If you’ve been following the controversies surrounding the Women’s March, then you know there has been a lot going on. Back in October, during B’nai B’rith’s 175th Anniversary Leadership Forum, we held a panel discussion on the topic of “The Crisis of Zionism in Progressive Spaces.” It was a lively discussion on the issues facing Zionists in the American progressive community between B’nai B’rith International CEO Daniel S. Mariaschin, leading Democratic Party strategist Ann Lewis, President and CEO of Zioness Amanda Berman and journalist Emily Shire. The talk brought to light much of what is being discussed in the news today re: anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism, the fact that the Israel is more and more becoming a partisan issue in American politics, and the fact that Zionists do not feel welcome, and in many cases are actually denied participation with, coalitions on issues of social justice.

In a nutshell: in January 2017, women across the United States joined in marches in solidarity for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, gun control, rights for all minorities and marginalized peoples, etc. The national Women’s March on Washington took place in Washington, D.C., and was organized by a few co-chairs. For many, it was a monumental moment in American history, where women felt they had something to say and demanded to be heard. Unfortunately, in the weeks to follow it became evident that one of the leaders of the march, Linda Sarsour, was a virulent anti-Zionist (which many of us agree is anti-Semitism). Sarsour tweeted things like “Zionism is creepy” and recently accused Jewish lawmakers of the age old dual loyalties canard.  What were Jewish Zionist women to feel about joining in a march organized by someone with her views? Recently, after one of the organizers, Tamika Mallory, attended an event hosted by notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan and called him ‘the greatest of all time’ on social media, the original founder of the Women’s March Teresa Shook, finally, publicly demanded that the organization’s four co-chairs, Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez, Tamika Mallory and Bob Bland, step down for allowing “anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric” to become part of the organization’s platform. 

After this hit the news (though, for most of us, their hate was not news), more and more groups—Jewish and not have decided enough is finally enough and dissociated themselves from the national march in D.C. that will be happening on January 19. Many groups have instead organized separate marches because they will not allow a few hateful people to determine their civil liberties. Amanda Berman, President and CEO of Zioness, a movement that was founded in the wake of the anti-Zionism happening throughout the progressive movement, proudly attended the past National Women’s Marches in D.C. and mobilized other Zioness activists to march in their local cities. They march precisely to say—we will not sit home quietly, because Jews have always been at the forefront of these issues and Linda Sarsour does not get to decide who will march for justice and equality and who will not.  Berman has stated, “The American progressive movement has been devolving into a safe haven for radical anti-Semitism, couched as anti-Zionism and framed in the language of social justice. The movement exploits sympathetic, compassionate, and often young Americans -– many of whom are themselves Jews – teaching them that those who support a Jewish homeland, Jewish self-determination and Jewish-liberation are in fact oppressors, murderers and even Nazis.” Berman made clear at our panel discussion in October that it is all the more important to show up at the march as a proud Zionist than it is to not attend. Critics have said going to the national march actually legitimizes the D.C. chairs and therefore as Jews and proud Zionists, we should not attend. In light of the overwhelming hateful rhetoric coming from the D.C. organizers, and after so many sister marches canceled events alongside the national march—Zioness decided this past week that they too will no longer march with the co-chairs in D.C. but will mobilize in every other city across the U.S. with a Zioness chapter.

All of this really brings to light a few critical issues: when is enough considered enough? On an individual and collective level—what is the threshold to decide to walk away from the national march?— Should it have been right after we found out who Linda Sarsour really was? Were we able to reconcile attending if she was the only organizer who used hateful rhetoric? Did it matter enough when Mallory refused to denounce Farrakhan? Or only when all four chairs were publicly asked to resign? Was it when the New York Times reported Tablet Magazine’s investigation that—allegedly—during the inception of the Women’s March in the very first meetings, it was asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of brown and black people?

At what point did their hate cross the threshold for what individuals and the Jewish community as a whole would stand for? It is an important point to examine. What are we willing to ignore, accept or denounce?

So, what does this all mean? I believe the Women’s March issues are representative of larger problems going on in American politics and society, and as staunch Israel advocates, we must acknowledge these issues going on or else they may get worse. Yes, there is anti-Semitism at the top levels of the D.C. Women’s March, just as we saw it overtly (written into the charter) of the Black Lives Matter platform. These facts have become emblematic of how far reaching anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have become in the progressive movement.

How close is the progressive movement to legitimizing anti-Zionism? I would argue quite close. Since when did being a progressive go hand in hand with criticizing the State of Israel or downright rejecting its existence? Could it be that one day the mainstream American center left no longer supports aid to Israel, or a two-state solution?

These issues used to be a problem for our college kids fresh on campus encountering the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) and mock IDF/Palestinian “massacres,” but these problems are now seeping into the mainstream political left in this country. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, support for Israel was never a partisan issue in the United States. But more and more, we are witnessing a major shift in this support and a shift in acceptable language and norms; for example, the use of the word “occupation,” equivocating protestor and terrorist, etc. These controversial terms are becoming less controversial and more acceptable. It is becoming somewhat commonplace to hear someone like Bernie Sanders—with millions of people taking his word as gospel— to speak factually incorrectly on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And when the correction is made (facts show his claims are wrong), it is not publicized widely in the media.

But how many of his young followers listened to the wrong information and have now made assumptions that will permanently stay with them? For example, his protégé, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is now a member of the House of Representatives, called the killing of Palestinian “protesters” (aka Hamas) by Israeli troops at the Gaza border, a “massacre.” AOC—as her fans call her— has become one of the most influential people amongst liberals today. Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American Muslim elected to Congress, who posed with Linda Sarsour holding a map with “Palestine” in place of Israel the day she was sworn into Congress. Further, Tlaib has said she supports the BDS movement, has called for cuts to U.S. military to Israel and accused American Jewish lawmakers of dual loyalties.

Sure, we can shrug these few people off as ignorant, misinformed, immature, whatever you want to call them—but they were elected to Congress and they have power and influence! As Israel advocates, we cannot allow for this type of behavior and rhetoric to become commonplace. Is it fair that one cannot support progressive issues while being a proud Zionist? You’re either with us on every issue including criticizing the State or Israel or you’re not? Isn’t this bordering on anti-Semitism? 
​
The leaders of the Women’s March and the newly elected progressive congresswomen currently have a sort of rock-star fame, and they are majorly influential amongst millions of Americans who will be voting in the years to come. We must reckon with what is happening and challenge it or the future of the America/Israel alliance is at stake. If the controversies surrounding the Women’s March have taught us anything, it is that we cannot afford, for both future generations and this one, to let Israel become a partisan issue in American politics. Criticism of an Israeli policy is one thing, anti-Zionism is another. If we allow the latter to become an acceptable position of our elected officials or the organizers of a national march, we risk normalizing anti-Semitism in the United States in the 21st century.

​

​Rebecca Rose is Associate Director of Young Leadership & Development at B’nai B’rith International. She holds an M.A. in Political Science in Security and Diplomacy from Tel Aviv University.

Since 2013, the federal government has “shut down” four times, three of those times during the Trump administration. A government shutdown occurs when there is a lapse in federal funding because Congress and the White House are unable to agree on appropriations. Usually, this happens because of political brinksmanship, the most recent example stemming from a dispute over the White House refusing to fund the government without first obtaining appropriations to build a border wall between Mexico and the United States. Government shutdowns are inevitably terrible for Americans, especially seniors, because of the loss or slowdown of important government services.  

Many people’s first thoughts about seniors being impacted by a government shutdown are about Social Security and Medicare. While these programs still make payments during a shutdown, Social Security and Medicare still feel the pinch during the government’s closure. For example, basic activities like processing new applications for seniors who desperately need a source of income and health care are delayed, and Social Security has gone as far as terminating the issuance of new cards during a shutdown. 

While Social Security and Medicare are still functional during a government shutdown, our country’s nutrition programs that benefit older Americans, like Meals on Wheels and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), could be impacted more significantly. For instance, the office of Food and Nutrition Services that oversees SNAP could see major staff reductions during any shutdown.  Furthermore, if the shutdown persists too long, SNAP could run out of funding completely, which would impact the 4.8 million people aged 60 and above who rely on the program. Lastly, in the run-up to the government shutdown of January 2018, Meals on Wheels America President and CEO Ellie Hollander, said, “The number of hungry, isolated seniors who may not know where their next meal is coming from has doubled over the past 20 years…A government shutdown for any considerable length of time would lead to a delay in federal funding reimbursements for meals and services delivered, forcing Meals on Wheels programs to make near impossible choices such as suspending meal services, initiating or expanding waiting lists for meals, reducing the number of meals or delivery days or even closing their doors altogether.”

Obviously, B’nai B’rith International, as a sponsor of Section 202 supportive housing for the elderly, takes a keen interest in funding lapses that impact the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  During a short-lived government shutdown, HUD should be able to meet its basic obligations to the Section 202 program.  However, the longer shutdowns last, the greater the likelihood HUD won’t have the funding to meet its core responsibilities.   
​
During any government shutdown, members of Congress or the President should not be advancing their own political agenda at the expense of government programs that benefit seniors and all Americans. Basic needs like nutrition and housing should be fully funded, without the threat of a government shutdown. The exact impact of a government shutdown always varies. However, the harm it causes people remains constant. While the most recent government shutdown will eventually end, at this point in our country’s history, another shutdown always seems sadly inevitable. 

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.​

​Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, many Israeli political leaders have doggedly held to the position that the Palestinian Authority (PA)/PLO and its leading faction Fatah – all headed by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) -  remain Israel’s best and perhaps only partner for reaching a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians. They excuse contrary evidence – including the launching and condoning of deadly waves of terrorism, the continuous diplomatic offensive and the promotion of violence and rejectionism in the Palestinian media and school system – as mere symptoms  of the lack of agreement between the parties and argue that these irredentist actions would end as soon as a final status agreement is signed and the “Occupation” ended. An opposing view contends that continued Palestinian rejectionism, incitement and delegitimization poison any chance for reconciliation between the two peoples for generations into the future and insist these come to an end before any further concessions are made towards further Palestinian independence and statehood.
 
A recent report entitled “The Palestinian Authority and Hamas: Promoting Terror in Tandem” lends support to the second approach and points to a growing trend: incitement led by Hamas to terrorist attacks in Judea and Samaria – alongside the PA and Fatah’s institutional embrace of terrorism.
 
Here are some examples:

• Following the most recent wave of terrorism in Judea and Samaria, Fatah praised and applauded the terrorists who carried out attacks, including those in Barkan and Ofra. The Palestinian Authority ignored the fact that the victims were innocent civilians, accusing Israel of "killing civilians" in retaliation, although the only ones killed were the murderers themselves.
• Palestinian representative to the UN Riad Mansour, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General, the President of the Security Council and the President of the UN General Assembly, wrote that "in recent days, a number of residents have been punished and murdered by the Israeli occupation forces. This is part of military operations aimed at avenging Palestinians following the killing of three Israeli soldiers. In just 24 hours, the occupation forces executed four Palestinian residents: Ashraf Nalwah, Salah al-Barghouthi (the terrorist who participated in the attack in Ofra), Hamdan al-A’aracha (carried out a vehicular terrorist attack) and Majed Matir (carried out a stabbing in Jerusalem)” – (parentheses added – A.S.)
• A statement issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs insisted: “The death of the three Palestinian residents, the martyrs, by the hand of occupation forces last night and this morning is proof that their soldiers have become machines of war and execution above the law, receiving their orders from the political echelon in Israel”.
• At the same time, the Fatah movement in the West Bank called on the Palestinian public, in an official announcement issued in light of the events, to escalate the clashes on Friday, Dec. 14, in all areas as an act of “loyalty to the martyrs”.
• Messages of support for and glorification of terrorists are widespread on Fatah’s official social media accounts.
• Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen held a meeting in his office in Ramallah with the mother and brother of Arab-Israeli prisoner and member of the Fatah Central Committee, Karim Yunis, who has been imprisoned in Israel since before the Oslo Accords for the abduction and murder of Avraham Bromberg in 1980 and who faces life imprisonment. Abbas told the prisoner’s family: “The issue of prisoners is at the top of the agenda among Palestinian leadership, which invests every possible effort, together with institutions and the international community, to bring about their release from Israeli prisons."
• On Nov. 13, Joad Jamil Hoshea, from Yata (south of Hebron) was released after serving 16 years in prison for belonging to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the military wing of the Fatah movement, and carrying out attacks against Israelis. The released prisoner received a particularly festive reception, which was covered by state-owned Palestinian television, and he was also visited by various elements from the Palestinian leadership and from the Ministry of Education.
• On Nov. 29, the minors Shadi Farah and Ahmed al-Za'tari, both 15, were released from detention. They were arrested in December 2015 on suspicion of planning a stabbing attack in Jerusalem. Immediately after their release, the children became ‘national heroes’ and received praise and appreciation from the Palestinian leadership and all the media outlets of the establishment.

 
Any renewed effort to reach an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians – whether directly or with the assistance of foreign bridging efforts – will have to tackle the effects of 25 years of intense incitement and embrace of terrorism since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and its various components as a first requisite step to reconciliation.  The launch of the administration’s peace plan might have been postponed due to the recently-announced early Israeli elections, but when it is picked up again, identification with murderers and terrorists will have to be the first things dropped by the PA if it is to stand any chance of success.

Building off our momentum from 2017, the Center for Senior Services (CSS) team hit the ground running last year.  We are pleased to report that CSS established new connections on Capitol Hill and at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition, we enjoyed learning from each other at the Managers and Service Coordinators and B’nai B’rith Housing Conferences.

Last spring brought welcome news for the Section 202 capital advance funds, because the federal budget allocated $105 million towards the program. This was the first time since 2011 that meaningful money was appropriated to build new properties for low-income seniors. For years, B’nai B’rith has felt the Section 202 capital advance funds had been woefully neglected, and we believe this is an important first step towards creating badly needed additional affordable housing for seniors.  

Unfortunately, it wasn’t all good news this year for the Section 202 program. HUD released proposed legislation that called for an increase in Section 202 residents’ monthly rental contributions.  B’nai B’rith spoke out against these damaging reforms and took our message directly to Congress. Fortunately, there was little appetite on Capitol Hill to raise rents on low-income seniors, and HUD’s rental reforms were not enacted into law.

As always, our visits to Capitol Hill were in conjunction with the American Association of Service Coordinators, an organization that naturally fits with B’nai B’rith’s housing mantra of “aging in place.”

In addition, meetings with lawmakers’ offices always included an open invitation to visit our beautiful B’nai B’rith-sponsored properties. Representatives Cheri Bustos (D-Illinois), Gene Green (D-Texas), Ted Deutch (D-Florida) and Donald Payne (D-New Jersey) all enjoyed their time touring Section 202 buildings and speaking with their constituents about seniors’ issues.  Always looking to build on our successes, we expanded our congressional outreach this year to include candidates running for Congress. Republican congressional candidate Marty Nothstein and Democratic congressional candidate Susan Wild toured B’nai B’rith Apartments in Allentown, Pennsylvania, to meet with residents and discuss the critical importance of housing for adults with limited means. This opportunity allowed whichever candidate won the race to take back to Congress the conversations they had with residents about how critical affordable housing, income security and healthcare matters are for seniors.

Our work certainly did not stop on Capitol Hill.  The B’nai B’rith Housing Conference and the Managers and Service Coordinators meetings were both fantastic. The B’nai B’rith housing community was able to directly hear from HUD, B’nai B’rith staff and other experts who work with seniors. Topics included elder fraud prevention from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; working with Adult Protective Services (APS); avoiding staff burnout; dealing with difficult residents and residents’ mental health issues; fire safety for seniors; resident empowerment; program models to help residents access nutritious food; HUD updates; eliminating barriers to housing access and providing support for formerly homeless residents; fair housing; and congressional updates. It’s always fun learning about our buildings’ success stories and seeing what works throughout our community.

CSS staff work travel certainly did not stop at the B’nai B’rith conferences. In May Janel Doughten, associate director, Center for Senior Services, and Evan Carmen, assistant director for aging policy, were hosted by the Jewish Community Housing Corporation (JCHC) management company at the South Orange B'nai B'rith Federation House in New Jersey. The two put on a fair housing training for residents as well as a session entitled “How to Be Your Own Best Advocate.”

Janel and Breana Clark, senior program associate, attended the 2018 National Service Coordinator Conference in August. The conference was hosted by the American Association of Service Coordinators in Austin, Texas. The following month, Janel presented at the SPM Property Management 2018 Managers Workshop in Sandestin, Florida.  The presentation focused on how to de-escalate tense situations with a resident, how to recognize and deal with adult bullying in senior housing and how to become more empathetic towards residents.

The B’nai B’rith 2018 Annual Leadership Forum took place in New York from Oct. 14-16. As a part of the agenda, Evan and Breana sat on a staff panel devoted to domestic policy issues. The two highlighted the HUD Section 202 program and other federal programs that seniors in the B’nai B’rith network rely on, such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Social Security.

Most recently, Janel visited Mollie & Max Barnett Apartments & Tarrant County B’nai B’rith Apartments in Fort Worth, Texas, to put on programming for residents regarding adult bullying, empathy and compassion.

Saving the best for last, Mark Olshan, associate executive vice president of B’nai B’rith International, was instrumental in the recapitalization of the Adelstein Family-Project H.O.P.E B’nai B’rith House in the Bronx, New York.  This project will allow residents to see a completely renovated building when the construction is finished. Upgrades include new bathrooms, kitchens, appliances, lighting and paint. Exterior and common area renovations will include new masonry, replacement of exterior doors, new elevators, safety windows, plumbing infrastructure, boilers and pumps. It will also see the addition of smoke detectors and sprinklers and electrical and security upgrades. All of this will allow the building to be preserved for the next generation.

In addition, the management team plans to provide the financial resources for supportive and social services for the residents. Through partnerships with local organizations, for the first time, residents will have access to community resources, supportive listening and casework services and a host of new classes, workshops, events and regular activities.

Lastly, in 2018, the CSS team was excited to start an educational webinar service that trained the B’nai B’rith community on affordable housing.  We did webinars entitled “Senior Housing 202” and “Fair Housing and Diversity Awareness.”  These webinars provided important information on the background of B’nai B’rith’s relationship with the Section 202 program, and how we can make our housing community more inclusive and welcoming.     
​
As we begin 2019, this year is shaping up to be even better.  We have our conferences tentatively scheduled for Fort Worth, Texas and San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we are already planning for the Resident Leadership retreat over the summer, which is always a blast! Lastly, rest assured that our advocacy on Capitol Hill will continue in earnest, as we hope to report additional congressional visits to our sponsored buildings throughout the year.   

​​Mark D. Olshan, Ph.D. began his career with B’nai B’rith in 1983 when he was hired as its Director of Senior Housing.  He currently serves as Director of the Center for Senior Services and Associate Executive Vice President of B’nai B’rith International.  He was awarded the Julius Bisno Professional Excellence Award in 2000. To view some of his additional content, click here.​

​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.​

This article originally appeared in the B'nai B'rith Magazine winter 2018 issue. To read the issue, click this link.

B’nai B’rith has long recognized the need for safe, affordable housing for low-income seniors: a place where residents have their own apartments and live independently, while also sometimes sharing communal prepared meals in a group dining room.

Since 1971, B’nai B’rith has been a leader in this field. We have applied the knowledge we have gleaned from our senior housing efforts to the legislative arena, keeping regular oversight on legislation that may affect the elderly in the United States and around the world.

With 38 buildings in 28 communities, B’nai B’rith is the largest national Jewish sponsor of federally assisted senior housing in the United States. We also sponsor six buildings in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver; as well as “flatlets” in London and throughout the United Kingdom and Australia. B’nai B’rith’s first “parents” home opened in 1958, and is located in Haifa, Israel.

With seniors lucky enough to be housed in such apartments throughout the country, we find ourselves in the midst of an escalating affordable housing crisis. Millions of low-income persons are paying 70 percent or more of their incomes for shelter, while rents continue to rise and the construction of “affordable” rental apartments lags far behind the need. In 2011, B’nai B’rith opened the most recent of its senior housing properties funded through the federal Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly, the last dedicated “seniors” program administered and overseen in Washington, D.C.

Today, the program most available to provide funding for new construction, and, even more importantly, for the renovation and preservation of older units is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Administered by the Internal Revenue Service. This program makes federal tax credits available to the private sector to encourage investments in affordable housing. Established in 1986, it has assisted in the creation and preservation of about 3 million apartments nationwide.

To date, the B’nai B’rith senior housing network has successfully benefited from the tax credit in St. Louis, for instance, where the Covenant Place apartment complex used the program to fund more than 35 percent of the total cost of renovating the property. The rest of the funds came from a major community capital campaign. The Coolidge at Sudbury apartments, in a Boston suburb, used tax credit financing as the major funding source for the new development.

Additionally, we are pleased to report that this past April, B’nai B’rith Senior Housing closed on a major refinancing proposal to renovate and modernize the Adelstein Family B’nai B’rith Project H.O.P.E. property in the Bronx, New York. The building was constructed in 1992 under the federal government’s Supportive Housing for the Elderly program. It consists of 100 residential apartments, 25 of them studios, and one unit for a live-in building superintendent. Rent for each residential unit is subsidized under the federal Section 8 Housing Assistance Contract program. New York State-issued bonds, coupled with the federal tax credits, raised the money to renovate the property.  

The original Bronx project came about like many in the B’nai B’rith housing portfolio. It was 1979 when the vision of B’nai B’rith member Bernard Adelstein began to take shape. He foresaw a 100-unit development providing quality, safe and secure accommodations for seniors and disabled low-income citizens. But, it took 10 years for the vision to become a reality. Then, for 30 years, the property was a crown jewel of the community. But, as time went on, the building’s residents aged; some required more services to live independently, while others moved to more institutional settings — or died — and were replaced with new residents. Adelstein, who was most instrumental in initial building efforts, passed away in 2002, and many of the original board members retired from the property or passed on.

Adelstein’s sons Marty and Alan and daughter Sherry remained on the board. But improvements were needed, and financial resources were limited.

To best meet the continuing challenge of providing housing for low-income seniors, the Adelsteins met with officials of B’nai B’rith Senior Housing who introduced them to a developer familiar with the tax credit program. A new corporation, in which B’nai B’rith and the developer play leading roles, now oversees the project.

Not only does the new management intend to preserve the existing building for the next generation, it also plans to provide the financial resources for supportive and social services for the residents. Through partnerships with local organizations, for the first time, residents will have access to community resources, supportive listening and casework services and a host of new classes, workshops, events and regular activities.

With construction well underway, residents expect to see a completely renovated building by the end of the calendar year. During the work, residents have temporarily moved into other units within the complex, so there has been no displacement.

Apartments will include new bathrooms with new toilets and bath tubs; new kitchen cabinets, counters and appliances; and all new lighting and painting throughout. Exterior and common area renovations will include new masonry, replacement of exterior doors, new elevators, safety windows, plumbing infrastructure, boilers and pumps. It will also see the addition of smoke detectors and sprinklers and electrical and security upgrades.

Overall, the developer intends to complete $8.7 million of building renovations, at approximately $87,000 per apartment, at no additional cost to tenants. Additionally, all residents will now be supplied with window air conditioners. Previously, they had to provide their own units.

 According to Marty Adelstein, president of the project’s original development corporation, “Everything seems to be going quite smoothly. Residents are very excited to see the transformation of their homes taking place before their very eyes and are looking forward to be living in a virtually brand-new building. We are truly grateful for the support and partnership provided by B’nai B’rith in helping to make this transformation possible…”

Further, discussions are currently underway with the developer and the city about acquiring an abutting three-acre lot for 1,000 more units of senior and veteran housing.

If you’d like to see B’nai B’rith senior housing in your community, contact the B’nai B’rith senior housing office in Washington at seniors@bnaibrith.org. 

​Mark D. Olshan, who holds a doctorate in psychology, is Associate Executive Vice President of B’nai B’rith International and Director of the B’nai B’rith Center for Senior Services.

​Within the last few weeks, we’ve been able to once again witness the fecklessness and hypocrisy that is endemic when it comes to the U.N. and terrorism against Israelis. Hamas and Hezbollah—two of the most menacing terrorist groups bent on attacking Israelis—have found themselves on the defensive at the U.N.
 
This in itself is rare. Hamas, for instance, is usually omitted entirely from U.N. resolutions and reports. The U.N. often ignores Palestinian terrorism, but when it feels obligated to at least minimally address the key factor in the conflict, it is adept at condemning “both sides.” The resolutions will feign balance, but then harshly attack Israel, while the terrorists that Israel is defending itself against are generalized as “militants” or “the Palestinian side” and given little attention.
 
This despite the fact that Hamas has brutally ruled over Gaza for more than a decade in which residents of nearby Israeli communities have had to live with rocket attacks. Prior to the rocket attacks, Hamas’s tactic of choice was suicide bombings, first in an open attempt to derail the peace process in the 1990s. For a world body so obsessed with lecturing Israel about the lack of progress on negotiations (even though the blame, as always, lies with the Palestinian leadership’s disinterest in compromise), the silence about such a radically anti-peace organization is quite telling.
 
The U.N. was given a chance to begin to right this wrong when the U.S., led by Ambassador Nikki Haley, introduced text at the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) specifically condemning Hamas for various activities that put Israeli and Palestinian lives in peril.  This move panicked those hostile to Israel. Hamas sent letters to U.N. member states seeking to justify their terrorist activities. The Palestinian Authority—whose leadership knows first-hand what a danger Hamas is in the region—worked with their allies to try to sink the resolution.
 
First, Bolivia introduced an amendment with poison pill language that the U.S. and Israel could not support. This language was not included in the resolution, but instead, as a compromise, was offered by Ireland as a separate, stand-alone resolution. Next, the UNGA was asked to raise the threshold needed to pass the anti-Hamas resolution to two-thirds of the members—a rarely invoked rule. This was a clear double standard. A week earlier, the UNGA passed numerous resolutions under the same agenda item that attacked Israel mercilessly without triggering the two-thirds requirement. Indeed, the separate Irish resolution, which referenced an anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolution and tried to set parameters for a peace deal that would leave Israel without sovereignty over the Old City in Jerusalem (amongst other areas), was also not subjected to this rule. Only the resolution that condemned a terrorist organization bent on murdering Jews required a two-thirds majority to pass. The vote was close, but a two-thirds majority was required in the end, a threshold which was unfortunately not reached. However, 87 countries did vote in favor of condemning Hamas.
 
The blocking tactics showed, without a shadow of a doubt, that the anti-Semitic double standard against Israel is still very much in play, and out in the open, at the UNGA. Although the resolution did not ultimately pass, it is still a step in the right direction. The vote total of countries voting in favor of condemning Hamas had increased from a previous U.S. attempt to condemn the group at the UNGA earlier in 2018. Hopefully, the U.S. and other friends of Israel will increase the pressure until a resolution is finally passed.
 
In the days following the Hamas resolution, Israel began Operation Northern Shield, which exposed a number of Hezbollah tunnels that run under the Lebanon-Israel border. The tunnels were meant to be used in a surprise terror attack to murder Israeli civilians living near the border. The war in 2006 started similarly, when Hezbollah terrorists infiltrated Israel and attacked an Israeli patrol, killing three IDF soldiers and kidnapping two others. A terror attack of the magnitude that Hezbollah was planning with the use of these tunnels would have necessitated an Israeli military response that would be stronger than the 2006 Lebanon war. Many in the international community understood the seriousness of this development and condemned the violation of Israel’s sovereignty and U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 (which passed at the end of the war in 2006). The U.S. called for a meeting of the council to discuss the violation.
 
At the council meeting, many countries did condemn the Hezbollah tunnels in their speeches, although some again tried to seek balance where it does not exist and condemned “both sides.” Kuwait and Bolivia ludicrously sought to downplay the tunnels as a “relatively minor incident” and “not really a threat to peace.”
 
The U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFL) was praised by many, as was the Lebanese army, for their response to the exposure of the tunnels. This is not the time to praise either entity. UNIFL has failed to carry out its mandate. It has been telling the Security Council in reports that the situation is calm while not taking seriously Israeli warnings about the buildup of 100,000 Hezbollah missiles in southern Lebanon and that Hezbollah is camouflaging missile depots, bunkers and surveillance operations under a civilian smokescreen (including using a fake environmental NGO).
 
The Lebanese Army has not lifted a finger to disarm Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, as it is supposed to under resolution 1701. And why would it? Hezbollah is entrenched now within the politics of the country and has infiltrated the army. Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon told the council that when Israel gave UNIFL the exact locations of the tunnel entrances, UNIFL passed it to the Lebanese army, who, instead of destroying the tunnels, informed Hezbollah, which then tried to seal the tunnel to cover up their perfidy.
 
The Security Council should have taken action to condemn the Hezbollah tunneling operation. It chose instead to do nothing. No resolution. No official statement (which has less force than a resolution, but requires unanimous agreement—an impossibility considering Kuwait and Bolivia would block it).
 
The ongoing U.N. hypocrisy on terrorism does put Israelis at risk, of course, but it also does harm to the U.N. itself as an institution supposedly serious about peace (or even a more basic idea—stability) in the region and to civilians in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Hostility to Israel at the U.N. and hypocrisy on terrorism against Israelis allows Hamas and Hezbollah to continue to use civilians as human shields to protect rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Israel will eventually have to respond forcefully to the threat from both groups on its borders. The international community’s scorn and condemnation will fly against Israel—as usual—but it is their own failure to confront the issue now that will lead to regional strife in the future when Israel must defend Israeli lives.

​Oren Drori is the Program Officer for United Nations Affairs at B’nai B’rith International where he supports advocacy and programming efforts that advance B’nai B’rith’s goals at the U.N., which include: defending Israel, combating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and promoting global human rights and humanitarian concerns. He received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota in 2004 and an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Chicago in 2006. Click here to view more of his additional content.

When, in December 1991, President George H. W. Bush announced the introduction of the resolution to revoke the so-called “Zionism is racism” resolution at the United Nations, he said that the resolution mocked the principles upon which the U.N. was founded. Zionism, he said “is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations…This body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel's right to exist. By repealing this resolution unconditionally, the United Nations will enhance its credibility and serve the cause of peace.”
 
These words still resonate today. Because, unfortunately, 27 years after the revocation of this infamous resolution, there are entities at the heart of the U.N. system that continue to challenge Israel’s right to exist and to seek its destruction.
 
On November 30, 2018, 100 and 96 states, respectively, voted at the United Nations General Assembly to renew the funding and mandate authorization of two biased entities that only push the prospects of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement further away.
 
One of these entities is the so-called “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” (CEIRPP). CEIRPP was created by the General Assembly on November 10, 1975, the same day that the “Zionism is Racism” resolution was approved. But while this resolution was successfully repealed in 1991, CEIRPP remained in place.
 
Made up of the representatives of 26 countries (including some of the world’s most atrocious regimes), CEIRPP’s main goal is to promote the idea that Israel is an illegitimate entity and a racist regime. And to achieve its destruction, it actively advocates for the so-called “right of return” of the “Palestinian refugees” to the land that is today the State of Israel. And by Palestinian refugees, they not only mean the original people that were displaced as a result of the war that Israel was forced to fight right after its independence, but also their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren along the paternal line.
 
Fortunately, the U.S. government has recently challenged the notion that there are more than five million Palestinian refugees today, by disputing the characterization of descendants of refugees as refugees. The U.S. has also stopped its funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the U.N. agency that has perpetuated the Palestinian refugee problem by inflating their numbers and by allowing their status to pass from generation to generation (something that doesn’t happen with any other group of refugees in the world). But CEIRPP continues to disseminate its rejectionist agenda throughout the world in the name of the U.N.
 
The other entity, whose funding and mandate authorization was renewed on November 30, is the Division for Palestinian Rights (or DPR). This entity was created in 1977, at the request of CEIRPP and to assist with its mission. The Palestinians are the only people in the world who have their own division within the U.N. Secretariat, so this entity is a real anomaly.
 
By supporting CEIRPP and DPR, U.N. member states are endorsing the rejectionist position of the Palestinian leadership and reinforcing the idea that they will be able to end Israel’s existence through the mass migration to Israel of persons of Palestinian ancestry. They are, therefore, discouraging peace negotiations, which would necessarily imply the recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and the abandonment of the “right of return.”
 
Generations of Palestinians continue to be indoctrinated in the idea that Israel is an illegitimate entity and that they have an "inalienable" right to return to that land. This is where the main obstacle to peace is. And the responsibility of the U.N. and its members in maintaining this dangerous fantasy is enormous.

It’s great to know that many Jewish people are constantly engaged with their directive of tikkun olam, or healing the world, extending even to their entertainment choices. A glance at the subject matter addressed at Jewish film festivals screened around the country provides the evidence: movies of all genres address a host of pithy topics that range from Holocaust history to the dilemma of the transgender Chabad congregant. At this celebratory time of the year, all-consuming gravitas has the potential to send moviegoers exiting the theater for the nearest happy hour. It’s sometimes difficult to remember that Jews are God’s funniest chosen people.

In this season of light and joy, listing a round-up of some of the year’s funny Jewish movies…well, it couldn’t hurt. The movies were made by people both young and old, but all of them delve into issues that have the potential to make people rethink their relationship to their faith and ethnicity, and the roles that Jews have played in bringing about change for the better, with a sense of fun and good humor. This is a good thing.

As conveyed by its title, “Jewtah,” a film by Jeremy Rishe and Cameron Bossert, transports Jewish viewers to a place they’ve all visited. It could be in Salt Lake City, or anywhere else.  Consumed by his fear of Mormons, or rather, his fear of what he thinks Mormons think about Jews, our hero Pincus hasn’t left the basement of his grandmother’s Utah home for over a decade. When the unthinkable happens, God himself tells Pincus to clean up his act. Although the script is based on his own experiences as a Jew from Utah, it’s a distinct possibility that actor/writer Rishe didn’t really have a mystic encounter with a deity of any kind. However, he certainly enjoyed growing up with Mormons, taking pleasure and pride in being singled out as exotic in a community filled with people who were eager to know his traditions and wished him no harm. Ultimately, Pincus will revel in both his difference and in the ties that he forges with those around him, but you can bet that his “meshuga,” or crazy, road to self-actualization is going to be a bumpy one filled with ups, downs and laughs. 

The viewer rides along Israel’s byways in a bus filled with a gaggle of non-Jewish American stand-up comics in “Land of Milk and Funny,” Avi Liberman’s documentary about the morale-building tour he led in that country during a particularly dark time in the early 2000s. Carrying their big shticks to audiences whose day-to day-lives were affected by the threat of terrorist violence, these comics win over their audiences just by showing up, not to mention their boffo material. For Liberman, the ongoing tours, benefitting a philanthropy which assists victims of terrorism, is “a way to combine what I do for a living with something positive for Israel. …. while it may not make me any more famous or advance my career…the rewards outweigh any of that.” Hailed by the Times of Israel as “both side splitting and moving,” “Milk and Funny” proves that you don’t have to be Jewish to score big laughs in Israel.

Showcasing recently discovered tapes, home movies and diaries, “Love, Gilda” presents an odyssey into the life of Gilda Radner, an original “Saturday Night Live” ensemble member whose zaniness on stage, television and in film delighted millions before she died at the height of her career. SNL luminaries awed by her gifts for physical comedy, over-the-top mimicry and improvisation bring Radner’s presence to life, while the star’s home movies reveal her sweetness and warmth, as well as the courage and humor with which she confronted her illness.  Those of other generations who know her by reputation alone will be captivated by her and will find that much of her work holds up beautifully.
​
Our final trip will take many older Jewish viewers back in time, as memories of gilded dragons, beaded curtains, brocade walls and the aromatic bouquet of wonton soup evoke past celebrations of Hanukah and Christmas. Set in a doozy of a 1960s Chinese restaurant, whose staff welcomes customers on Christmas day, “Dreaming of a Jewish Christmas,” is part fantasy, part documentary as filmed by Canadian director Larry Weinstein. In it, he divulges a shocking and hitherto unknown secret: the lyricists, composers and performers who remade Christmas in the 20th century, universalizing the sentiments of the holiday to make it accessible by all, were Jewish.  Told through interesting anecdotes, cultural history and archival material, the story of these musical outsiders is primarily conveyed through their own amazing songs.  Selections by Irving Berlin, Mel Tormé, Jay Livingston and others are sung in diverse styles, from klezmer to country, by musicians including Kevin Breit, Aviva Chernick, Tom Wilson and Dione Taylor, while even the Chinese waiters take their turn as revelers.  Although a nod is given to discussions questioning the morality of cultural appropriation, “Jewish Christmas” functions as an homage to America, and to a time when this kind of terrific thing could happen.

​Cheryl Kempler is an art and music specialist who works in the B'nai B'rith International Curatorial Office and writes about history and Jewish culture for B’nai B’rith Magazine. To view some of her additional content, click here.

One of the most insidious developments of 2018 has been the growing intellectual acceptance of a one-state solution in the Middle East.  This trend is bad for Israel, which single-state proponents disdain, and for Middle East peace, which they profess to covet.
 
Representative-elect Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) next month will become the first Palestinian-American to serve in Congress.  She openly supports a one-state solution and has vowed to oppose U.S. aid to Israel.
 
CNN fired contributor Marc Lamont Hill, an academic and pundit, after he called for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea” and defended Palestinian violence in an appearance at the United Nations.
 
New York Times columnist Michelle Goldstein, who said that until recently one could have dismissed a binational state as unrealistic, now blames the Israeli government for the inevitability of a one-state solution.  Through settlements in parts of the West Bank and by cementing Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital, she reasons, “Israel has foreclosed the possibility of two states."
 
And then there is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which unites radical leftists and radical Islamists in their hatred of the Jewish state and their frequent calls for its elimination.  BDS incursions into university campuses, labor unions, mainline churches and other sectors of Western society have brought anti-Israel hatred further into the mainstream, thus increasing the risk to Israel’s international standing and national security.
 
These advocates of a binational state see their proposal as the most efficient means of achieving statehood for Palestinians.  It is also a means of eliminating the Jewish state.  A binational state with a right of return for Palestinians would prompt a Palestinian demographic takeover that would eradicate the Jewish character of the state and leave little question about the future of the Jewish population within it.  As Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said, "If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories.”
 
The stumping by Western opinion-shapers for a one-state solution comes at a time when Palestinian public attitudes have shifted dramatically away from a two-state solution, which Palestinians favored to the tune of 80 percent in the heady days following the Oslo accord in 1993.  More recent surveys have shown that about two thirds of Palestinians now oppose two states, preferring the elimination altogether of a Jewish country in the region.
 
For some one-state advocates, such as BDS founder Omar Barghouti, who has publicly articulated his goal of "fulfilling the vision of the dismantling of Israel," the motivation behind his one-state stance is transparent.  But less hostile actors who acquiesce, perhaps naively, in support of poisonous causes like BDS and a binational state must be made to understand that their stance does not further the drive for peace or justice in the Middle East. Instead, it merely facilitates the demise of the Jewish state, a goal that is inherently and reprehensibly anti-Semitic.  Support for a binational state therefore must not be normalized or mainstreamed, given the catastrophic consequences of the sinister one-state strategy.
 
With the Palestinians hardening their opposition to a two-state solution while receiving growing encouragement from some segments in the West, the prospect of the Palestinians negotiating in good faith toward a peaceful settlement has become more remote. And the work of pro-Israel supporters in combating the one-state solution, along with BDS and other aspects of anti-Israel hatred, has become more crucial.

​Recently, seniors in Iowa, Michigan and Tennessee have mailed toothbrushes to congressional candidates with the message, “I Have Teeth and I Vote.”  Healthcare organizations, led by Oral Health America, are leading a campaign called “Demand Medicare Dental” that advocates for Medicare to include oral health. On the campaign’s website, citizens of these states were able to research their congressional candidate’s views on this matter and encouraged to contact candidates to voice their support for the dental campaign.
 
So why should Congress expand Medicare to include dental coverage? Unknown to many retiring Americans, traditional Medicare does not cover routine dental checkups, cleanings, fillings and dentures. According to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a minuscule 12 percent of older Americans have some type of dental insurance.  Furthermore, Johns Hopkins reports that Medicare beneficiaries spend about $328 a year in dental expenses, with 7 percent of beneficiaries spending more than $1,500. In the most extreme circumstances, older Americans are forced to travel to Mexico for more economical care.
 
Consequently, these types of financial barriers have greatly contributed to seniors suffering from tooth decay and periodontal disease. What makes this even more problematic is that deficient oral health care only makes other medical problems worse. For example, poor oral health can lead to difficulty eating and thus inadequate nutrition, which only exasperates health conditions like diabetes and hypertension. In addition, the bacteria which causes gum disease has a relationship with pneumonia, which causes more people to visit the hospital.
 
Fortunately, there is a proposal to expand Medicare Part B (outpatient services) to include oral health care. This program would be financed by small beneficiary monthly premiums and taxes.  While Congress is usually loath to pass legislation that increases spending, I would be curious to learn how dental coverage through Medicare could reduce other healthcare-related costs. Amber Willink, a researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health said, “As a consequence of avoidable dental problems, the Medicare program bears the cost of expensive emergency department visits and avoidable hospitalizations. It’s lose-lose.”
 
However, there is good news. Americans want change!
 
According to a Families USA survey, a whopping 86 percent of likely voters support including dental benefits with Medicare. Furthermore, according to the Health Policy Institute and the American Dental Association Practice Institute, 71 percent of dentists agree that Medicare should include dental coverage. The survey even indicates that a majority of dentists agree to abide by regular Medicare regulations.
 
Clearly, there is momentum for greater dental access for our nation’s elderly population.  Look no further than our elected officials on Capitol Hill who are already supportive of expanding Medicare to include dental coverage.
 
Undecided members of Congress should be asking themselves why dental care is any less important than a yearly physical.