As my friends and family are aware, I am an avid sports fan. I can speak fluently about the teams I root for and the great sports moments I have witnessed. Whether it’s going to the World Series with my father at Yankee Stadium or watching football with friends, I sometimes feel like I am an encyclopedia of sports knowledge. That is why I was recently excited to learn about the National Senior Games. The National Senior Games are a sports competition for people 50 and older.  Like the Olympics, various athletic contests are conducted, ranging from swimming, basketball, bowling, archery, badminton, cycling, golf, horseshoes, pickleball, softball, track and field, etc. The games first started in 1987 in St. Louis, Missouri, with 2,500 people competing.  Since then, the games have been held every other year, most recently in 2019, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where over 13,000 people competed.

Throughout the history of the games, competition amongst aging Americans have brought us success stories that have been both heartwarming and remarkable. One of the greatest athletic achievements during the games’ history belongs to Julia “Hurricane” Hawkins.  Hawkins, at the ages of 101 and 103, competed in the 100 meter dash.  She finished in 39.62 seconds at 101, and 6 seconds slower at 103. To put this feat into perspective, 100 meters is 109 yards, which is longer than a football field. While sports conversations have produced great debate amongst friends and colleagues, I think we can all agree at 103, her increase in time is understandable. In order to stay in shape Hawkins trains on the street by her house.  However, as she told the New York Times, by her own admission, “As I get older, I feel like I only have so many 100-yard dashes left, and I don’t want to waste them in practice.” Amazingly, she only got into running at age 100, because she previously participated at the games as a competitive biker. Sports have always provided a great outlet for individual accomplishments, I think it’s fair to say none more so than Hawkins’ participation at the National Senior Games.

The National Senior Games also provides a venue for rivalries to be renewed. In the 1970s, Bob Shannon and Jeff Johanson, both swam for competing high schools in the San Francisco area.  They would compete against each other in medleys and relays and eventually at the College of San Mateo, where both were teammates on the water polo team. As luck would have it, they ran into and competed against each other at the last National Senior Games.  According to the National Senior Games Association, Shannon said, “Besides going for my personal best, I’m now thinking, ‘It’s on!’ There’s no way he’s beating me in the 50 backstroke, and I knew he was thinking he would beat me in the breaststroke.” As it turns out, Bob beat Jeff in the backstroke and Jeff bested Bob in the breaststroke. Both also left the games with some additional accomplishments. Bob beat his swim time from high school, and Jeff won the silver medal in the 200 yard breaststroke.

The National Senior Games has provided countless more inspirational stories.  Older Americans participating in these competitions have used sports as a motivational vehicle to rebound from injuries, mourn the loss of a loved one or provide an outlet for a passion project during retirement. Fortunately, America is taking notice with ESPN, The New York Times, Sports Illustrated and CNN all having covered the games.
​
While writing the article, I couldn’t help but notice that softball was on their list of participating sports.  As someone who plays softball throughout the spring and summer, I can’t help but wonder if I might be fortunate enough to play in the National Senior Games down the road.  While I don’t think my athletic feats will ever rise to the level of Julia “Hurricane” Hawkins, I wouldn’t mind trying my luck someday! 

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Legislative 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.

Even after nearly a decade, the still-surprising success and readers’ continuing adulation of the award-winning 2010 memoir The Hare with the Amber Eyes (historian and ceramicist Edmund de Waal’s reflections on a long-past world, and his search for his own Jewish family, the Ephrussis, wealthy aesthetes and art patrons steeped in the literary and visual culture of late 19th c. Paris and Vienna) is at least partly responsible for his high visibility in the art world.

This is a very good thing for those who know at first glance that de Waal’s reputation is well-deserved. Through his groupings of pottery, housed in beautiful vitrines of his own design, as well as site-specific installations intended to interact with the environment or its purpose as a library, chapel, concert hall or gallery, multi-leveled layers of meaning emerge. In these, the pottery whose dimpled imperfections, subdued monochrome color and minimal shapes—referencing his grasp of Oriental decorative arts and philosophy – are transformed, becoming vessels of suggestion, that impress and move. 

A great-grandson of the Ephrussi patriarch, the banker and financier Viktor, grandchild of English novelist Elizabeth Ephrussi, and the son of an Anglican clergyman, de Waal has inherited his ancestors’ rarefied taste and passion for Japanese art and crafts—embodied by the exquisite little carved hare in the now famous family collection of 264 netsuke, ivory and wood figures that adorn the kimono sash or obi.

Despite tremendous wealth, assimilation and erudition, the Ephrussis could not escape from the continually escalating cloud of anti-Semitism which enveloped Europe from the turn of the 19th century.  In 1938, its Viennese home, the Ephrussi Palace, with its books, furniture and art, was seized by the Nazis, while the family scattered to all continents, losing awareness of its past.  It was “The Hare with the Amber Eyes” that brought them together again. 

And what of the netsukes?  Hidden by a servant, the collection survived intact through the war.  As a student in Japan, the young De Wall saw them displayed in the home of his uncle Iggie, who had settled in Tokyo, and who would bequeath them to the young man.

Complimenting the 2019 museum installations of de Waal’s own work in Madrid, Venice, New York, Berlin and Dresden—all touching on the themes of exile and immigration—will be the display of 157 of the netsukes themselves, as part of the exhibition called “The Ephrussis: Travel in Time” at Vienna’s Jewish Museum through March 8, 2020, opened last month by Austria’s president, Alexander Van der Bellen, and attended by 41 Ephrussi family members. The show’s contents focus on selections from the donation made to the museum last year by Mr. de Waal and includes archival documents, photos and souvenirs. 
​
Another highly desirable acquisition has just been made in America, by the University of Texas at Austin’s amazing Ransom Center, whose holdings now include the complete archive of 20th century master, playwright Arthur Miller (1915-2005), author of such classics as “Death of a Salesman,” “All My Sons” and “The Crucible,” works that changed the course of the American theater. Despite their settings, either in the post-World War II era or in a time that calls up the pressing issues of the 1940s and 50s, younger audiences can still identify with their themes of generational conflict, and the moral imperative that must be adhered to—even by the most ordinary of people.

Along with prior gifts from Miller himself, this now-unified 300 box collection of his personal and professional papers is considered the primary record for research and study into his life and work, from his earliest writing as a son of poor immigrants at the University of Michigan to the drafts and scripts for his last theater works, including materials which have not been previously known or examined. Its dovetailing with the subject matter of dozens of other Ransom archival collections enhances the university’s reputation as one of the foremost institutions for the study of theater history in general, and 20th century American drama in particular.

When my grandfather was 91, my parents sat him down and broached the idea of him giving up his car keys.  As you can imagine, that idea was not met with a lot of enthusiasm.  However, my parents felt that because of his physical limitations, safety required him to stop driving.  After a long discussion and a lot of convincing, he handed over the keys. I bring this story up because I recently learned our country arguably has more safeguards in place that govern who can drive a vehicle than those that govern who can own a firearm. Obviously, the purpose of this blog is not to advocate for the confiscation of guns from all people, but to discuss when conditions like dementia make gun ownership amongst our older American population a deadly problem.

So, how much of an issue is firearm ownership amongst seniors around the country? The Pew Research Center reported 45 percent of seniors live in a household with a firearm, and the United States Census Bureau indicated that 4.3 million seniors have dementia.  Also, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention stated that in 2016, about 8,200 older Americans (65+) committed suicide. Furthermore, according to the New York Times, amongst men in this age group who committed suicide, three quarters of them used a gun.  Dr. Yeates Conwell, a psychiatrist and director of the Office for Aging at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, said, “Suicide risk is elevated in people with dementia.”

In 2018, Kaiser Health News and PBS NewsHour studied aging Americans, dementia and gun ownership. While there is no formal office which keeps records on this matter, the investigation was able to study over 100 instances in the United States since 2012, where someone with dementia killed themselves or someone else with assistance of a firearm. Often, the shooter suffered from confusion, paranoia, delusion or aggression, frequently associated with dementia. Regrettably, their victims were the people closest to them, including caretakers, spouses and children.

For instance, according to the report, Larry Dillon of West Virginia, upon turning 65, started exhibiting several signs of concerning behavior such as being frightened of intruders entering and burning down his house. In addition, Dillon went to bed at night with a 9 mm semiautomatic Glock pistol in his nightstand.  Consequently, Dillon’s daughter made an appointment with a neurologist. However, it was unfortunately too late. One night, Dillon heard what he thought were people breaking into the house, so he took his Glock and fired bullets into the room where his wife and granddaughter were watching television. Sadly, his wife died, and his granddaughter has experienced horrific trauma witnessing the event. After a medical examination, a diagnosis revealed that Dillon had Lewy body dementia, which manifested itself in warning signs like vivid visual hallucinations.

Statistics and stories like these have caused the American Medication Association to declare gun violence a public health crisis! They have called for common sense reforms like banning assault style weapons and removing guns from those people who pose a high risk for violence.

Fortunately, seventeen states have passed red flag laws, which allow the government to be more proactive to ensure that firearms are not in the possession of individuals who are determined by the court to be a risk to themselves or other people. Many times, the court is alerted to concerning behavior because of friends or family of the individual. Recently, red flag laws having been gaining traction throughout the country, with 12 states having passed legislation since the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. Obviously, further action is desperately required.  Presently, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have advocated for a federal red flag law that would provide financial resources to states that choose to implement the policy.  However, predictably, this legislation, along with countless other gun control efforts, has stalled, with the White House and too many members of Congress woefully neglecting their responsibilities by failing to pass common sense gun violence laws.  Until the federal government can govern on this matter, I hope the remaining 33 states pass their own red flag statutes to curb the epidemic of gun violence.   
What makes the federal government’s inaction on this matter even more disappointing is that there is overwhelming public support.  In 2017, the Pew Research Center indicated that 89 percent of the United States supports regulating firearm purchases to people with mental illnesses. Politically, this sounds like a slam dunk. However, to the surprise of nobody, we still don’t have red flag laws on the books that govern the entire country. 

So what’s the holdup?  For starters, gun advocate groups have been a major roadblock to responsible gun safety legislation.  These groups argue that red flag laws allow the government to take away firearms from citizens who have yet to commit a crime. Kaiser Health News and PBS NewsHour reported that Dr. Arthur Przebinda from the group Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership “balks at any formal assessment of firearm use among people with dementia, saying it could lead to “a totalitarian system that decides when you can have rights and when you cannot.”

Dr. Przebinda is taking an absolutist stance on a law which could save lives.  Exactly what is his argument? Everyone can own a gun? I hope everyone accepts that young children shouldn’t own guns because they don’t have the appropriate cognitive abilities. So why would we accept adults with limited cognitive abilities be allowed to own a gun?  It’s absurd to argue that we should wait for people to die before taking proactive measures regarding an individual’s firearms, if they show clear signs of dangerous behavior. Let me be clear, I am not arguing for the confiscation of everyone’s guns. I am advocating for a process which respects due process and gets firearms out of the hands of someone the government believes doesn’t have the mental capacity to own a gun. Is that such an unreasonable position? Taken one step further, I can’t falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theatre because it puts people’s safety into danger, so why should someone who exhibits behavior that threatens themselves or other people be allowed to own a gun? I will take my chances we won’t spiral into a totalitarian government.

Florida is one of the states which has enacted red flag laws and Kendra Parris, a local attorney, has represented individuals in court who are at risk of losing their guns.  Parris told the Pew Charitable Trust in regard to due process and red flag laws,  “Rather than find clear and convincing evidence, [courts are] basically saying, ‘Better safe than sorry.”  I find Parris’ observations fantastic news! No gun owner should lose their property without due process. However, let’s neutralize any potential danger, and then the court can rule on the matter. Around 40,000 people die a year from gun violence. I can sleep at night having the court securing everyone’s safety and applying due process second.  

Organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) have argued that households that have firearms and people with dementia can safely secure their gun with trigger locks and gun safes.  However, the Alzheimer’s Association believes the NRA’s recommendations don’t go far enough, because people with dementia will still believe they are in danger and look for ways to crack safety precautions. The organization suggests the best way to protect your family is to not have the gun in your home.

So in the absence of further laws, what can people do? Well, the good news is that there is momentum in the medical community to help stop gun deaths.  In 2017, after the Las Vegas shooting that left 58 people dead, over 1,300 health care providers promised to start talking with their patients about guns when certain risk factors are identified. In addition, the Veterans Health Administration and Alzheimer’s Association both suggest asking about firearms when evaluating a patient for dementia. However, the medical community has been too limited for years because the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was basically unable to do gun violence research. Regarding the past twenty years, Giffords: The Courage to Fight Gun Violence’s (an organization led by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords) website states, “In 1996 Congress took away dedicated federal funding for gun violence research from the CDC. For more than 20 years, federal investment in gun violence research has remained virtually absent at the nation’s primary health protection agency, despite gun deaths increasing for the past three years in a row to levels not seen in decades.” Fortunately, Congress, in the last government spending bill, finally appropriated $25 million to study gun violence.
​
As we look to the future, the University of Colorado School of Medicine predicts by 2050,  8 to 12 million people will live in the U.S. who suffer from dementia and own a gun. As a country, we can’t be afraid to pass basic common sense gun violence legislation that could save countless lives. Congress and the White House must find the political courage to stand up to outside influences that believe common sense gun reform legislation is by definition against the Second Amendment. Until that day, hopefully, the individual states can lead the charge to ensure a safer America. 

​The reaction was both peremptory and predictable:  Critics of Israeli and U.S. policies firmly snapped back against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s declaration that the U.S. no longer views Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal.
 
“The European Union’s position on Israeli settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territory is clear and remains unchanged,” European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said.  “All settlement activity is illegal under international law and it erodes the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace, as reaffirmed by U.N. Security Council resolution 2334.”
 
“Another blatantly ideological attempt by the Trump administration to distract from its failures in the region,” tweeted Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a leading Presidential candidate.  “Not only do these settlements violate international law — they make peace harder to achieve.”
 
“Egypt is committed to the resolutions of international legitimacy on the status of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, being illegal and inconsistent with the international law,” the Egyptian Foreign Ministry declared.
 
One hundred and seven House Democrats wrote a letter to Pompeo to express their “strong disagreement with the State Department’s decision to reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank by repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are ‘inconsistent with international law.’”
 
In many cases, critics of the shift in U.S. policy cited their support for a two-state solution as an alternative to the State Department’s new position.  “As President, I will reverse this policy and pursue a two-state solution,” Warren said, while the German Foreign Office intoned, “The construction of settlements is in the federal government’s opinion illegal, undermines the peace process, and complicates talks on a two-state solution.”
 
What is the basis for presuming that Israeli settlements in some parts of the West Bank are antithetical to the peace process?  It would seem that the stigmatization of the word “settlement” has much to do with this position, as “settlements” have come to be associated with dark notions of colonial occupation, perhaps even racism.
 
But Israeli communities in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem are not illegal, as Secretary Pompeo has affirmed.  According to Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, the U.N. cannot transfer any part of the former Mandate for Palestine, which was dedicated at the 1920 San Remo Peace Conference for the creation of a future Jewish state.  Furthermore, Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the Oslo agreement’s Declaration of Principles established that a land for peace deal must be based on direct negotiation between the parties – one that would determine territorial boundaries that might not strictly adhere to the 1967 lines.
 
The Ottoman Empire, which governed Palestine, dissolved after World War I.  Since a Palestinian state has never existed and the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem ended with the Six Day War, the status of those territories is clearly disputed until negotiations have resolved outstanding questions about sovereignty.
 
But critics of the Pompeo announcement seemingly would prefer to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations.  By declaring Israeli settlements illegal, these voices are stigmatizing any Israeli presence in disputed territories as somehow acquired through evil or at least improper means, as opposed to through a defensive war.  This sinister characterization of Israel’s predicament, which would forever deem Israeli settlements illegitimate, underlies the suspect claim that the State Department’s new position is at odds with the two-state solution.
 
This argument does not hold up, though.  Serious negotiations must take place in the realm of fact, not ideological fantasy.  Israel has a credible legal and historical claim for inhabiting at least part of the territories.
 
Furthermore, the primary obstacle to Middle East peace is widespread rejection of Israel’s right to exist.  When Israel’s critics accept the obvious reality that some settlements will remain in place in the wake of a final peace agreement and that those communities are not the main roadblock to peace, a two-state solution will become more likely, not less.
 
The rhetorical war on Israeli settlements has fueled anti-Semitic incidents and anti-Israel boycotts for years.  Tragically, it has also become a major impediment to peace.

 In April 2017, Sarah Halimi, a 65-year-old Jewish woman, was beaten and thrown out the window of her building in Paris in a shocking anti-Semitic murder. The suspect claimed insanity and was hospitalized. For a long time, French authorities refused to recognize the anti-Semitic nature of the attack. They were eventually forced to do so by a court ruling later in 2018.  
 
Looking back, the Halimi case seems to be the first of a long series of abhorrent anti-Semitic attacks that were covered extensively in the media and gave expression to the 74 percent statistical rise in anti-Semitic incidents from one year to the next reported by French police. 
 
In March 2018, Mireille Knoll, an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor, was stabbed 11 times in her home in Paris by two neighbors. In February 2019, 96 graves in a Jewish cemetery in the town of Quatzenheim, north-east France, were desecrated and covered in swastikas. Just days later, a monument at the site of the Old Synagogue of Strasbourg, which was burned down by Nazis, was itself destroyed. The yellow-vest protests, initially working-class protests against rising fuel taxes, became a repository of anti-Semitic sentiment from across the political and ideological spectrum, bargaining in globalist conspiracies and financial domination tropes. As recently as a few days ago, on Dec. 3, in Westhoffen, Alsace, more than 100 graves in the Jewish cemetery were defaced and covered with swastikas. 
 
These chilling incidents did not pass without public outcry and strong declarations by leading political figures, public protests and marches of solidarity - comforting signs for a Jewish community seriously contemplating leaving France. 
 
Yet there seemed to be a manifest reluctance toward taking one of the most basic steps in the fight against this blooming hatred: defining the problem. More precisely, there seemed to be no traction in adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism, the gold standard in the field. So obscure was this idea that even the Jewish community did little by way of demanding the definition be adopted. 
 
I submit that three main unspoken arguments hid behind this reluctance: the freedom of speech argument, a perceived competition of victimhood and the omnipresent concerns about Israel-speak. 
 
The freedom of speech argument. In the country of some of history’s greatest thinkers, in a place that arguably fetishizes debate and deliberation, any sniff of the stifling of freedom of speech is viewed with much skepticism. To answer this criticism, one must emphasize that the working definition is a legally non-binding tool that allows us to have an informed discussion about what constitutes anti-Semitism. It does not ban one from speaking in anti-Semitic terms; it merely helps us identify and flag the speech as such. 
 
The perceived competition of victimhood. “If we adopt a formal definition of anti-Semitism, each minority community will demand the same,” goes the argument. On one hand, to this one must say: Yes, we must strive to understand each form of discrimination thoroughly, in all its complexity. On the other hand, we must acknowledge the difficult situation that France’s political leadership finds itself in. The country is home to the EU’s largest Jewish and Muslim populations as well as many other large minority groups - ethnic, religious and otherwise. 
 
The Nov. 10 March Against Islamophobia highlights a worrying competition of victimhood: photos surfaced of Muslim activists wearing yellow stars, suggesting the circumstances of Muslims in France today are equatable to those of Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. A bewildering implication, but one that highlights real sentiments among large swaths of France’s population. However, such pervasive realities make the definition - and, generally, action against anti-Semitism - all the more necessary. 
 
The right to criticize Israel argument. Of course, one of the most prevalent arguments used against the IHRA definition is a concern with limitations on criticizing Israel. Now, the definition clearly outlines the following instances related to Israel as being anti-Semitic:

1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. 
2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 
3. Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
4. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
5. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

The definition, nonetheless, states explicitly that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
 
Thus, as much as the definition curtails demonization of Israel, it in fact takes explicit steps to ensure criticism of Israel may be leveled.
 
Alas, in the midst of escalating anti-Semitic incidents, on the Feb. 20, 2019, at the annual dinner of the CRIF - the federation of French Jewish organizations, President Emmanuel Macron had little choice but to announce that his government would adopt the definition. Months later, MP Sylvain Maillard submitted a piece of legislation that had the definition as a centerpiece (however, without its important examples made explicit) in front of the National Assembly, the French Parliament. The review of his proposal was postponed multiple times and eventually put to a vote on Dec. 3. Ahead of the vote, a broad campaign against the proposal surfaced on the Internet, brochures making the case against the IHRA definition emerged and there was real concern the proposal wouldn’t pass. 
 
Fortunately, it has since been voted for - with a solid majority. Now, France has an important and absolutely necessary tool in its portfolio to tackle anti-Semitism. It shouldn’t have taken so long, it shouldn’t have been so hard, but the effort was certainly worth it.

There is an official Random Acts of Kindness Day celebrated every February.  The concept has also found a home during the “season of giving,” so whether you choose to observe on the official day, (February 17, 2020) or when it works for you, we encourage you to connect these acts with B'nai B'rith.  Our organization has a long history of bringing acts of kindness to the world and initiating new ideas.  There are hundreds of ideas about what one can do to be part of this initiative, as individuals and as a group.  It can be just one thing you do, or it can become a tradition.  You can do it alone, with your family and with a B’nai B’rith group. 
 
 A new film about Fred Rogers turns a spotlight on his life teaching generations about kindness. He said, "There are many ways to ultimate success. The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way is to be kind. A similar thought has been attributed to the novelist Henry James, who said,  “Three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind.” An eight-year-old girl has written a book called “BE KIND, Silly: A Child’s Quest for a Kinder World” to combat bullying. A young man who lost his life to mental illness is remembered by his family with an organization and award in his name called Matt’s Kindness Ripples On. 
 
Kindness has its roots in the Torah, as many of the deeds of our forefathers and mothers stressed their acts of kindness for others.  Kindness is also emphasized in Perke Avot, The Ethics of the Fathers.  It tells us that the world is upheld by three things - Torah, Service and Gemilut Chassadim (Acts of Loving Kindness).  
 
At B'nai B'rith, we can say that most everything we do is because it is the right and kind thing to do.  Our founders based their mission on kindness for widows and orphans, providing for their financial needs.  We offer kindness, community and a home to senior citizens via B'nai B'rith housing.  We support the people of Israel as they deal with daily attacks against their country. We join with our fellow community members to stand up against hatred and violence against others by providing disaster funds to support projects that help the community heal. Our community service programs are daily, weekly or annual events filled with kindness. Volunteers bring breakfast to children in schools and shelters in the Greater San Fernando Valley in California. Hundreds of families receive Passover food each year to help them celebrate the holiday, recognizing that without this project, they could not provide this for themselves. We bring assistance to people who are dealing with devastation and destruction due to natural or man-made disasters.  We are on the scene when it counts, at the time of a disaster and long after it has occurred during the recovery and rebuilding stages.  
 
The kindness meter in B'nai B'rith heats up during Christmas, when volunteers make sure that workers or volunteers who want to be home with their families can do so because a B'nai B'rith volunteer is stepping in for them that day.  It has also become a time to thank community workers serving in VA hospitals and the veterans who are receiving care in these facilities. We bring teddy bears to children who need a loveable hug to help them face difficult situations. Volunteers collect and deliver books, clothing and household goods in their communities and support food banks and schools with the donations. 
 
Do we need a day to remind us to be kind?  Looking at the wide assortment of service events in the B'nai B'rith community, we can say that we remind ourselves of this every day of the year.  But sometimes, it is nice to point out something we take for granted. This year at the B'nai B'rith Leadership Forum, International President Charles Kaufman instituted a President's Award for individuals who went above and beyond in their efforts to provide leadership and service. Of the thirty awards presented, more than half were for volunteers who make community service programming a reality.  
 
Kindness Day can be a time for those who may have been thinking about getting involved to help make something happen in their community. Lodges and units can support these efforts by providing the link individuals are looking for something meaningful to do and funding for the project. 
 
So yes, we need to remind ourselves and others that B'nai B'rith has kindness at its core.  It confirms that kindness is the way to ultimate success and doing something important.  Come get started and be kind with us.  

Who reading this blog has ever ordered a pizza online? It’s a simple task, right? You go onto the pizza place’s website, you put in your order and the delivery person shows up at your door within an hour. Sounds easy, and it’s something we all take for granted.  Now imagine trying to order a pizza online if you are visually impaired.  That’s exactly the problem Guillermo Robles of Los Angeles faced ordering food online from Domino’s Pizza, because the website did not have the software needed for visually impaired people to hear the information audially. Consequently, Robles filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming his rights were violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) since he couldn’t access Domino’s website. Obviously, this isn’t a problem unique to Robles. According to the National Institute of Health, the estimated number of legally blind people in the United States is around a million. In addition, about three hundred and fifty thousand seniors in our country are blind.

According to the ADA, “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any private entity who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” In court, Robles argued that the ADA applies to websites and physical locations, while Domino’s asserted the ADA only governs  physical locations.

Furthermore, Domino’s contends the ADA does not apply to the internet because the federal government has failed to issue guidance on how to make websites accessible for the disabled community. In addition, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business in a brief supporting Domino’s, argued that Robles wasn’t discriminated against because he had access to a telephone. In contrast, Robles contends that ordering online allows customers to view a more expansive menu, avoid background noise and phone delays. Also, according to Robles, Domino’s pizza only displayed a telephone number readable by screen-reading software after he brought litigation.

During litigation, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ADA applies to Domino’s website because the internet connects customers with the bricks and mortar of the restaurant. While Domino’s petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, the request was recently denied. With other federal courts around the country having ruled on similar litigation, it seems like only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will have to weigh in.  

In 1991, when the ADA was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, lawmakers clearly had no way of knowing how intertwined commerce would be with the internet. However, that doesn’t mean the ADA doesn’t apply to the web. The lawsuit brought by Robles isn’t just about pizza; it goes directly to how visually impaired people are able to participate in the 2019 economy.  Joe Manning, the attorney for Mr. Robles, said, “The blind and visually impaired must have access to websites and apps to fully and equally participate in modern society - something nobody disputes.”

Leaving the law aside, I think that Christopher Danielsen from the National Federation of the Blind said it best. “There is a ton of space for innovation in this area…Rather than refusing to take the money of those of us with disabilities, why not innovate and take our money?” 

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court ultimately decides to hear a case like this, wouldn’t it be nice if businesses in a 21st century economy took a proactive approach to make their website as accessible as possible to all people?  

Sacred texts, prayer books, centuries old archival documents and even a defunct electric bill have provided the inspiration for theater, film and museum exhibits in 2019, a veritable collective celebration of the written and printed word. While many examples might be added to this compendium, here are just a few highlights of innovative artworks, all of which take a fresh approach to the way Jewish culture and social life has impacted history and civilization. 

Long-deceased members of a prominent Jewish family come to life onstage in Angela J. Davis’ award-winning new play, “The Spanish Prayer Book,” which premiered in September in California by North Hollywood’s Road Theatre. The time-traveling contemporary drama focuses on a cache of long-hidden religious manuscripts and deals with topics including the changing narrative of Jewish-Muslim relations through the centuries, the commodification of the spiritual—in this case, a collection of valuable prayer books—and our obligation to preserve and protect that which is most precious.

Lilach Dekel-Avneri, a participant in the Washington, D.C.-based Israel Institute Visiting Artist Program, gave an improvisatory, free-form take to her direction of Maya Arad Yasur’s “Amsterdam,” whose script encompasses both the Holocaust and today’s immigration issues, all catalyzed by an unpaid electric bill, mailed to its recipient in 1944 and discovered by the work’s protagonist, a violinist based in the Dutch city of the title. It premiered on Oct. 10 with a three-person cast of students from the University of Southern California’s School of Dramatic Arts in Los Angeles, where Dekel-Avneri was based this fall. The director, who characterizes the work as a theater piece, rather than a work with a linear narrative, has noted that “It has no hesitation in combining storytelling, using personal facts about the artist, with the aid of imaginary images, and soundscape, in order to enable us to rise anarchistic and funny performative energies from the pseudo-documentary text.”

The Cairo Geniza—inscribed whole and fragmented pages and artifacts whose content, meaning and function include everything from account ledgers and religious tracts to love letters and music scores, never discarded, but preserved for hundreds of years in the storeroom (geniza) of an Egyptian synagogue and now dispersed among 70 institutions worldwide—takes center stage in “From Cairo to the Cloud,” Michelle Paymar’s award-winning documentary which has been screened at numerous Jewish film festivals this year. Translated into multiple languages and reconstituted as one linear entity through the “miracle” of the internet, the collection opens new insights into a myriad of topics, including the ways that Jews, Muslims and Christians interacted in the region. Those who see the film will be impressed by its superb cinematography, underscoring the stunning visual beauty of the documents. It’s now being shown at film festivals in Europe.
​
And finally, Washington’s Museum of the Bible, an institution which has hosted some terrific displays of rare Jewish books from Holland and elsewhere, unveiled on Nov. 7 the Washington Pentateuch, a torah dating to the 10th century and described as one of the oldest, intact Hebrew bible manuscripts in the United States. In addition to the torah itself, the exhibition features an introduction by Harvard professor David Stern and images of seven other Hebrew Bible manuscripts, with explanations of how they impact modern editions and translations. 

​More than 100 countries are celebrating that the U.N. General Assembly voted for dictatorships to become members of the Human Rights Council (HRC) in the next two years. Democracies have been defeated again, and from now on, Venezuela, Mauritania and Sudan will join more dictatorships in the shameful HRC. All three countries are serial violators of human rights. Slavery is still alive in Mauritania. Sudan is experiencing a reign of terror. Both will judge human rights.
 
Though outrageous, it is unsurprising that Venezuela has secured a seat in the HRC. It will be an excellent shelter for Maduro to hide the ongoing violation of all human rights in Venezuela. Venezuela got its seat through lobbying by Russia and Cuba and the global support of the Non-Aligned countries - a very peculiar name these days, when at the end of the day they are only aligned to dictators.
 
Less than a month ago, the high commissioner for human rights, former Chilean President Michele Bachelet, denounced more than seven thousand killings in Venezuela and an ongoing violation of human rights against civilians. It looks like a contradiction that a month later, Venezuela is seated in the HRC.
 
Well, it is not. Hypocrisy usually is associated with these political movements. The high commissioner told the truth: Venezuela is a dictatorship that violates human rights. On the other hand, seats in U.N. agencies are the result of negotiations and bargaining. And Venezuela will be a safe vote for those powers that backed its seating in the HRC.
 
The high commissioner has asked for an investigation on the ground in Venezuela into killings, illegal imprisonments and hunger. Maduro insulted Mrs. Bachelet by not accepting any U.N. mission and now, a month after the request, he has received total impunity with Venezuela’s membership in the HRC.
 
The political alliances made by Venezuela in the last 20 years with Iran, Russia and the Arab League have brought these results: Venezuela is a dictatorship and there is no international system able to stop it. Venezuela’s alliances create a clear and present danger across Latin America; Hezbollah has free access to everywhere in the region that allows entry to Venezuelan passports. Argentina and Paraguay have established that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but no other country has yet dared to follow them. And when we watch hesitation from the vast majority of Latin American countries to condemn terrorism clearly, the danger becomes greater.
 
Social unrest is advancing these days in several South American countries. Chile is experiencing ongoing protests with thousands of people rallying in the streets. There has been destruction of public buildings and the Santiago metro. The unrest is not being calmed down either by the government or by the other political parties, and the future is uncertain. Bolivia has had elections, but the opposition does not accept the results and there is violence in the streets. Venezuela always supports unrest in other Latin American countries. Its government has publicly celebrated violence in the streets, no matter which country is going through that violence.
 
Each country has its own problems, and there is no doubt that many Latin American countries have a lot of unrest. The Venezuelan dictatorship always claims that it will not accept interference and that Venezuela will solve its problems. But Maduro and his ministers want to intervene in other countries. If any country and its government are weak enough to succumb to any sort of intervention, Iranian influence and the threat Hezbollah poses will spread more and more.
  
Latin American countries will be able to keep democracy in the countries where there are still serious democracies if the international community reacts and stops forgetting what is happening on a continent of 600 million people. If indifference prevails, as is happening now, regimes like the Venezuelan or Cuban governments will be replicated. And if this happens, it will be too late to go back.

​This month, something positive and unusual happened at the United Nations, a body that was a source of hope for many Jews after the Holocaust and helped give rise to the revival of the Jewish homeland, but has since often been passive about, and sometimes complicit in, hostility globally to the Jewish people and their only nation-state.
 
This month, a person of stature within the U.N. system -- and within the notoriously wayward human rights apparatus at that -- took the initiative to prepare and deliver a report to the General Assembly on the problem of anti-Semitism.
 
Moreover, he adopted an exclusive focus on that problem, and on the whole did so thoroughly, seriously and professionally. And that author originally hails from a majority-Muslim country, where he previously had served as foreign minister.
 
Ahmed Shaheed prepared his report -- under the rubric of the "promotion and protection of human rights," specifically the "elimination of all forms of religious intolerance" -- in his current capacity as special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. While the especially politicized Human Rights Council and its designated experts are typically better known for animus to Israel -- Michael Lynk, the latest partisan rapporteur on Palestinian rights, a position whose very mandate testifies to the overt one-sidedness of the U.N. on the conflict with Israel, just affirmed a call to single out Jewish civilian communities in Palestinian-claimed territory for economic warfare -- Shaheed also previously served as special rapporteur on Iran. His reputation in the Islamic Republic was such that Tehran dismissed Shaheed, a diplomat and politician from the Maldives, as an agent "for the Zionist regime and also the CIA."
 
Shaheed's report on anti-Semitism, though surely not without omission or flaw, is largely unprecedented at the U.N. -- and especially important at a time when anti-Jewish bigotry, discrimination and persecution have again surged in many parts of the world, uniting extreme rightists and leftists, and those motivated by ideologies rooted in politics, religion and racial theory alike.
 
In his report, to which B'nai B'rith made contributions and in which we joined in advance consultation, Shaheed referenced these realities in considerable detail. After a period of soliciting input from Jewish communities, U.N. member states and others, he described antisemitic tropes, domestic and regional trends in antisemitic rhetoric and violence, the broadcasting of anti-Semitism on online platforms, various government measures that curtail Jews' religious rights and current "best practices" in monitoring and combating anti-Jewish hate. He added some of his own recommendations to states, civil society, the media and the U.N. system.
 
Critically, he explicitly framed Jewish rights as human rights, established anti-Semitism as a concern worthy of U.N. action and signaled that unchecked anti-Semitism bodes ill for society as a whole.
 
As B'nai B'rith did in a recent private meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Shaheed urged the designation of a high-level U.N. point person on the scourge of anti-Jewish prejudice -- and, vitally, he urged adoption by yet more parties of the indispensable working definition of antiSemitism of the intergovernmental International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). That definition encompasses the virulent and defamatory anti-Zionism that is likely the most prevalent contemporary form of lethal anti-Semitism.
 
While Shaheed noted the disingenuous assertion of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that it is merely anti-Israel but not antisemitic, and he wrote that boycotts can be lawful, he "stresse[d] that expression which draws upon antisemitic tropes or stereotypes, rejects the right of Israel to exist, or advocates discrimination against Jewish individuals because of their religion should be condemned." BDS leaders routinely engage in all three, especially the latter two.
 
Regrettably, Shaheed did write at one point that claims that Israel's very existence is racist, requirements of Israel not applied to other democracies and the equating of Israeli policy with that of the Nazis are "not designate[d] as examples of speech that are ipso facto antisemitic" under the IHRA definition, when IHRA specifically does include those among examples that would be considered antisemitic under the working definition. This discrepancy, all the more so considering Shaheed's endorsement of the IHRA definition and his prior listing of the very examples mentioned, is confusing and might perhaps yet be remedied.
 
Additionally, Shaheed's not having called out by name various especially prominent international traffickers in crude anti-Semitism (merged frequently with anti-Israelism) is unfortunate. These might include Malaysia's self-described anti-Semitic Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, American-based Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, many ranking Iranian officials and their proxies in Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and especially Lebanese Hezbollah, as well as Yemen's Houthis, whose very flag reads "Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam." Sadly, international surveys have found shockingly ubiquitous antisemitic attitudes in many predominantly Muslim societies -- not just animus to Israel but to Jews.
 
This said, such a reality makes Shaheed's nearly 20-page report, with meaningful and accurate information far outnumbering the errors, all the more significant. His sincere and comprehensive treatment of anti-Semitism, including unreserved discussion and condemnation of anti-Israel extremists, reflects a moderate and pluralistic component of the Muslim world, one with deep roots that deserve cultivation. It also resists the broader tendency to obscure the pandemic of modern anti-Semitism, especially as manifested in hate for Israel or "Zionists," in the face of so much intercommunal strife and social upheaval globally.
 
Finally, Shaheed builds upon the notably positive example set by current U.N. chief Guterres -- a former prime minister of Portugal, with its history of devastating Catholic anti-Semitism, who has repeatedly not just deplored anti-Semitism but recognized the delegitimization of Israel as antisemitic. Guterres also recently launched efforts to combat hate speech and protect places of worship. His initiatives, though requiring further development and additional actions -- including, but not limited to, existing U.N. Holocaust commemoration and a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) program for addressing anti-Semitism through education -- cannot be taken for granted.
 
Good next steps could include having the Alliance of Civilizations, referenced by Shaheed, not only build selective bridges between the "East" and "West" but not exclude Israeli Jews in the process. Israelis should finally be hired for senior positions in the world body and be given the chance to make the immense contributions of which they are capable. Now that, following the efforts of B'nai B'rith and our partners, the U.N. gave some recognition to one major Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur, on its staff calendar (beginning in 2015), it could do more to avoid important international meetings, particularly those related to the Middle East, on such holy days.
 
And especially -- despite any political pushback -- U.N. leaders must more vocally and persistently call out the anti-Israel discrimination that makes the Middle East's only democracy the beleaguered sole Jewish member of the family of nations. Palestinian political narratives and goals should not be favored over those of Israelis through: a rapporteur on Palestinian rights alone; an international day of solidarity with Palestinians; exceptional, standing bodies such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices, the Division for Palestinian Rights and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; an unparalleled would-be blacklist marginalizing only companies deemed associated with Israeli Jewish settlements; World Health Organization motions obscenely criticizing Israel (alone); a permanent agenda item at the Human Rights Council, Item 7, scrutinizing Israel (alone); and more condemnatory resolutions, "emergency" sessions, "fact-finding" missions and other measures targeting Israel than all other 192 U.N. member states combined. UNESCO resolutions should never again be allowed to whitewash or minimize Jews' eternal connection to their most sacred places in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Fanatic terrorists attacking Israelis should be, as others are at the U.N., described and combated as such. 
 
In a word, the lives of Jews -- even when they are Israelis, even when they are Zionists -- should be valued like those of any other people. This alone can be the basis of any credible and effective effort to say no to anti-Semitism.