OTD in History… May 13-June 20, 1939, the ill-fated St Louis filled with German Jewish refugees is refused entry into the Americas

ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY

HISTORY FEATURES

OTD in History… May 13-June 20, 1939, the ill-fated St Louis filled with German Jewish refugees is refused entry into the Americas

By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Source: Washington Post

Eighty years ago on this day in history, May 27, 1939, 937 Jewish refugees passengers aboard the ship the S.S. St. Louis later known as “the Voyage of the Damned” reach their destination of Havana, Cuba after departing from Hamburg, Germany two weeks earlier on May 13, 1939. Cuba, the United States, and Canada would refuse entry to the Jewish refugees as anti-immigration sentiment, isolationism, and anti-Semitism would prevail in as the American countries that already instituted tight laws to prevent immigration. Cuba made its final decision to refuse the refugees entry on June 5, sending them away from the Havana on June 2, where they were never allowed to disembark. Between June 2 and June 5 as the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) attempted to broker deals with Cuba and the US, the St. Louis lingered by the Miami, Florida shoreline as the refugees desperately cabled for entry to the American shores they saw longingly.

On June 5, the final word came the US State Department and the US Coast Guard escorted the St. Louis away from the US shores. They began their slow trip back to Europe on June 6, fearful they would return to Germany and certain death. The JDC and advocates continued negotiating for the refugees’ disembarkment but on June 7, Canada refused the refugees entry. The JDC turned to Western Europe as the St. Louis crawled back towards Great Britain. On June 11, The JDC would hear good news, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Britain would divide-up the refugees. They would reach their destinations between June 16 and 20, 1939, however, within a year two-thirds would end up under Nazi-controlled territories and a quarter would die in the Holocaust. The global reaction and treatment of the Jewish refugees on the St. Louis was a defining moment and turning point demonstrating that the world’s scales tipped towards anti-Semitism.

After the Kristallnacht on November 9–10, 1938, Germany’s Jews were looking for a way out of the country, while Germany was looking to rid the country of Jews. However, European transit countries were no longer taking in Jewish immigrants and after Arab protests, Britain tightened immigration to Eretz Israel/Palestine. Latin America with a plan of later entry to the United States was the last hope for many Jewish refugees in Germany. Cuba was one of the destinations because of its proximity to the US and agreement with Germany. Cuba would end up revoking their landing permits and in the end, only let a handful of Jewish refugees remain. Nowhere in the Americas would neither the United States nor Canada would accept the refugees. Both countries had immigration quota systems and strict restrictive laws in place, as isolationist and anti-immigration policies were in the norm in the interwar years.

Source: JTA

The majority of the refugees were German citizens, while a few were from Eastern European countries, practically all aboard applied for US visas and only intended to stay in Cuba while they awaited US immigration’s approval on their visas. Havana, Cuba had been the safe haven previously for refugees but not for the over 900 Jews on the St. Louis. Over 2,500 Jews already found saftey in immigrating to Cuba. News of the ship’s arrival put the Cuban left in motion; they wanted the government to stop the Jewish refugees from arriving. As the St. Louis set sail, however, there were already issues the Hamburg-Amerika Line that owned the St. Louis, kept the information hidden from the passengers.

The St. Louis’ captain Gustav Schroeder, a German sympathetic to his Jewish passengers already suspected there might be problems with the landing permits. The Director-General of the Cuban immigration office, Manuel Benitez Gonzalez had been making a very profitable business from selling landing certificates. Gonzalez took advantage of a loophole in the law, which stated tourists, and those “transiting” through Cuba going to other countries did not need to buy the $500 a person bond required in Decree 55. Gonzalez had an arrangement with the Hamburg-Amerika Line he sold them landing permits and the company, in turn, sold them for $235 to their desperate Jewish passengers. Gonsalez’s corruption led to the Cuban government to force him to resign.

On May 8, Cuban leftist protesters headed by former president Grau San Martin took the streets of Havana objecting to the arrival of more Jewish refugees in the country. Although Cubans worried about the refugees taking away jobs from them during the Depression, the motivation behind this huge rally was anti-Semitism aiming to “fight the Jews until the last one is driven out.” Over 40,000 attended the rally, which was also broadcast on radio. The newspapers in Havana and the province argued Jews were Communists to feed the frenzy, while the Cuban Nazi Party spread “anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic” propaganda. (Ogilvie & Miller, 18)

The rally convinced the Cuban government to change their minds about accepting the refugees. The week before their arrival Cuban President Federico Laredo Bru decided to invalidate all the landing certificates and transit, which the Cuban Director-General of Immigration granted the St Louis’ refugees. The new law Decree 937 would close the loophole and it would require the Cuban Secretaries of State and Labor to personally write and sign permissions to anyone entering the country, and each individual with the exception of American citizens would be required to post $500 in bond. Bru caved to the pressure to turn away the St. Louis’ refugees from Cuba.

Sarah A. Ogilvie and Scott Miller in their book Refuge Denied, The St. Louis Passengers and the Holocaust point out, “But now, quite suddenly, a convergence of factors — including greed, political infighting, public agitation against immigration, fascist influences, and anti-Semitism — changed that equation, making the majority of those aboard the St. Louis unwelcome on Cuban soil.” With Cuba added to the list of countries unwilling to accept Jewish refugees, the German Foreign Office and the Propaganda Ministry were able to use it to their advantage proving nowhere n the world wanted Jews and that they were letting their Jewish population go free.

Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts recount in their book, Voyage of the Damned, A Shocking True Story of Hope, Betrayal, and Nazi Terror, “The voyage could be exploited to the full for propaganda purposes: the German nation could be told that it was part of the general “housecleaning” operation; the world at large could be told that there was clear evidence that Germany was allowing Jews to leave unharmed and unimpeded.” (Thomas & Morgan Witts, 17) The Jews leaving Germany paid a heavy price to leave; they could only take four dollars and personal clothing and effects, giving up any other belongings they owned. The St. Louis would be one of the last ships to leave Germany with refugees before World War II commenced.

On May 23, Captain Schroeder was notified that the passengers might not be allowed to disembark because of the change in Cuban laws. The Hamburg-Amerika line sent Schroeder a cable saying, “MAJORITY OF YOUR PASSENGERS “IN CONTRAVENTION OF NEW CUBAN LAW 937 AND MAY NOT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO DISEMBARK. . . . YOU WILL MAINTAIN SPEED AND COURSE, AS SITUATION IS NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR BUT CERTAINLY CRITICAL IF NOT RESOLVED BEFORE YOUR ARRIVAL.” Schroeder recruited five of the male passengers to deal with the permits crisis. The passengers’ committee was led by lawyer Josef Joseph and included Max Weiss, Max Zellner, Arthur Hausdorff, and Herbert Manassee. (Ogilvie & Miller, 15–16) The committee served as the spokesman for the refugees and would “play a key role in communicating with international relief agencies and advocating on behalf of the passengers.” (Ogilvie & Miller, 15–16)

The St. Louis reached Havana on Saturday, May 27, docking in the middle of the harbor. The Havana police came aboard and marked R for return on the majority of the refugees’ passports. Family members waiting at the harbor were not allowed to go see their loved ones on the ship. Later in the day, the police permitted only 22 of the 936 Jewish refugees, who had valid US visas and secured the bond to go to land (one refugee died during the trip and had been buried a sea). Additionally, Cuba let in six other passengers, “four Spanish citizens and two Cuban nationals.” On May 30, another passenger Max Loewe attempted suicide slitting his wrists and jumping overboard and was able to stay because he was hospitalized, he later was sent to Britain. The remaining 908 passengers were refused entry neither were they allowed to disembark based on Gonzalez’s permits. The ship and its refugees became the story in the European and American press, however, American journalists did not consider that the refugees be allowed entry into the US, their sympathy only went so far.

Source: The Globe & Mail

On May 28, Lawrence Berenson, who was a lawyer and representative from the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) arrived from the US to Havana to attempt to negotiate the St. Louis’ passengers’ entry. Berenson had ties to Cuba having served as the president of the Cuban-American Chamber of Commerce. Berenson personally met with President Bru, who was adamant against allowed the refugees to enter, and on June 2, he demanded they leave Havana. After the St. Louis departed Berenson and JDC kept negotiating with the Cuban government. JDC and Berenson offered $125,000 and promised none of the refugees would seek employment in Cuba and would just stay there as they wait for the US visas. The Cuban government wanted the JDC to post the $500 a passenger bond, a staggering $453,500. According to historian Howard Sachar in his book A History of Jews in America, Bru demanded the JDC post a million dollar bond for the refugees, an amount beyond their reach still, Berenson and the JDC asked for more time. Bru refused, ending the Jewish passengers’ chances to find refuge in Cuba. On June 5, Berenson secured $500,000 in cash and deposited in a Havana bank but Bru was unable to agree to allow the refugees in bowing to public pressure. (Sachar, 493)

The Passenger committee chairman Josef Joseph described the site as the St. Louis left the Havana harbor:

The sirens signaled the engines and we were moving out of Havana into the sunlit blue Caribbean. To our right, we passed the lush colors of tropical gardens, blossoming trees, and exciting flora. To the left, the docks were bordered by the ostentatiously ornate buildings of a tropical metropolis. . . . Crowds filled every space along the shoreline, waving, weeping, and watching with great sadness. Automobiles accompanied us as far as the roadway permitted. And alongside a motorboat with a gentleman from the Joint Distribution Committee as well as a HAPAG [Hamburg-America Line] official who all shouted continuous encouragement and hopes for a speedy “Wiedersehen,” see you soon. A harbor patrol boat followed them and us. It was their duty to see that we moved swiftly out of the harbor. But the officer in sight managed to convey his sympathy for our plight. An indescribable drama of human concern and despair played on us as we sailed into the twilight of uncertainty. This is one of the most tragic days on board because we feel cheated for the freedom we had hoped for. What started as a voyage of freedom is now a voyage of doom.” (Ogilvie & Miller, 18–19)

As they left Cuba, Captain Schroeder slowly steered the boat north close to the coast of Florida, even docking close to Miami on June 3. Schroeder hoped the US would take the refugees since they already have filed the necessary immigration documents. To the St. Louis’ passengers, “America was a magic word. It was the be-all and end-all. We knew America would not let us down.” (Ogilvie & Miller, 19) The JDC and the committee attempted to negotiate a possible docking in the US. On June 5, the US Coast Guard guarding Miami ports to ensure that the ship would not dock or any refugees would attempt to swim to shore and military planes flew overhead. They used a cutter to force the St. Louis away from the shoreline and go north away from American shorelines. The Jewish refugees aboard the St. Louis could see Miami and the freedom they craved in the US but were not allowed to enter. A number of the passengers cabled President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the White House, while the children wrote letters to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

The White House did not respond and the State Department’s only response came from A. M. Warren of the State Department’s Visa Division who cabled on June 4, “The German refugees… must await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible into the United States.” The St. Louis lingering around Miami became a tragic news story. Only Hollywood stars, which included a number of American Jews cabled Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull to no avail but that was as far as American sympathy went. (Ogilvie & Miller, 20)

The United States and President Franklin Roosevelt refused to accept the refugees. Since 1924, when the Republican-controlled Congress US Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924, quotas were put in place limiting the number of immigrants allowed to come from a given country. In 1939, only 27,370 immigrants Germany and Austria were allowed to enter the US and each year thousands were waitlisted waiting for maybe three years or more until they could enter depending on the country. Although a large number in peacetime, the US government further limited the number of Jews to be included in the quota making it a quota within a quota. Historians and Jewish leaders have criticized Roosevelt primarily on two inactions, not admitting the refugees aboard the St. Louis and later not bombing the gas chambers and crematoriums at Auschwitz. Roosevelt heeded to the anti-immigrant lobby in not allowing the St. Louis refugees into America. The president viewed it unfair to the other Jewish refugees in Cuba and Europe, who were awaiting entry to the U.S. to have the St. Louis circumvent the system, and giving a bad example to other ships.

Although, Americans were sympathetic to the refugees’ story, not enough to overcome their deep resentment for immigrants. An April 1939 Fortune poll showed an overwhelming 83 percent of Americans opposed increasing immigration in March 1939, rising from 67 percent the previous year. Roosevelt’s decision not to admit the St. Louis refugees was politically motivated. In the 1938 midterm election Republicans and their promises of increased and sustained isolationism, gained seats in Congress. At that, point if Roosevelt even thought of running for a third presidential term he had to consider the mood of the country. The country was fiercely isolationist and opposed to immigrants entering. While “middle blue-collar Americans” were mostly anti-Semitic adherent to Father Charles E. Coughlin whose radio show reached millions and preached “Nazi anti-Semitic principles.” (Thomas, Morgan-Witts, 16) Roosevelt, the State Department, the FBI, and the country also had a mostly unfounded fear that refugees including Jews from Germany were spies.

However, reluctant Americans were they were not supportive of the opposite extreme total restrictionism. Three restrictionist bills were introduced in Congress in 1939. Senator Robert Reynolds and Representative Joseph Starnes of Alabama introduced a bill intended to stop all immigration for 10 years or until only three million Americans were unemployed, it also would have fingerprinted and registered all immigrants in a database, and deport any “inimical to the public interest.” (Sachar, 491) This bill also died in the committee stage despite outside support from restrictionist groups including the American Legion and a public wary of admitting immigrants into the country.

Changes in immigration could not pass through Congress. After the Anschluss in 1938, Congressional Representatives Samuel Dickstein and Emanuel Celler both of New York introduced a bill allowing refugees to immigrate by using the combined unused country immigration quotas and “forgo the application of the ‘public charge’ provision.” (Sachar, 490) The bill was set for hearings when the restrictionists threatened to retaliate and the White House advised the Dickstein and Celler the bill would interfere in foreign policy. Celler reintroduced the bill in January 1939 allowing refugees to enter on a five-year probationary period. The bill died in the Ways and Means Committee.

In 1939, Congress again attempted to admit Jewish refugees, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senator Robert Wagner (D-N.Y.) and Representative Edith Rogers (R-Mass.) would have allowed 20,000 Jewish child refugees to immigrate to the US, both parties refused to take up the Wagner-Rogers Bill to a House or Senate vote and it languished in committee. The bill received support from First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins. The first lady was supportive of Jewish refugees but could not sway the president. The American Jewish Committee mounted a campaign in support of the Wagner-Rogers Bill and journalists and newspapers supported the bill to allow refugee children. (Sachar, 491)

However, nativist groups used anti-Semitic propaganda calling it a “Jew Bill” and trying to scare the American public that the refugees would take away food from American children and it might lead to other immigrant children including the much disliked at the time Chinese. The biggest problem was the Roosevelt administration would not support the bill, with Secretary of State Cordell Hull afraid it would open a “Pandora’s box” in immigration requests. Had Roosevelt spoke out in favor of the bill it might have had a chance to pass in Congress. However, according to Thomas and Morgan-Witts, “The message was clear: any president would change the American immigration laws at his peril.” (Thomas & Morgan-Witts, 16)

In general, Americans and Congress wanted Jewish refugees to find a place but not in America, the right-wing wanted to resettle European Jews in “British or French Guiana or Kenya.” (Sachar, 493) While President Roosevelt “appealed to the world for a suitable area ‘to which refugees could be admitted in almost unlimited numbers.’” (Thomas & Morgan-Witts, 14) The world played ping-pong with European Jewish refugees as their lives hung in the balance. The US wanted to find a place for Jews in Central Africa, with Roosevelt advocating Ethiopia. The Soviet Union wanted Alaska. Thomas and Morgan-Witts recount, “The Orinoco River valley in Venezuela, Mexico, the plateaus of southwestern Africa, Tanganyika, Kenya, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland — the entire confusing collection of suggested sites were discussed, investigated, and dismissed, either by Jewish organizations or by national governments.” (Thomas & Morgan-Witts, 14) Most Jews wanted to go to America, however, the American public, government, and Roosevelt refused.

As historians, Richard Breitman and Allan J. Lichtman analyze in their book, FDR and the Jews, that before and during World War II and the Holocaust Roosevelt’s actions towards Europe’s Jews were conflicting. Breitman and Lichtman explain, “For most of his presidency Roosevelt did little to aid the imperiled Jews of Germany and Europe. He put other policy priorities well ahead of saving Jews and deferred to fears of an anti-Semitic backlash at home. He worried that measures to assist European Jews might endanger his political coalition at home and then a wartime alliance abroad.” … Still, at times Roosevelt acted decisively to rescue Jews, often withstanding contrary pressures from the American public, Congress, and his own State Department. Oddly enough, he did more for the Jews than any other world figure, even if his efforts seem deficient in retrospect. He was a far better president for Jews than any of his political adversaries would have been.” (Breitman & Lichtman, 8)

The last hope for docking in the Americas was Canada, whose immigration policy was even tighter and crueler than the US. As historians Irving Abella and Harold Troper argue in their book, None Is Too Many, Canada and the Jews of Europe, 1933–1948, “Once Canada’s door was shut to Jews, it stayed shut. Even while the Nazis slaughter of European Jewry was taking place, the determination of immigration officials to withhold entry to those few Jews who might yet be rescued never wavered.” (Abella & Troper, 17) On June 7, 1939, a number of Canadians looked to have the Canadian government accept the St. Louis refugees. George Wrong led among those who advocated including “B.K. Sandwell of Saturday Night, Robert Falconer, past-president of the University of Toronto and Ellsworth Flavelle, a wealthy businessman.” (Abella & Troper, 64) They sent a telegram to Prime Minister Mackenzie King asking to “show true Christian charity.”

King was not interested in the plight of Jewish refugees he was hosting the royal family and “accompanying” them as their toured Washington, DC. King asked the Minister of Justice Ernest Lapointe and director of the Immigration Branch of the Department of Mines and Resources Charles Blair on the idea both were against it with Lapointe from French Quebec, “emphatically opposed.” Blair believed the Canadian government had already done enough for Jewish refugees from Europe, responding, Canada could “open its doors wide enough to take in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who want to leave Europe: the line has to be drawn somewhere.” (Abella & Troper, 64)

With the US and Canada refusing to take in the St. Louis refugees that only left the possibility of Western European countries and Great Britain. On June 6, 1939, the St. Louis started its return trip to Europe. The JDC turned its attention to finding the refugees a place in Europe away from Germany and Austria. The JDC’s European director Morris Troper “frantically” negotiated with European governments, offering to pay for the refugees “board and lodging.” None of the countries seemed receptive, Schroeder to ask his boss the Hamburg-Amerika Line in Berlin if they would allow him to sail to Shanghai, China, a location willing to accept Jewish refugees but they refused such an expense on Jews.

Instead, Schroeder slowly steered the St. Louis towards Europe and Great Britain to buy the JDC time. On the ship, desperation had seeped through with many of the passengers considering suicide. Schroeder devised a contingency plan somehow to crash the ship along the coast of Britain, with it shipwrecked; Britain would have to the Jewish refugees onto land. On June 11, Troper received a response, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and France would take in the refugees. Troper sent news to Schroeder and the St. Louis on June 13, where they would first arrive at the dock in Antwerp, Belgium. On June 17, the St. Louis reached Antwerp by June 20 they would all reach their destination countries. In 1993, the Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Israel named Schroeder as Righteous Among the Nations.

There seems to be a historical disagreement on the number of each country accepted and how many died under the Nazis. The historian Howard Sachar noted in his book A History of the Jews in America, that the Netherlands accepted 194 refugees; Belgium and France admitted “250 refugees each,” while Britain took the remaining passengers. The United States Holocaust Museum Museum claims, “Great Britain took 288 passengers, the Netherlands admitted 181 passengers, Belgium took in 214 passengers, and 224 passengers found at least temporary refuge in France.” Sachar indicates that 617 out of the 621 who ended up on mainland Europe died within the year. The USHMM says, by May 1940 when Germany conquered Europe, 532 passengers remained on mainland Europe. Of them, 284 “survived” through the Holocaust, while 254 of the St. Louis refugees died in the Holocaust, “84 who had been in Belgium, 84 who had found refuge in Holland, and 86 who had been admitted to France.” Ogilvie and Miller recount, “While a significant number wound up in the relative safety of Great Britain, the rest found themselves embarking — although they at first might not have realized it — upon yet another perilous journey. In less than a year’s time, Germany would control much of Europe, and more than six hundred veterans of the St. Louis trapped on the Continent would once again be in the crosshairs of Nazi terror.” (Ogilvie & Miller, 25)

Had the United States or Canada acted taking a stand against anti-immigrationalists and taken a humanitarian position, all the 936 passengers aboard the St. Louis, who arrived in Havana would have survived and thrived in freedom. The world and Europe’s Jews always viewed the US as a leader and beacon of hope for those in danger, President Roosevelt and the country let them down. Ogilvie and Miller indicate, “The St. Louis affair has come to symbolize the world’s indifference to the plight of European Jewry on the eve of World War II. The episode speaks directly to contradictions in American society when it was faced with the increasingly alarming effects of Hitler’s totalitarian regime. On the one hand, there was widespread disapproval of Nazi brutality and persecution of Jews and other minorities. On the other hand, tough economic times, isolationism, and anti-Semitism hindered any moves to let more refugees in. In the end, the resulting gap — “between sympathy and action” — proved too great to overcome.” (Ogilvie & Miller, 1)

SOURCES AND READ MORE

Abella, Irving M, and Harold M. Troper. None Is Too Many: Canada and the Jews of Europe, 1933–1948. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012.

Breitman, Richard, and Allan J. Lichtman. FDR and the Jews. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013.

Ogilvie, Sarah A, and Scott Miller. Refuge Denied: The St. Louis Passengers and the Holocaust. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

Sachar, Howard M. A History of the Jews in America. New York: Knopf, 1992.

Thomas, Gordon, and Max Morgan-Witts. Voyage of the Damned: A Shocking True Story of Hope, Betrayal and Nazi Terror. New York, N.Y: Skyhorse, 2010.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Voyage of the St. Louis,” The Holocaust Encyclopediahttps://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/voyage-of-the-st-louis

Bonnie K. Goodman has a BA and MLIS from McGill University and has done graduate work in Judaic Studies at Concordia University. She is the author of “Silver Boom! The Rise and Decline of Leadville, Colorado as the United States Silver Capital, 1860–1896,” and contributed the overviews and chronologies to the “History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–2008,” edited by Gil Troy, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Fred L. Israel (2012). She is a journalist, librarian, and historian and a former Features Editor at the History News Network and reporter at Examiner.com where she covered politics, universities, Judaism, and news. She has a dozen years of experience in education and political journalism.

OTD in History… June 10, 1967, Israel’s Triumphant Six-Day War Victory

ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY

HISTORY FEATURES

OTD in History… June 10, 1967, Israel’s Triumphant Six-Day War Victory

Bonnie K. Goodman

Bonnie K. Goodman Jun 11, 2019

By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Israeli soldiers in front of the Kotel after liberating the Old City of Jerusalem, June 7, 1967. Source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

On this day in history June 10, 1967, the Six-Day War ends with Israel victorious and tripling their territory capturing the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the old city of Jerusalem. Both Israel and the Arab nations involved; Egypt (the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria agreed to a United Nations ceasefire to broker an end of the war. In addition, to the territory, Israel also gained a population of hundreds of thousands of Arabs. Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren writing in his book, Six Days of War, June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, considers the Six-Day War, “as the single most transformative event in the making of the modern Middle East.”

In the first months of 1967, Syria ramped up their civilian bombing attacks against Israelis in the northern kibbutzim, agricultural villages. Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol warned Syria they would retaliate. Syria would not listen, and On April 7, Israel provoked a Syrian attack along the border in order to fire back, then the Israeli Air Force (IAF) barraged Syria and shot down six Syrian MIG jets given by Russia. Russia accused Israel of gathering their troops at the Syrian border for an attack, which was not true. Russia fearful they would appear as supporting Syria’s Ba’ath regime, which they did, escalated the situation. On May 11, 1967, Eshkol notified the United Nations Security Council, Israel’s decision “to act in self-defense” in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. (Sachar, 772) On May 12, the Soviet ambassador to Egypt claimed Israel was mobilizing the army on the Syrian border, which they were not, and Egypt realized.

Egypt’s President Gamal Abed al-Nassar purposely sent troops and again escalated the situation, which was politically motivated by their domestic unrest and economic troubles, and taunting by the Saudia Arabia. Nasser too wanted to “shore up the Ba’athist cabal in Damascus.” (Sachar, 773) On May 15, Egypt moved troops forward into the Sinai and on May 17, asked the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to vacate their 3,400 troops from the border and Gaza. On May 19, the UN Secretary General U-Thant complied without an emergency meeting of the General Assembly. On May 18, Nasser ordered UNEF troops to leave Sharm es-Sheikh, “guarding the Straits of Tiran.” (Sachar, 773)

Three days later on May 22, Egypt cut off Israel’s shipping access to the Straits of Tiran, an act tantamount to war. According to historian Howard M. Sachar in his book The Course of Modern Jewish History, the moves allowed Nassar “regained his status as the decisive leader of the Arab world.” Nassar was preparing the Arab world for “a jihad against Israel,” with Nassar declaring on May 21, “The Strait of Tiran is part of our territorial waters. No Israeli ship will navigate it again.” (Sachar, 773) On May 30, the Arab alliance of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan and the Republic of Yemen, as well as coalition partners Iraq, Kuwait, and Algeria, signed a pact. Jordan’s King Hussein agreed to take command of the military forces. The public in the Arab nations held massive demonstrations in support of the holy war their countries were embarking on. By June 4, the Arab alliance was set for war with 230,000 troops mobilized; seven Egyptian divisions consisting of 120,000 soldiers were along the border along with 1,000 guns and 2,000 tanks. (Sachar, 774)

Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban began looking for western assurances that the Gulf of Aqaba would not fall to the Arabs, and an international naval flotilla could be devised to protect it. (Sachar, 773) The United States had yet to develop the close rapport of the post-six-day years and President Lyndon Johnson mired in the Vietnam War could not get Congress to guarantee any assistance. Without the US, the rest of the Western world refused to follow, Britain refused, while France did the opposite to help the Arabs De Gaulle “terminated all military shipments to Israel.” (Sachar, 773) The UN or its Security Council also was not helpful to Israel.

With little help from the outside, Israel began war preparations, calling up reservists and instituting a state of emergency. Israel’s Defenses forces learned through intelligence the Egyptian army would be using Soviet maneuvers and they prepared for it. IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin ensured Israel was prepared, acquiring in advance equipment France, West Germany, and the US, while Israel’s soldiers went through intensive training. (Sachar, 774) Prime Minister Eshkol bowed to pressure, permitted Herut to join the government to form a unity government, and gave the Defense Ministry post to Moshe Dayan.

By June 3, Israel realized there would be no diplomatic solution and no aid from the west. On June 4, the Israeli cabinet voted to give the Defense Ministry the decision making power to strike. Israel decided on a preemptive defensive strike on June 5, commencing the war with Jordan, Syria, and Iraq joining in the attack on Israel. Israel’s air force began their surprise attack 7:10 a.m. and in 170 minutes, they destroyed Egypt’s air force, 300 out of 340 planes. (Sachar, 775) Israel’s air force continued throughout the day to destroy “Egyptian armor and other vehicles” and additionally, they nearly destroyed all of the “Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces.” (Sachar, 775) Israel was fighting on three fronts, Egypt in the West, Syria in the North and Jordan from the East.

An hour after launching their air offensive on June at 8:15 a.m. Israel began their assault by land. They attacked the Sinai; General Yisreal Tal attacked the Northern Sinai, while General Ariel Sharon “overran, Um Cataf, the linchpin of the Abu Aghelia network of defenses across the Nitzana-Ismailia axis.” On a third front, after a thirteen-hour battle Brigadier Avraham Yoffe reached the Mitla Pass “blocking the enemy line of retreat.” (Sachar, 775) On the first day of battle, the Israeli army was able to “trap” the Egyptian army within the Sinai.

Egypt wanted their army to look good so they lied about the battles and the rest of the Arab nations believed it and it affected how they proceeded, allowing them to make costly miscalculations that would help Israel. The false news reports prevented Syria from mounting an offensive; instead, they just “bombarded” the Galilee settlements rather than mounting an attack. Hussein used the same strategy when he “shelled” Jerusalem attacking the new city and towns beyond it. The Jordanians, however, made a mistake at 1 p.m. they decided on a land assault and occupied “the United Nations headquarters on the Hill of Evil Counsel.” (Sachar, 776)

Late in the afternoon on June 5, Egypt and Nassar finally heard the news about their devasting losses and the situation in the Sinai. When the Soviets and Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin heard the news, he called President Johnson directly through their hotline asking him to stop Israel. Johnson was pleased with Israel resolving the mounting problem in the Middle East and he refused to interfere. Johnson, however, “ordered the United States Sixth Fleet toward the fighting zone.” (Sachar, 776)

By June 7, in the evening Israel Tal and Yoffe were able to ensure they blocked the Gidi and Mitla exits in the Sinai, while Sharon was able to trap the Egyptian army. Doing so the Israel army was able to “destroy or capture” 800 Egyptian tanks. (Sachar, 776) On June 8, Israel reached the “eastern shore of the Suez Canal,” and gained control of the Sharm es-Sheikh. By the end of the day, Israel had Egypt at their knees and “at 8:00 p.m. Nassar accepted Israel’s demand for unconditional cease-fire.” (Sachar, 776)

On June 5, on the Jerusalem front, Dayan responded to Hussein’s occupation of the UN with an offensive and quickly regained the Hill of the Evil Counsel. On June 6, in the early morning hours at 2:20 a.m. Colonel Mordecai Gur sent paratroopers, who at first attacked along the Arab City then were able to move to gain control at the top of Mount Scopus. The third part of the attack would be the Old City but Dayan was reluctant. Eshkol, however, was adamant, saying, “the Old City must be taken, to avert the danger of incessant bombardment [on Jewish Jerusalem].” At midnight, Dayan was still concerned about a frontal attack with Eshkol telling Dayan, “The government wants the Old City.” (Sachar, 652) Later on June 6, Israel engaged in armored attack for “control of the entire Jerusalem promontory including Ramallah and Bethlehem.” (Sachar, 776) By late morning on June 7, after the precision bombing and attacks, Israel was in possession of the entire West Bank.

Late on June 6, Dayan finally agreed on the final assault for Jerusalem after the cabinet notified him “that a United Nations cease-fire was imminent; if the Old City were to be taken, it would have to be seized before hostilities ended.” (Sachar, 652) In the morning on June 7, Gur ordered his soldiers to take the last Jordanian stronghold Augusta Victoria Church. Israel’s soldiers enter the Lion’s Gate by noon “rolled up” the Via Dolorosa to the Western Wall. “Within minutes,” Israel had captured the “entire Hashemite West Bank” including the old city of Jerusalem. As Gur proclaimed upon its capture, “Har HaBayit BeYadeinu,” “The Temple Mount is in our hands.”

The most significant territorial acquisition was Eastern Jerusalem, reunifying the city. Israel had control of the Temple Mount, “the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque” Islam’s holiest site, out of good faith they later ceded it to Jordan. Since 1948, when Jordan won Eastern Jerusalem and West Bank, Jews were unable to enter the Old City and visit the holiest of sites, the Kotel, Western Wall. Upon gaining control and access, Israeli soldiers wept, prayed and Rabbi Shlomo Goren, chief chaplain of the Israeli army blew the shofar at the Kotel, the first time in 19 years. Dayan, Rabin, and Eshkol soon arrived. Sachar recounts, “Touching the flagstones of the ancient wall, even hardened veterans wept… the Jews had returned to the cradle of their peoplehood.” (Sachar, 777)

Naomi Shemer, who had just released “Jerusalem the Golden,” “Yerushalayim Shel Zahav,” changed her song adding lyrics:

We have come back to the deep wells

To the marketplace again.

The trumpet sounds on the Mount of the Temple

In the Old City.

In the caverns of the cliff

Glitter a thousand suns.

We shall go down to the Dead Sea again

By the road to Jericho.

The song became the “anthem of the Six-Day War.” (Sachar, 655)

By 3 a.m. on June 9, “the Egyptian and Jordanian ceasefires had come into effect.” (Sachar, 656) The last front was Syria, On June 9, Prime Minister Eshkol and the cabinet voted for an attack on Syria’s “Golan emplacements.” (Sachar, 777) The emplacements were “fortified redoubts hundreds of feet above the Israeli valley floor.” General David Elazar decided the best approach was to attack the emplacements from the Golan with a “frontal assault.” At noon on June 9, the Israeli army first used bulldozers to clear the rocks, and then attacked first with tanks then soldiers and at the same time, there was an air bombardment. The attack was costly with “heavy casualties” but the plan of attack worked the Syrians were surprised and soon Israel reached the emplacements. By early June 10, Israel was capturing village by village and the Golan capital, Quneitra. Sachar recounts, “Elazar’s strategy had been proved right: crack the main fortifications, move onto the roads behind the Syrians, and the enemy will panic.” (Sachar, 657) By noon, Israel had the Syrians pushed back to Damascus, desperate at 5:30 p.m. Syria agreed to a cease-fire.

On June 9, at 5:30 p.m. the United Nations was starting to pressure Israel to end the war, Israel’s UN delegate, Gideon Rafael notified the UN security council that direction was being sent to Israel’s troops. Israel had to race to gain the Golan before the UN’s cease-fire. In the morning on June 10, the Soviets became involved; Kosygin phoned President Johnson over the hotline demanding Israel stop their assault. The US then sent three task forces towards Syria including aircraft carriers Saratoga and America. Secretary of State Dean Rusk told Israeli Ambassador Avraham Harman that Israel needs to accept a cease-fire. By that time, Israel had garnered the strategic Golan Heights and Dayan was working on the cease-fire through General Odd Bull. Sachar recounts, “The Six-Day War ended officially at 6:30 p.m., Israel time, on June 10.” (Sachar, 658)

Although it was a decisive victory, Israel lost 776 soldiers in the six days of fighting by the amount of wounded was triple, Israel, however, lost only “40 planes and 80 tanks.” (Sachar, 658) Israel’s casualties included 1,756 in the Sinai and a quarter in the battle for Jerusalem, one of the costliest battles in the war. In comparison, “The Arabs may have suffered up to 30,000 casualties, at least 450 planes and 1,000 tanks destroyed or captured, as well as vast quantities of supplementary equipment.” (Sachar, 658)

Israel’s territory also grew by multiples, adding “42,000 square miles.” As Sachar points out “a new military-geographic reality had been created in the Middle East.” (Sachar, 777) Israel was no longer a 4-minute plane ride across the country and within striking distance of Arab fire, now with their new buffer zone, Israel was close to “Amman, Damascus and Cairo,” and had to Suez Canal as a barrier to the south, the River Jordan and the Dead Sea to the east.

So how did Israel accomplish such a feat against the Arab nations with far mo re troops and equipment? Sachar also notes the Six-Day War “was an astounding military achievement, and one widely heralded throughout the entire free world. The discipline and gallantry of Israeli soldiers and civilians, who had shattered a seemingly overwhelming threat to their survival, and touched the hearts of common men everywhere.” (Sachar, 778) Rabin, who received an honorary doctorate from the Hebrew University three weeks later explained, the phenomena:

Our airmen, who struck the enemies’ planes so accurately that no one in the world understands how it was done and people seek technological explanations or secret weapons; our armored troops who beat the enemy even when their equipment was inferior to his; our soldiers in all other branches … who overcame our enemies everywhere, despite the latter’s superior numbers and fortifications — all these revealed not only coolness and courage in battle but … an understanding that only their personal stand against the greatest dangers would achieve victory for their country and for their families, and that if victory was not theirs the alternative was annihilation. (Sachar, 660)

Israel hoped the war and their victory could lead to a peace agreement on their terms. As Eshkol claimed in a June 12 speech to the Knesset, “Let this be said — there should be no illusion that Israel is prepared to return to the conditions that existed a week ago.… We have fought alone for our existence and our security, and we are therefore justified in deciding for ourselves what are the genuine and indispensable interests of our State, and how to guarantee its future.” (Sachar, 673) The call, however, never came. Three months later on September 1, the Arab nations met in Khartoum, Sudan and gave Israel their answer, establishing “the 3 Nos of Khartoum”: “No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel.” Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban, remarked on the irony, “This is the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.” According to the Sachar in his book, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, “The Khartoum Declaration was the first serious warning to the Israelis that their expectation of an imminent “phone call” from the Arab world might be a pipe dream.” (Sachar, 676)

On November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242 drafted by British ambassador Lord Caradon (Hugh Foote), further shutting down Israeli hopes for a peace agreement on their terms and the direct negotiations or mediation US Ambassador to the United Nations Arthur Goldberg preferred as possible solutions. UNSCR 242 states:

The Security Council … [e]mphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.…

1.) Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

  1. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
  2. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2.) Affirms further the necessity

  1. For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
  2. For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

iii. For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3.) Requests of the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to … promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution.… (Sachar, 664)

In the past 50 years, UNSCR 242 has interpreted differently by the Arab Nations and Israel.

The same political and diplomatic contradiction has been present in the historiography on the Six-Day War. Oren notes, “While the historiographical and political battle over the Six-Day War will no doubt persist, there can be no questioning its importance for understanding this crucial area.” Political viewpoint shape historians’ interpretations of the war and its effects on the Middle East. Guy Laron, the author of the 2017 history, The Six Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East claims in his article “The Historians’ War Over the Six-Day War,” “Ever since 1967, writers have been debating the conflict.” According to Laron’s opinion, the Six-Day War historiography has gone through a journey, “When we debate the Six-Day War, what we are actually arguing about are the chances for peace in the Middle East today.”

The first book published chronicling the war was in 1968, Six Day War by Winston Churchill, and Winston S. Churchill, the son, and grandson of the British prime minister, takes on a pro-Israel position, calling Israel’s Defense Forces, “one of Israel’s greatest achievements.” In 1984, Donald Neff, former Time magazine’s bureau chief in Jerusalem came out with a negative view of Israel and the war in Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days That Changed the Middle East. Neff’s criticism remained the mode of analysis of the war until 30 years later in the late 1990s when archival records increasingly became available ushering a new era for historians to revisit the Six-Day War.

In 2002, Oren published his book, where he criticized the recent scholarship, writing, “A wave of revisionist writers, Israelis mostly, have sought to amplify Israel’s guilt…and evince it in the debate over the borders, or even the legitimacy of the Jewish state.” Oren’s book was a military history and mostly examined the battles of the war limiting, however, the “pre-war and post-war” elements. Ha’aretz columnist, Tom Segev took a more critical approach in his 2005 book 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year that Transformed the Middle East, and relied heavily upon Israeli historian Ami Gluska’s analysis in The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War.

Segev’s sweeping history looks at the years before the war, the war, and its aftermath. Segev tends to put the blame on the war on Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, arguing Rabin pushed reluctant and dovish cabinet into an offensive war when Prime Mini. Segev explains, “Nothing was gained by occupying the territories captured in the war. But swept away by fear and subsequently by the intoxication of victory, their emotions often propelled them to act against their national interests, a pattern of behavior the Israelis often attributed to the Arabs…. There was indeed no justification for the panic that preceded the war, nor for the euphoria that took hold after it, which is what makes the story of Israel in 1967 so difficult to comprehend.” (Segev, 31)

Laron’s 2017 volume, The Six-Day War The Breaking of the Middle East also takes a negative tone about Israel generals blaming them for the war and arguing that the Soviet Union and the United States played a greater role than previously believed. Laron looked beyond at the roots of the war rather than the immediate crisis. Laron explains, “This study takes a different approach, arguing that the process that led to the war was not only much deeper, much longer, and influenced by global trends, but also that it was designed and even desired by prominent military figures in the warring countries. It emerged out of a global crisis, which engulfed the developing world in the 1960s and shifted the balance of power between civilians and generals in Israel, Egypt, and Syria. This crisis also caused the Soviet Union and the US to increase their arms sales and their military presence in the Middle East. In turn, these changes exacerbated existing tensions in the region and made war more probable. The Six-Day War’s crucible of weak civilian leaderships, trigger-happy generals, and intrusive great powers provides a salient example of how a regional conflict may start.” (Laron, 21)

For over 50 years Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War has been toasted, roasted, and shaped the modern Middle East and Israel’s relationship with its Arab neighbors. Peace with any of the Arab nations has been contingent on trading land acquired in the war for peace, leading to deals with Egypt and Jordan. However, peace with the Palestinians has been elusive impossibility even after ceding the Gaza Strip, as violence and terror have been their main modes of communication. As Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicates, “The true reason why peace could not be reached in 1967 is the same reason why the conflict began, and why it continues today: The Palestinian and Arab refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state in their historic homeland.” As Israel faces constant criticism from the world it is now increasingly taking on the view that annexation might be the best and only solution for areas one in the war, proving again that going alone is Israel’s the best choice for survival.

SOURCES AND READ MORE

Note: This history of the Six-Day War is hardly exhaustive to read more look at any of the following books.

“50 years ago: The Six-Day War and the historic reunification of Jerusalem,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 5, 2017. https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Spotlight/Pages/50-years-ago-The-Six-Day-War-and-the-historic-reunification-of-Jerusalem.aspx

Churchill, Winston S, and Randolph S. Churchill. Six Day War. Delhi: Army Publishers, 1968.

Gluska, Ami. The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War: Government, Armed Forces and Defence Policy, 1963–1967. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007.

Laron, Guy. The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017.

Laron, Guy, “The Historians’ War Over the Six-Day War,” The Nation, June 5, 2017, https://www.thenation.com/article/historians-war-six-day-war/

Lorch, Netanel. One Long War. Jerusalem: Keter, 1976.

Oren, Michael. Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. New York: Rosetta Books, 2010.

Sachar, Howard M. The Course of Modern Jewish History. New York: Vintage Books, 1990.

Sachar, Howard M. A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979.

Segev, Tom. 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books, 2007.

Tal, David. “Israel Studies An Anthology: The Six Day War.” Jewish Virtual Library, October 2009. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-studies-an-anthology-the-six-day-war

Bonnie K. Goodman has a BA and MLIS from McGill University and has done graduate work in Judaic Studies at Concordia University. She is the author of “Silver Boom! The Rise and Decline of Leadville, Colorado as the United States Silver Capital, 1860–1896,” and contributed the overviews and chronologies to the “History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–2008,” edited by Gil Troy, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Fred L. Israel (2012). She is a journalist, librarian and historian and a former Features Editor at the History News Network and reporter at Examiner.com where she covered politics, universities, Judaism, and news. She has a dozen years of experience in education and political journalism.

Judaism December 31, 2017: Adventures and disasters in online Jewish dating for marriage

HEADLINE NEWS

Headline_News

EDUCATION

Adventures and disasters in online Jewish dating for marriage

By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

The Jewish community is always lamenting the high intermarriage rates especially in the United States and Canada destroying the continuity of the Jewish religion, but there are deeper reasons why the rate continues to get higher. Enter the world of Jewish online dating for marriage, the last hope to find your Jewish soul mate, beshert or simply marry within the religion. The various websites include those that allow the single to meet individually other eligible singles. Others have personal matchmakers working to find you a potential match based on a set of criteria you provide. Both kinds of sites boast their success rates and the number of matches. What they never boast or advertise is the numerous horror stories that make any Jewish single understand why nearly half of North Americans choose intermarriage.

Intermarriage has increasingly become a problem in North America. The most recent survey conducted by Pew Research Center’s Religion and Public Life Project published in the fall of 2013 determined that 44 percent of American Jewish choose to marry someone outside the faith. The poll claimed the rates were higher for Jews who identified with the Reform or Reconstructionist movements, much less among Conservative Jews and almost non-existent in the Orthodox community. In Canada, the community likes to believe the rate is lower than their American counterparts, but not really. According to the Jewish Federations of Canada — UIA’s 2011 National Household Survey, “The intermarriage rate for couples under 30 years of age is 43 percent. More than 72,000 Jews live in intermarried households in Canada, including 15,490 children, more than half of whom are being raised without any religious affiliation.”

I am a Jewish woman in her mid-thirties, who for various reasons chose not to get married as the stereotypical 26-year-old as the majority of my peers did so conveniently many within weeks of each other. I wanted more in my 20s; I wanted graduate degrees, I wanted a career, professional notoriety, and for a while achieved the influence, I wanted. I also experienced personal disappointments, mental abuse, sexual harassment, and the dark sides of interpersonal and professional relationships, unfortunately in the hands of Jewish men. The bad experiences only pushed me further away from pursuing marriage.

There is something about the mid-thirties that makes every woman desperate to find a man to marry, to have children, even if that was never their priority. Opportunities were more tempting to date outside the religion, but as someone who came from a traditional Jewish home, went through the Jewish school system and even pursued graduate work in Judaic Studies, it never seemed an option I wanted to explore. For the past few months, I sunk so desperate as to attempt online Jewish dating for marriage and Jewish matchmaking services, with deep reluctance and not much hope and for good reason. In my journey, I met Jewish men from around the world, but particularly the US, New York, and Canada. I will be blunt you hear horror stories about online dating, and I believe I experienced some of the worst because the experience nearly killed me.

At the matchmaking site, I first encountered a matchmaker who found everything about my profile wrong, from my photo to my about me section and even my instructions to the matchmakers as to my criteria for a potential match. The matchmakers volunteer and come from a variety of professions one of mine was a lawyer, who approached matchmaking as only a lawyer could. From the start, she sent me potential matches without any thought to my criteria, a first look that makes you question the whole dating pool.

When I talked with my matchmaker in the mandatory phone interview I had bad flashbacks as a novice undergraduate having my papers reviewed by my professors explaining why I received that bad grade, but this was my dating profile and my personal views about my life. First, she told me I had to get my hair and makeup professionally done and have a professional photographer take the photos. She told me I was not getting a good response from my photo, ironically she did not realize the photos were from my 20s, I really do not look that different except for my hairstyle, and it was probably me at my peak and at the time I paid the most attention to applying a lot of makeup. She called my profile too arrogant for its bluntness, which was meant to weed out the weak and abusive men, and for my academic and career-mindedness. In other words, she wanted me to entirely dumb myself down for these men and bimbo myself to please them.

Our society frowns at body shaming of this sort, most advice tells women to be themselves, and definitely not change physically, intellectually or belief wise for any man. Jewish matchmakers, however, believe in the backdated notion that women need to sacrifice their integrity to get a man. To please her, as a writer I channeled my inner sarcasm and came up with a profile that included flippant lines like “Gone With The Wind inspired me to study real Jewish southern belles during the Civil War, the Jewish Scarletts, and Melanies. As for me as I am as fiery and determined as Scarlett, but as sweet, caring, and compassionate as Melanie.” With a sappy conclusion, I wrote “I am looking for my own bashert to make this journey through life even more meaningful,” although feminism teaches young women that life can be complete without a man.

All this to the please the males on the site, and what a dating pool it was, in a complete double standard the men were not forced to adhere to the physical ridicule the women were. I was looking for men older than me primarily. I was sent men upward to 50 who had never been married, who looked much older and generally creeped me out. The ones who were divorced and with children were even worse, one claimed to be very religious but had left his wife with five children under age 13 and was now looking to marry another woman and have more children with and then repeat the cycle.

The younger ones in the later thirties and early forties had secrets in their backgrounds; if you did a background search, they either were listed as married or had criminal records or families with ones. Many routinely lied about their professional degrees and jobs. One guy, who was one of six siblings from a religious family, had three of the siblings with criminal records. None of the men were lookers, and most of were not even interested in accepting a potential match, even when on paper it seemed perfect they refused, making a woman question them, their motives for being on the site and even their sexuality.

My worst encounter was with a local man who I previously encountered on another matchmaking site. Months earlier I initially refused him after his acceptance because he lied about his looks, weight, jobs and that he was a fulltime undergraduate student again as he was approaching his mid-forties. Here again, matchmakers other than my own were suggesting this same guy. I thought I had been too shallow the first time, and I thought I should have given him the benefit of the doubt I was wrong.

He was still lying about being over 300 lbs, and that he now needs two years to graduate. With talking to him I found out he been fired from a job that he had no qualifications for and should have been grateful to have instead he challenged every one of the institutions time-honored traditions. He failed to see he was wrong at all ever, just talked about himself and pretty much to himself. Two phone calls and emails were enough, but his matchmakers misinterpreted talking twice on the phone as a reason to be roped into marriage and started to stalk me and call me at all hours to force me to go with him. When I complained about it to the site’s support, I was the one kicked off the site, because one can never complain about the amazing Jewish men and their matchmakers.

The second dating website eliminated the headache of matchmakers but left one more vulnerable to the crazies. From the start, I met one man who lied about being disabled and claimed he wanted to marry me but conveniently wanted me to pay for everything. Another man was a grieving overweight widower with children in his mid-forties, who thought I was older than I claimed by a year made an issue about it even though he was still 10 years older than I no matter what, and he was hiding a criminal past. I met another local guy, who knew all my peers from school, which goes against one of my rules of dating, he kept pursuing me by email even though I was not interested, and when I said we knew too many common people he flipped out and had a meltdown practically confessing his past sins on my email account. Never mind, discussing the countless other men whose stories and encounters I experienced that are not worth repeating.

Beware, however, the guy who pretends to be sweet complimentary and flattering. He contacted me the moment I started on the site literally. He was a little younger than me, which goes against another dating rule of mine, but seemed too nice not to talk to, we shared similar academic interests, he was religious, had attended a Yeshiva, made aliyah in his 20s, served in the IDF, but from the start there were red signs. He Facebook friended me after the first call, was telling me he loved me in the first week and saying he wanted to marry me within days. He was showing me all his graduate school essays for my critic, and I also suspected my rewrites. Soon, however, his multiple daily emails were becoming too demanding and time-consuming. For the first month, I kept him at bay, while I searched for someone more worthy and more compatible with me.

Getting kicked off of the matchmaking site, somewhat made me more desperate suddenly I was taking seriously the love declarations of the younger graduate student lothario who claimed to want marriage but seemed to be only desperate for sex. I committed to him, and he even bought me an engagement ring, we started planning a spring wedding, but the early issues only increased. He would email non-stop during the day, while he was at work, even while was in class and expected me to babysit him as he went home each night and then talk to him on the phone each evening. He had hissy fits if I did not answer within minutes. I was soon accounting for every break. My life was not my own, my work was going to the wayside, everything I built up my entire adult professional life. I had no time watch TV, to eat, or even shower.

Years before I knew a man who thought, I was unreasonable when I wanted a response to a single email within the professional 24-hour period or at least 48 hours and got annoyed if I emailed after 48 or 72 hours again. He was oversensitive as to what boundaries were; he should have known and experienced the chocking control I was without barely a minute to myself than he would have known the definition of harassment. I looked forward to Shabbat, not for the religious joys of the day, but because it gave me 25 hours of peace and not hearing from the guy I now felt trapped with.

It was not only his time control, the guy had sexual fetishes, he would not stop bothering me with, and drove me crazy explaining and talking about them. As I got deeper, his control extended to his sexual overtures. In the era of the #MeToo movement, he forced me to send explicit photos over the internet he used for a sexual act, or else he threatened to break up with me and end our engagement. It was my main boundary he crossed it, I never forgave him for it, and began distancing myself from him. I felt sexually assaulted and abused, and still, he was trying to force me to send more photos. The whole short and the now abusive relationship was taking a serious toll on my health. Finally, after one recent Shabbat he told me erev Shabbat he returned my ring for financial reasons, a ring that cost less than $2000, to begin with. Enough was enough, returning my engagement ring behind my back was the last straw. Over two months and 5000 emails later I ended it, but I remain with a deteriorated health, physically bruised and hurt by his deceit and abuse.

In a mere few months of online Jewish dating, I feel more beaten up then the years of normal dating. I always questioned privately intermarriage even as some of my peers from Jewish school chose that route. I was equally appalled at the intermarriage rate from the 2013 Pew poll as I reported about it in an article. I firmly believed in Jewish continuity through marriage, after my experiences I have greater sympathy and understanding for intermarriage, as see my peers who intermarried are happier than I am or even my peers who married within the religion and maintain a hypocritical showbiz relationship with Judaism.

My foray shows there are problems with the Jewish dating pool, abuse, insanity, and criminality, much can be attributed to the men as much as their parents especially the mothers who raised them to treat a woman as objects without any respect. Equally at fault are the matchmakers, whose mindsets are back 100 years before the emergence of the feminist movement and Betty Friedan’s “The Problem That Has No Name.”

I begin to question the commitment of Orthodox rabbis to Jewish continuity, when the rabbi I contacted after being kicked off the matchmaker site, never responded to me although I pleaded and pledged my dedication to marrying Jewish, but was now without options to find a Jewish mate and needed his help. The community, the rabbis, the matchmakers, the parents not only educators are responsible for the rising intermarriage rate. When they make it unappealing and impossible for a Jewish single to find a Jewish mate, the single Jew stops caring and dealing with the problems and decides on the easier route intermarriage rather than remain single trying to find another Jew.

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at Examiner.com where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education July 17, 2017: Concordia University’s policies purposely delay graduation dates

HEADLINE NEWS

Headline_News

EDUCATION

Concordia University’s policies purposely delay graduation dates

By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Concordia University is plagued with enrollment issues delaying students’ graduations and potentially ruining their prospects for graduate and professional school. Wikipedia Commons

We are now in the summer with this year’s convocation ceremonies celebrating university graduates just ended, while new incoming students anticipate the start of their higher education journey. However, how many students who start university end up at the finish line? The question is the reason why graduation rates are an important part of choosing a university, but some universities hide their problems. One such school is Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. Concordia has long faced questions about their graduation rates, but now a reason has emerged, the University has been purposely pushing students to delay graduation.

An April 9, 2017, article by local Montreal radio station CJAD entitled “Over Enrollment Blamed for Class Crunch at Concordia” exposed that the university has over enrollment issues in key requirement courses. Instead of dealing with the longtime issue, undergraduate advisors are convincing students to delay graduation by taking a reduced course load, which ruins students’ graduate school prospects if they look to go outside of Concordia. The psychology department is not the only department experiencing these types of problems they happen elsewhere within the university. The issue is also not exclusively a problem plaguing undergraduate students, deterrence tactics also common at the graduate level.

The report by CJAD and authored by reporter Shuyee Lee delved into some of the reasons there are problems with Concordia graduation rates, over enrollment in courses and advisors telling students to take lighter course loads. In what has been going on “for years” unreported, students face problems enrolling in popular courses that are also part of the major or specialization requirements to graduate or even proceed with next level courses. The courses often offered once a year do not have enough spaces, filled up quickly, and have long waitlists, in the end, many students are shut out. Students have to take longer to graduate and fulfill their requirements. The even problem, the university’s cover-up, many academic advisors are trying to convince students to take lighter course loads, make the students believe it is better for their academic future to do so.

One of Concordia’s most popular majors, Psychology was highlighted in CJAD’s report. Student Paolo Drago, the representative for the Concordia’s Undergraduate Psychology Association spoke to CJAD about the problems within his department, he and fellow students face. Drago explained, “Some courses are only offered once a year, by a particular professor, so you can imagine people who want to take a specialization class that really caters to what they want to research or study, they might not be able to get into that class for a whole year because the class is full, it’s usually a class of 60 so they start lagging behind on the classes they want to take.”

Concordia might be able to keep students enrolled longer and garner additional fees, but it is to the academic detriment of its students. Delays in graduation, taking longer than the average time to complete a degree and taking lighter course loads are frowned at in graduate and professional applications. Students trying to be admitted into law, medicine, and graduate programs at other universities are having problems being admitted and the explanation, they were only listening to the advisor’s does not work. Drago told CJAD, “People are kind of blindsided when they start applying and they don’t get accepted, ‘Well, I did everything the academic advisor told me to do and it’s not paying dividends.’”

Instead of finding solutions, the university’s faculty and administration are denying that there are even any problems. Concordia spokesperson Chris Mota denied there are any over enrollment issues. Mota said, “There are a few programs where opening extra sections of a course is a challenge.” Still, the university plans to increase the minimum average for acceptance to their psychology program, and increase course sizes for the popular required courses. Nevertheless, what about the greater problems in other programs that was not part of CJAD’s report?

This is not the first time Concordia faced a controversy about graduation rates. In 2014, Concordia faced a controversy when the Montreal’s French language paper La Presse wrote an expose claiming a drastic fall in the university undergraduate graduation rate. Concordia quickly pressured La Presse to retract the story. In the original story published on January 3, 2014, entitled “ PLUS DE LA MOITIÉ DES ÉTUDIANTS DE CONCORDIA NE DÉCROCHENT PAS LEUR DIPLÔME “ reporter Hugo Pilon-Larose claimed that only 48 percent of students who started degrees in 2006 had completed them by 2012. The number was a fall from the 75 percent, who had started their degrees in 2001 and finished them by 2007. The troubling number was supposed because of the higher proportion of international students and part-time students.

The university was outraged, almost immediately La Presse was forced to retract their original article. Another article was published four days later on January 7, 2014, entitled, “Taux d’obtention de diplôme: Concordia maintient le cap” and written by Pilon-Larose. The New correction article now claimed that Concordia’s 2007 graduation rate was 75.5 percent and 2012, and it was 74.2 percent for students who commenced their studies six years before. Benoit-Antoine Bacon, vice-president, and vice-president of academic affairs at Concordia University boasted about the rate in the revision. Bacon said, “Our graduation rate is close to or even above the national average. We are very satisfied. But we can always do better, and we are working hard to increase it. But to do so, we face financial and academic challenges.”

In comparison, the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) a comprehensive school like Concordia had a 68.7 rate in 2007 and 71.3 percent in 2012. McGill University and Université de Montréal (UdeM), the city’s medical and doctoral schools had higher rates. McGill had 84 percent in 2012 for students starting in 2006, lower than in 2007 when they had 86 percent graduation rate for students who commenced their studies 2001. Université de Montréal (UdeM) graduation during the same period dropped only slightly from 80.2 percent in 2007 to 79.4 percent in 2012.

Meanwhile, Concordia countered with a correction to LaPresse’s story. The university claimed that LaPresse compared full-time rates from 1999 to part-time rates for 2012 leading to the discrepancies. Concordia indicated that the full-time rate is down only slightly from 74.5 percent to 74.2 percent whereas for all cycles is down 75% to 75.9%.

The truth is the graduation rate is much higher than La Presse’s number but not nearly as high as Concordia claims. University rankings claim the number is in fact, nearly 5 percent lower that Concordia boasts. Maclean’s Magazine profiled Concordia in 2016 for their annual university ranking where Concordia held the tenth position in the Comprehensive University category. According to Maclean’s Concordia has only a 70.5 percent graduation rate, but an 85.9 percent retention rate, showing students keep going and going at Concordia without completing their degrees.

Aside from clarifying the La Presse controversy, Concordia does not publish graduation rates only the number of graduates each year and the number of students enrolled each academic year.
In 2011–12, there were 35,848 undergraduates, 23,390 full-time and 12,458 part-time enrolled at the university. There were also 7,314 graduate students, 5,294 full-time and 2,020 part-time. Meanwhile, that year 4,889 undergraduate received the diplomas, and 1,593 graduating students graduated. In 2015–16, there were 35,616 undergraduate students; the divisions between full and part-time were not disclosed. Meanwhile, 5,213 undergraduates received a diploma and 1,901 graduate students. Although there are more students graduating in the previous academic year, no data was released to indicate when they started their studies and how long it took them to graduate.

Concordia does fare well in world university rankings, partly because they are a comprehensive university focusing or some professional and graduate degrees, but are not a full research, medical doctoral university. In Canada, according to Maclean’s Concordia is 10th in the comprehensive category. On the world stage, the university cannot compete with Canada’s bigger names.

According to the 2018 Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings released in June, Concordia is 431–400, having moved up 30 spots. In comparison, the University of Toronto is now Canada’s top university in the QS ranking replacing McGill coming at number 31. McGill is now second in Canada at number 32. Although McGill ranks first in Canadian rankings in international ones the University of Toronto usual takes that honor. Canada’s third University in the top 100, the University of British Columbia is now number 52. In Canada, Concordia was in 16th place of all Canadian schools.

Meanwhile, in the Times Higher Education’s (THE) 2017 World University Rankings, Concordia came at between 501–600 th position. The school did better in the 2017 Young University Rankings, were ranked in the 101–150 th position. The University of Toronto again topped the Canadian universities on the list. The University of Toronto took the Number 22 position. The University of British Columbia was tied for 36, while McGill University was number 42.

The revelation of Concordia’s deterrence methods came close to home. I had two degrees from the neighboring McGill University before entering Concordia University. I had a BA in History and Art History and a Masters in Library and Information Studies before starting a second Masters degree in Judaic Studies with a thesis, at Concordia’s Religion Department from the start I was pushed to relax my course load. I came with plans to move full speed ahead and finish the program in two years and then on for a doctorate, but at every turn, there were obstacles that slowed me down. The following is my own experiences and observances while I was a student at Concordia.

At McGill, I completed a Masters degree by course and finishing the 48-credit degree in two years by taking a full load of four courses each semester. In Concordia, I was cautioned to take only two courses a required seminar and independent course in my first semester. In my first semester, I tried to stay strict with deadlines but saw professors being lax about deadlines as if it was not unusual, and it was not. For final research papers in seminars and independent courses my professors routinely recommended continuances that lasted up to two months into the next semester. With weekly readings and some short writing assignments throughout the semester it becomes easy to need the extra time a complete a research paper for a course, and if you start down that path, you continually need the extra time.

The research papers I completed for each course were sometimes upward to 50 pages in final presentation form. With the sheer amount of research for the papers plus reading throughout the semester, it is easy to take advantage of light course loads and extensions because they are approved and even advised by the faculty and your program advisor. Students fall into the trap, made so easy by your department but it ends up being destructive to graduating on time and realizing your academic goals.

Another unreported problem in Concordia is the amount of time it takes graduate students to complete their degree. A warning sign was hearing how long some of the students in the Religion Department were taking for their degrees, an average four years for the masters and upward to ten years for the doctorate. Concordia gives longer maximums for completing a graduate degree than neighboring McGill. The longer maximum time for full-time students is a leading indicator is would take longer to complete the degrees. The masters’ degree I was enrolled in the Religion Department resembled more of a mini-doctorate program at that time, with not only a thesis but also two comprehensive exams, it was impossible to complete it in the usual two years a Master’s degree should take. The degree has now been curtailed with the comprehensive exams removed as a requirement.

Concordia’s graduate programs have students paying a set schedule of fees regardless of the number of credits a student takes each semester. Therefore, one can take two courses and still be a full-time student. After the degree is paid, and if a student has not completed their degree they pay continuance fees. In comparison to Concordia’s, fee schedule, at McGill even in graduate study students pay by the number of credits per semester. In the end, after the three years, I completely paid off my degree plus three semesters of continuance fees, but with only 18 credits completed on my transcript.

Another way to deter students was making them repeat courses they had previously received credit for at another university. I faced another added burden, unlike the majority of students in my program I came with a Masters degree already under my belt, something the department repeatedly tried to forget. Whereas in McGill if a student already completed a research methods course, they were exempted from the requirement, it was the opposite in Concordia. I had taken an entire degree on research methodology, librarians are expert researchers, the ones helping students conduct research and find sources in the academic libraries, but the department was insistent I take a repetitive course or would not graduate.

The research methods course consisted of visits to the libraries and archives to hear about how to research. During my MLIS programs, I worked in libraries. Prior to entering Concordia, I had just put on an exhibition of a collection I cataloged in Canadian Jewish history as part of work I did at McGill’s University Archives. The department ignored that I completed a degree in research at the nation’s preeminent university. In my experience, the entire cycle was one I could not escape except leave the program without graduating. Therefore, after three years, 18 credits, an unsubmitted completed thesis, and a 3.95 CGPA I left Concordia’s MA in Judaic Studies program.

Like CJAD’s report on the psychology department’s deterrence methods, my experience was more the fault of the Religion Department than the university’s policies although they did facilitate them since departments have more control over graduate students and programs. As I observed a majority of the graduate students accepted to the Masters and even the Doctorate program came from different disciplines. I came from a related one history and was focusing on American Jewish history, but did not have Judaic or Jewish studies major beforehand. Other students came from even more different degrees and disciplines. Sometimes the students were required to take extra courses to obtain a background other times not, like me.

A majority in the department were also mature students returning to school after years in other professions. A minority were students continuing through the different academic cycles, I was one of the youngest in the program despite having completed another Masters before. I frequently saw favoritism for the mature students. Favoritism, in general, ran rampant, and it had nothing to do with grades or GPAs, rather personality but also research interests. Unlike psychology, religion is not usually a popular discipline; especially Judaic studies where there were only a handful of graduate students. University politics plays a factor, allocation of funding from the university depends on departmental enrollment. Promises of fellowships and awards attracted students like me for the money but mostly the prestige and honor. Keeping students in the department longer makes a larger student population. All these factors and some external ones were a recipe for students to take longer completing their degrees.

The reveal in CJAD’s report just touches on advisors recommending reduced course loads. Unfortunately, the advice is even more detrimental to graduate programs. Concordia’s policies do everything possible to slow down graduate students making them spend double the time and money. Departments are pushing students to take longer to graduate to increase their number of students and make sure the university collects more fees and that they get larger budgets. Instead of finding solutions, the administration chooses to ignore or better yet shut down any report that might indicate a problem at the university. LaPresse quickly withdrew their story in 2014 and CJAD’s report in April never went further with a followed up or covered by any other news outlet.

As their graduate rates suggest, maybe a majority of Concordia University’s students eventually graduate, others are fed up with the high costs, lengthy times and slow career movement. Either way, students are the ones that lose out from the university and department politics and policies. Longer times to graduate at the undergraduate or graduate level give students wishing to continue their studies little options outside of Concordia, which seems an intentional part of the cycle. For those who discontinue their studies, they are left few choices to continue graduate school, except return to Concordia or years of explaining why they did not complete their degree. Now at least thanks to CJAD’s reporting students and ex-students do not feel alone, it a common unresolved occurrence at Concordia one that desperately needs remedying.

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at Examiner.com where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

 

Judaism August 18, 2016: How a tragedy in Montreal should bring attention to domestic abuse in the Jewish community

HEADLINE NEWS

Headline_News

POLITICS

How a tragedy in Montreal should bring attention to domestic abuse in the Jewish community

By Bonnie K. Goodman

On Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2016, a chapter in a tragedy in the Montreal Jewish community came to an end, but a discussion and new awareness have to begin. Wednesday, Montreal police arrested 80- year-old Salomon Abeassis for arson and first-degree murder of his longtime wife, Teresa Cohen’s, 75, death. This couple lived in the same rented house for over 30 years on a quiet street in the predominantly Jewish suburb of Cote St Luc. The neighbors’ thought they were such a nice quiet couple but underneath the perfect veneer, this woman presumably lived with the silent problem in the Jewish community, domestic abuse.

On a quiet, sunny Sunday, July 10, a fire broke out in the upstairs duplex on Guelph in Cote St Luc. The downstairs neighbor and longtime landlord heard the screams coming from upstairs tried to go upstairs to help first through the front stairs after the husband supposedly buzzed her in and then through the back stairs. It was front the back window, she saw the horrid sight, the wife was on the floor of the kitchen ablaze; there was no way the neighbor could do anything to help. The neighbor called 911, but they took 20 minutes, and in that, the time, the wife suffered alone. Cohen was taken to the hospital, in critical condition with terrible burns all over her body, her life hung in a balance a day later, on Monday, July 11; Teresa Cohen died from her injuries and with her what happened and her true story of suffering.

What set this story apart was how heinous the crime was, police say a liquid accelerant was poured on Cohen supposedly by the accused, her husband, the only other person in the house at the time and then set on fire. The crime first appeared to look like a suicide, because the wife had recently had hip replacement surgery and lost some mobility. The neighbor said they were always so quiet and that Abeassis helped his wife after she broke her hip in March, taking her to doctors’ appointments. For over a month doctors protected the husband preventing the police from questioning him, as he remained an important witness. Abeassis was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation, something people are released from the hospital in a day maximum, but for five weeks, he was kept sheltered, doctors say he was in a coma. In no other case would that happened except he was an eighty-year-old supposedly nice Jewish man with no prior criminal record.

Finally, on Aug. 5, doctors gave police the green light to question Abeassis. Upon his release from the hospital, he was arrested and “escorted” by police to the courthouse where he was formally charged. Abeassis was brought in a wheelchair and had problems hearing the proceedings against him; he seemed confused as he was represented by his legal aid lawyer and charges were formally brought against him. He will be kept in custody until his next court date in October and has conditions; he cannot contact two of his daughters or their families.

As a journalist, I write about the news often, and the news is hardly pretty, but this story hit me hard, partly because it was in my community, practically in my backyard, I know the street well. More importantly, it touched me because it was a tragic story and end to domestic abuse. I was in a relationship where I was mentally abused and controlled for years, everyone around me told to get away from him, that one day he would do real harm to me. Then he tried to, although not the same, I akin what he did to me as a man with the same rage that tries to kill a girlfriend or wife. I occasionally allude to what happened to me in some of my articles. Guess what he was a nice Jewish man, with a good reputation. No one could have ever imagined how he terrorized me and wanted to destroy me, I was even in denial, I could not see what he was doing to me. I came from a good family; I was sheltered, and I was too trusting.

This woman probably suffered for years from her husband’s abuse living with it in silence afraid of the shame it might cause her family, what others might have thought. We will never know if her daughters, knew anything, wanted or did not want her to leave him, what we know is nobody helped her, and she died a horrid death. This man she lived with, was married to maybe 50 years, raised four children is not just accused of killing her, but obliterating her in every way possible.

Living in the community and with many of peers living there as well, possibly even knowing the family, with one of the daughters a teacher at a local Jewish day school, I was shocked that nobody commented on the incident. The local Jewish press also covered the story to a minimum; the mainstream press covered the story because it was a possible murder in a quiet suburb that rarely if ever sees murders, and because of the sensationalism and shock of the crime, the victim, and the suspect.

I had to repost on my social media the local media’s take on the story after the arrest. I was practically stoned for posting. My peers who would comment on everything, every little event, thought it was inappropriate to comment on this incident. They said it was “disrespectful” “not right to comment” “because we don’t exactly know the situation and we can’t speculate,” because it could be “taken out of proportion,” and a “tragic story that does not need people dissecting it.” Irrelevant, was although “They seemed to be very nice people from a nice family,” they were not religious.

This was a heinous, heinous crime. It happened in our backyard literally, in our community. We live in an age where we comment on every tragedy in the news, but they are far away, with the news media defining who is the enemy it is OK to remark and to take sides. We routinely comment on the domestic abuse cases of celebrities taking sides, giving our opinions. If the Jewish community experiences anti-Semitism, there is no stop of responses from the community and the Jewish media. Why do we have to ignore this story, is it because we feel uncomfortable and if we do not talk about it did not happen. Our problem is in when we know the people and they are in our community we do not want take sides, the black and white becomes gray.

Teresa Cohen most probably experienced domestic abuse, she kept silent, and she paid for it in the most horrendous way possible, her life, supposedly by the hands of someone she lived and built a life with for the majority of her life. To keep silent is what is disrespectful, showing neutrality is practically condoning what happened. There is a denial that domestic abuse is not a problem in the Jewish community it is. For Teresa Cohen not to have died totally in vain, we need to do more to make aware and help those suffering domestic violence in the Jewish community, in our community. We need to make sure these women do not end up with the same or similar fate.

Domestic abuse has long been a silent problem in the Jewish community the prevalent attitude is “Oh it doesn’t happen – there’s no abuse in the Jewish community.”  Just last year the Canadian Jewish News did a cover story entitled “Domestic Abuse is a Jewish Issue, Too.” Generally “one in four women experience domestic abuse during their lifetime” and according to the Jewish Coalition Against Domestic Abuse’s statistics the rate of abuse in the Jewish community is the same between 15 and 25 percent of women experiencing abuse. At Montreal’s Jewish women’s shelter Auberge Shalom Pour Femmes, 20 percent of those at the shelter are Jewish while 35 percent participate in their “external services” to helped abused women.

Religious reasons are often behind the denial about abuse occurring in the community. Penny Krowitz, the executive director Act To End Violence Against Women (ATEVAW) told CJN, “For most people in our community, they don’t believe it happens to us. They believe the Jewish community is immune to such things, because of our tremendous value on family and shalom bayit.”

The other part of denial comes from the women experiencing it themselves, because Krowitz points out, “women often think that if their husbands aren’t hitting them, they’re not being abused.” Domestic abuse is all encompassing and is “defined as an imbalance of power when one uses threats or physical force to create fear, control or intimidate another.” Krowitz says the majority of domestic abuse in the community is “verbal, emotional, psychological, financial, spiritual, sexual – it’s not visible abuse.” Like me when Krowitz first spoke to a sisterhood about domestic abuse she thought, “The community is going to kill me.”

We have to stop emphasizing the perfect Jewish appearance of being the being the perfect mother, wife, and family living idyllically. The concept and ideal of shalom bayit are often the reason Jewish women do not do anything to get out of their abusive relationships, because as Krowitz indicates, “she is ashamed that her home is not a place of peace, and she feels like it is her fault.” The second obstacle is shandeh – “the shame of admitting, disclosing, that your home is not a happy place. That your husband doesn’t treat you well, that you are frightened, that you walk on eggshells.”

The abuse happens in every socio-economic sphere of the community and among different levels of religious observance, it does not just happen in families where they are not that religious as one of my peers implied. In fact, Orthodox tradition dictates that Jewish women take a submissive role in the patriarchal relationship making the imbalance of power ripe for abuse. Not helping the issue is religious courts most often side with the husband. Jewish women need their husband’s permission to acquire a get a Jewish divorce, if not and a Jewish woman leaves she is considered an “agunah, a chained or anchored woman.”

We still have this belief both religiously and socially that divorce, being single is a stigma, that if we do not have that perfect life, there is no place for Jewish women in the community. Maybe if there was more awareness, less focus on image and less shame associated with leaving than Jewish women would leave their abusive husbands and not end up like Teresa Cohen. She had four grown daughters, and grandchildren, but died alone, and the minute she was set on fire, she was alone with no one to help her. The same way we talk about the larger atrocities that have befallen the Jewish community, we have to speak of the smaller ones to never to forget and never let it happen again.

Judaism June 6, 2016: McGill SSMU outlaws BDS after professors release letter three months too late

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Judaism March 15, 2016: Kotel Rabbi reverses support on egalitarian space ban on non-Orthodox prayer

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Kotel Rabbi reverses support on egalitarian space ban on non-Orthodox prayer

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, March 15, 2016, 8:57 AM MST

Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz is formally withdrawing any support he had for the Kotel's egalitarian prayer space. Instead, he is asking lawmaker to overturn the January cabinet vote and prevent Women of the Wall from freely praying, March 14, 2016
Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz is formally withdrawing any support he had for the Kotel’s egalitarian prayer space. Instead, he is asking lawmaker to overturn the January cabinet vote and prevent Women of the Wall from freely praying, March 14, 2016
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Judaism February 25, 2016: McGill pro-Israel students face new reality anti-Semitism after SSMU BDS vote

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

McGill pro-Israel students face new reality anti-Semitism after SSMU BDS vote

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, February 25, 2016, 9:13 PM MST

McGill University's Jewish and pro-Israel students are facing a wave of increased anti-Semitism, harassment and bullying after the student union voted to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, Feb. 23, 2016
McGill University’s Jewish and pro-Israel students are facing a wave of increased anti-Semitism, harassment and bullying after the student union voted to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, Feb. 23, 2016
Wikimedia Commons

Judaism February 16, 2016: Top colleges and universities for Jewish students in the US and Canada

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Top colleges and universities for Jewish students in the US and Canada

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, January 16, 2016, 7:22 PM MST

Two different rankings name the University of Florida and Princeton University the best colleges for Jewish life on campus
Two different rankings name the University of Florida and Princeton University the best colleges for Jewish life on campus
Princeton.edu

Judaism December 27, 2015: Sotheby’s auctions 9 items from Valmadonna Trust Library for nearly 15 million

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Sotheby’s auctions nine items from Valmadonna Trust Library for nearly 15 million

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, December 27, 2015, 6:14 PM MST

Sotheby's auctioned off the Valmadonna Trust Library's most prized item the complete Bomberg Talmud for over $9 million, Dec. 22, 2015

Play
Sotheby’s auctioned off the Valmadonna Trust Library’s most prized item the complete Bomberg Talmud for over $9 million, Dec. 22, 2015
Sothebys.com / Morton Landowne YouTube

Judaism December 10, 2015: Obama celebrates White House Hanukkah party with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Obama celebrates White House Hanukkah party with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, December 10, 2015, 7:03 PM MST

President Barack Obama and Israeli President Reuven Rivlin delivered remarks, before reciting the blessing and lighting the Hanukkah candles at a White House reception, Dec. 9, 2015

Play
President Barack Obama and Israeli President Reuven Rivlin delivered remarks, before reciting the blessing and lighting the Hanukkah candles at a White House reception, Dec. 9, 2015
Photo by Aude Guerrucci – Pool/Getty Images / White House YouTube

Judaism November 9, 2015: Sha Shtil a critical education on the problems of the Jewish Federation system

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Sha Shtil a critical education on the problems of the Jewish Federation system 

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, November 9, 2015, 11:28 AM MST

Canadian filmmaker and activist Ben Feferman's documentary Sha Shtil: Inside Canada's Jewish Establishment examines the transparency and democracy problems the Canadian Jewish Federation system faces

Play
Canadian filmmaker and activist Ben Feferman’s documentary Sha Shtil: Inside Canada’s Jewish Establishment examines the transparency and democracy problems the Canadian Jewish Federation system faces
Ben Feferman YouTube

Judaism May 20, 2015: Women of the Wall again barred from reading Torah as police arrest supporter

Women of the Wall again barred from reading Torah as police arrest supporter

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, May 20, 2015, 1:26 PM MST

 

For the month of Sivan Women of the Wall were supposed to have Bat Mitzvahs for six girls, who were denied the chance to read from the Torah, May 20, 2015

Play
For the month of Sivan Women of the Wall were supposed to have Bat Mitzvahs for six girls, who were denied the chance to read from the Torah, May 20, 2015
Women of the Wall / Yael Gilboa

Jewish Musings April 21, 2015: Women of the Wall triumph finally read from full size Torah scroll at Kotel

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Women of the Wall triumph finally read from full-size Torah scroll at Kotel

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, April 21, 2015, 10:46 AM MST

The Woman of the Wall (WoW) Nashot HaKotel read for the first time from a full sized Torah scroll in the women's section of the Kotel, Western Wall for Rosh Hodesh Iyar services, April 20, 2015

Play
The Woman of the Wall (WoW) Nashot HaKotel read for the first time from a full-sized Torah scroll in the women’s section of the Kotel, Western Wall for Rosh Hodesh Iyar services, April 20, 2015
Women of the Wall Facebook / YouTube

Jewish Musings April 6, 2015: Obama celebrates seventh Passover Seder at the White House

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Obama celebrates seventh Passover Seder at the White House

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, April 6, 2015, 12:48 AM MST

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama hosted their seventh Passover seder, and the president's eighth, Obama also released a Passover statement emphasizing the Exodus story, April 4, 2015
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama hosted their seventh Passover seder, and the president’s eighth, Obama also released a Passover statement emphasizing the Exodus story, April 4, 2015
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Judaism October 26, 2014: Women of the Wall’s historic Torah scroll smuggling reading at Kotel bat mitzvah

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Women of the Wall’s historic Torah scroll smuggling reading at Kotel bat mitzvah

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, October 26, 2014, 3:37 PM MST

 

Sasha Lutt becomes the first girl to have a full bat mitzvah in the women's section at the Kotel, Western Wall by reading the Torah as part of the Women of the Wall's monthly prayer service, Oct. 24, 2014

Play
Sasha Lutt becomes the first girl to have a full bat mitzvah in the women’s section at the Kotel, Western Wall by reading the Torah as part of the Women of the Wall’s monthly prayer service, Oct. 24, 2014
Women of the Wall

Judaism October 12, 2014: Bible Lands Museum oldest siddur on display despite mystery surrounding the book

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Bible Lands Museum oldest siddur on display despite mystery surrounding the book

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, October 12, 2014, 11:05 AM MST

The Jewish prayer book, siddur from the Green Collection is currently on display at the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem, although scholars are questioning its authenticity, Sept. 18-Oct. 18, 2014
The Jewish prayer book, Siddur from the Green Collection is currently on display at the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem, although scholars are questioning its authenticity, Sept. 18-Oct. 18, 2014
Times of Israel

Judaism May 28, 2014: Recent Brussels, Paris anti-Semitic attacks backup ADL Global 100 poll claims

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Recent Brussels, Paris anti-Semitic attacks backup ADL Global 100 poll claims

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, May 28, 2014, 2:16 PM MST

Jewish Museum of Belgium in Brussels the scene of the most recently recent deadly anti-Semitic attack in Europe, May 24, 2014; The ADL's recent survey "The ADL Global 100: An Index of Anti-Semitism" mapped out the world's most anti-Semitic countries
Jewish Museum of Belgium in Brussels the scene of the most recently recent deadly anti-Semitic attack in Europe, May 24, 2014; The ADL’s recent survey “The ADL Global 100: An Index of Anti-Semitism” mapped out the world’s most anti-Semitic countries
GEORGES GOBET/AFP/Getty Images

Judaism April 22, 2014: President Obama celebrates Passover with annual White House seder tradition

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

President Obama celebrates Passover with annual White House seder tradition

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, April 22, 2014, 9:52 PM MST

President Barack Obama, family and former 2008 campaign staffers celebrate the second night of Passover with a seder, in the White House Old Family Dining Room, April 15, 2014; this is Obama's 6th seder, a tradition that started in the 2008 campaign
President Barack Obama, family and former 2008 campaign staffers, celebrate the second night of Passover with a seder, in the White House Old Family Dining Room, April 15, 2014; this is Obama’s 6th seder, a tradition that started in the 2008 campaign
White House

Judaism April 20, 2014: National Library of Israel acquires Moses Montefiore Haggadah for collection

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

National Library of Israel acquires Moses Montefiore Haggadah for collection

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, April 20, 2014, 2:14 PM MST

The dedication page of the Moses Montefiore Haggadah acquired by the National Library of Israel for their world's largest Haggadah collection
The dedication page of the Moses Montefiore Haggadah acquired by the National Library of Israel for their world’s largest Haggadah collection
Israel Hayom / National Library of Israel

Judaism March 10, 2014: Looking to thwart assimilation through Jewish and Israel education

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Looking to thwart assimilation through Jewish and Israel education

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, March 10, 2014, 10:34 AM MST

 Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman proposes a new global Jewish education initiative to curb assimilation at the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem, Feb. 18, 2014
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman proposes a new global Jewish education initiative to curb assimilation at the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem, Feb. 18, 2014
Flash 90

Judaism February 10, 2014: Kolech Orthodox feminists Women of the Wall break over egalitarian prayer space

 EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Kolech Orthodox feminists Women of the Wall break over egalitarian prayer space 

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, February 10, 2014, 4:59 PM MST

Women of the Wall are ready to accept a government proposal to permanently move to Robinson's Arch causing supporters and groups of members to splinters off from the organization, vowing to continue to fight to prayer at the women's section of the Kotel
Women of the Wall are ready to accept a government proposal to permanently move to Robinson’s Arch causing supporters and groups of members to splinters off from the organization, vowing to continue to fight to prayer in the women’s section of the Kotel
Miriam Alster/Flash90

 

Judaism February 8, 2014: After survey of American Jews Pew Research Center plans one for Israeli Jews

EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

After survey of American Jews, Pew Research Center plans one for Israeli Jews

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, February 8, 2014, 10:37 PM MST

After releasing the "A Portrait of Jewish Americans" in October 2013, the Pew Research Center will conduct a similar survey of Israeli Jews to be released in November 2014
After releasing the “A Portrait of Jewish Americans” in October 2013, the Pew Research Center will conduct a similar survey of Israeli Jews to be released in November 2014
AP

Judaism January 7, 2014: Pope Francis formally announces May trip dates to Israel, Middle East

 EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Pope Francis formally announces May trip dates to Israel, Middle East 

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, January 7, 2014, 8:25 PM MST

Pope Francis formally announced the dates of his Israel and Middle East trip during his Sunday blessings, Jan. 5, 2014; the Pope will make that trek from May 24-26, 2014
Pope Francis formally announced the dates of his Israel and Middle East trip during his Sunday blessings, Jan. 5, 2014; the Pope will make that trek from May 24-26, 2014
GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images

Judaism January 6, 2014: Women of the Wall face Torah smuggling controversy at Shevat Rosh Hodesh prayers

 EXAMINER ARTICLES

Examiner_Articles

JUDAISM

Women of the Wall face Torah smuggling controversy at Shevat Rosh Hodesh prayers

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Examiner.com, January 6, 2014, 10:18 PM MST

For the second month in a row the Women of the Wall were denied to read from the Torah during their monthly prayer service, Jan. 2, 2014; they were accused of trying to smuggle a Torah scroll into their Shevat service
For the second month in a row, the Women of the Wall were denied to read from the Torah during their monthly prayer service, Jan. 2, 2014; they were accused of trying to smuggle a Torah scroll into their Shevat service
Miriam Alster/Flash90