewish or democratic – but not both.”

Oh, so Maclean’s is really saying that Israel can survive by choosing to give up either its Jewishness or its democratic principles. That’s rather different than what it says on the cover and the headline.

But then, the five-page article by Michael Petrou actually concludes that the choice, of being Jewish, or being democratic, will eventually have to be made if Israel and the Palestinians cannot forge a two-state solution. Again, that’s a very different conclusion from what was said in the intro. And the intro, as we’ve already seen, was very different from the headline and cover.

That Israel and the Palestinians need to find peace via a two-state solution has long been obvious. It has also long been Israel’s policy and it’s what I’ve heard, for years, from most Israelis I’ve talked with. As U.S. Senator Barack Obama has stated, what is needed is for “the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region.”

Shame on Maclean’s for a grossly misleading cover, headline and intro statement that did not reflect the article and fell far short of its usually higher journalistic standards.

May 5, 2008: An inspiring message from Israel’s president

 By Michael Regenstreif

Last issue in this space, I wrote about the long, sometimes bitter, rivalry, and partnership, between Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres that lasted for much of the State of Israel’s history. They both worked hard to achieve a lasting peace for Israel and the Palestinians and their efforts led to a shared Nobel Peace Prize. As I wrote last issue, Peres too, was figuratively shattered when Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish Israeli extremist.

I’m referring back to that previous column, in this Israel @ 60 edition of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin, because I’ve just seen an Internet video of an 11-minute speech made by Peres to a group of Israeli technology students. It was one of the most inspiring talks I’ve seen by a politician in many years.

The video isn’t dated so I’m not sure when it was recorded. Peres makes a reference to being in the cabinet, so the speech may have predated his becoming Israel’s president on July 15, 2007. If so, it couldn’t have been too much before because he also makes a brief reference to the Second Lebanon War the summer before he became president.

Peres tells the students to trust in their own abilities, that they know more than they think they know and have abilities beyond what they think they have. He tells them to listen, first and foremost, to themselves and not so much to their parents, teachers and friends.

“Don’t concern yourself with history and the past,” he tells them, it’s the future that’s important. “You mustn’t be afraid to be different and you mustn’t be afraid to dream,” because the future is built by those who’ve had the courage to be different and to fulfil their dreams. He talks about Israel’s great success in areas of the economy and technology and tells the students that those successes came because of individual Israelis who had the courage to dream and to do.

Peres goes on to talk about some of the technological advances he sees coming over the next couple of decades in such areas as green energy, medicine, water desalination and more. Now in his 80s, and despite a career of achievement that spans Israel’s history, Peres shows that he’s very much a man of the future.

*****

There are some who think that an enduring peace will never be found between Israel and the Palestinians. It seems to me the Jewish people have had worse enemies in our history.

The founding of the State of Israel, whose 60th anniversary we’re celebrating this week, came just three years after the Holocaust, when Germany’s genocidal Nazi regime murdered six million Jews. Today’s Germany, though, is one of Israel’s closest allies. Just two months ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed the Knesset, in German, and received a standing ovation. If international friendship can exist between Germany and the Jewish state, and it does, then peace with the Palestinians is surely possible.

At deadline time, there were a couple of hopeful signs in the peace process. There were reports – confirmed by high level sources in both countries – that Israel and Syria have begun negotiating a peace settlement via Turkish intermediaries.

Syria’s main demand is the return of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the Six Day War in 1967. Israel’s are that Syria severs its ties with Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. Adding Syria to the list of surrounding Arab countries at peace with Israel would be a most positive development.

The other hopeful sign was Hamas suggesting that, under certain conditions, it would accept a peace settlement with Israel that’s been ratified in a Palestinian referendum. Based on Hamas’ track record, they’re a long way from deserving anyone’s trust that they’re sincerely interested in peace with Israel. Their terror campaigns have taken a terrible toll on Israel. We recently heard visitors from Sderot describe the daily routine of rocket attacks from Gaza and the effects – death, injury and psychological trauma – they’ve had on that Negev city.

But as bad as Hamas’s actions have been for Israel, they’ve been devastatingly worse for the Palestinians. Because of Hamas terrorism, the Palestinians in Gaza endure hopeless lives trapped in poverty, and the inevitable and regrettable consequences of being caught in between Israel and the terrorists hiding among them.

Israel’s leaving Gaza presented a tremendous opportunity for the Palestinians to move forward toward a dignified peace with Israel. Instead, Hamas took them backward into greater misery. Perhaps these signals from Hamas indicate that Palestinians themselves understand what Hamas has brought them and that Hamas understands that Palestinians, too, want to live and move forward, in peace. 

Of course, it remains to be seen whether either Syria or Hamas are serious. But, as we celebrate Israel @ 60, let us remember that there must be hope when the main greetings in Hebrew and Arabic, ‘Shalom’ and Saalam,’ both mean ‘Peace.’