Credit: Newsweek/The Daily Beast

There is currently a bill before the Knesset that seeks to offer financial assistance to Haredi youth leaving the ultra-Orthodox world. The proposed law would offer them the same sort of assistance that is currently offered to new immigrants. These benefits can cover everything from tax breaks on homes and cars to tuition remission for University and even a monthly living stipend.

While the bill has not yet passed, it is an interesting commentary on just how far removed Israel has allowed the Haredi community to get from its mainstream community. A star pupil in the Haredi community, should he choose to leave the fold and attempt to study in the secular world, is guaranteed hardships that most mediocre student from the secular world will not face. Primarily amongst these is that the Haredi education, which applies a high importance to studying Torah and Talmud, does not prepare its students for a secular Israeli University.

Haaretz reports that one such student, who has abandoned the Haredi world and is now striving to attend Tel Aviv University’s Law School, first has to qualify for a high school diploma. Their story is not about a lazy boy who could not be bothered to attend classes in the religious world and found an easier way in the secular world. Before leaving his religious community, he was studying at a “prestigious” Yeshiva in Bnei Brak.

There is much talk about how removed the ultra-Orthodox in Israel have become from mainstream Israeli society. Many do not work, very few serve in the military. They are subsidized by the state, both for their studies and their way of life (remember those segregated busses 222 everyone was talking about a few months ago? Those are heavily subsidized by the government). But how far has Israel allowed this community to deviate that to graduate with a religious secondary school education does not make one eligible to even apply to an Israeli University?

At one point in my life, I lived in a small desert town in Southern Israel. While there, I volunteered at a Democratic School. The notion is a strange one, but it is akin to a Montessori School. The students have an equal say to the teachers, and the teachers an equal say to the principal. There were no daily, or semesterly, requirements. If students wanted to spend all day in the sandbox, the art room, or the fully equipped music room, that was their decision to make. They chose when they were ready to learn to read, to do basic math, to learn a foreign language and so on. Needless to say, it was an interesting place to spend some time.

Despite very impressive test results that seem to imply that this outside-the-box education was working more than okay, the school had many problems with the state. The state was uncomfortable with their model. Coming up with issues that the state might have had with such a model would not be difficult. But it is suffice to say that this educational experiment was always under a watchful eye.

This was a school of maybe a hundred children. So the question is, how is Israel not keeping a watchful eye on the schooling the children of a population that makes up such a large number of Israelis? Estimates put the Haredi population in Israel as low one-in-ten and as high as one-in-six. And it must be remembered that this number is their population as a whole. Due to their high birth rates, when broken down by age group, the Haredi make up an even larger sizable proportion to secular children currently studying in an Israeli primary or secondary school. It is reported that as few as 40% of these Haredi schools are even teaching English or math. Israel is currently a leader in the world of hi-tech and innovation. But what kind of society will Israel be in 20 years, if such a large proportion of its population cannot even demand correct change at the market, much less learn how to work a computer?

Israel has a say in the education of the small Democratic School in the south of Israel. They have a say in the education of the Russian and Ethiopian communities of Israel. They have a say in the education of the Israeli Arab community in Israel. For the sake of the ultra-Orthodox, Israel must also have a say in the education of their community. Anything less is a disservice to the hundreds of thousands of children currently trusting their parents, their community and their state, to prepare them for life in the 21st century.

The Origin of the Beatles Haircut:

Neatorama presents a guest post from actor, comedian, and voiceover artist Eddie Deezen. Visit Eddie at his website.

New York Press Conference 1964

Reporter: Where you your haircuts come from?

George Harrison: Our scalps.

In their early years as a fledgling rock and roll band in the late 1950s and into the early 1960s, The Beatles each sported typical slicked-back, greased-up Tony Curtis/Elvis Presley type D.A. haircuts. In an early explanation as to the origin of the Beatles haircut, George was quoted as saying that he came out of the swimming baths one day, his hair had fallen down over his forehead, and he just left it that way.

The true derivation of the world famous coiffure is a bit more complex. In August of 1960, the newly-0named “Beatles” consisted of five members: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, bassist Stu Sutcliffe, and a newly-hired drummer named Pete Best. The band was hired to play as series of gigs in August of 1960 in Hamburg, Germany. It was there that they met two people who were to have a profound effect on their future careers as icon and trendsetters: Astrid Kirchherr and Jürgen Vollmer.

Kirchherr was a very original and creative photographer. One night she saw The Beatles play at a local club in Hamburg called the Top Ten Club (she was talked into going by her boyfriend Klaus Voorman and fellow artist and friend Jürgen Vollmer). Astrid, Klaus, and Jürgen struck up an immediate and close friendship with the five young, talented, and slightly homesick young rock and rollers. Also, Astrid and bassist Stu Sutcliffe almost immediately fell in love.

Using Jean Cocteau’s 1950 film Orpheus as her main inspiration, one day Astrid gave her beloved Stu a new haircut (it was also a style she had seen on many German boys at her college). She washed the grease out of his scalp and combed the locks straight down, over his forehead. Astrid recalled that she originally used the long combed-over cut on her boyfriend Klaus Voorman, to cover up his bog, floppy ears.

(Image credit: Astrid Kirchherr)

Although the exact dates are nebulous, it is indisputable that Stu was the first Beatle to sport the Beatle haircut on stage. When Stu came onstage to perform that night, John and Paul laughed hysterically and ridiculed poor Stu. Stu was soon to leave the band in early 1961 (he died tragically in April of 1962 of a brain hemorrhage at the early age of 21).

George was actually the first of the later famous Beatles to wear the Beatle cut. Astrid recalled (after Stu), “then George came along and asked me to cut his hair that way.” She added that “John and Paul couldn’t decide whether to have the different haircut.” When George came on stage with his hair combed forward in front of an audience at the Top Ten Club “the rockers gave him funny looks” and he combed it back the next day. This was in the early months of 1961.

George Harrison, before and after.

In October of ’61, John and Paul decided to take a spur of the moment vacation to Paris (one of john’s aunts had given him the princely sun of £500 for his 21st birthday). In Paris, they encountered their old friend Jürgen and asked him to give their hair the combed over treatment. According to Paul, “He (Jürgen) had his hair mod style. We said, ‘Would you do our hair like yours? We’re on holiday, what the hell, we’re buying capes and pantaloons, throwing caution to the wind.’ He said ‘No, boys, I like you as rockers. You look great.’ But we begged him enough. So he said alright. We sat down in his hotel and we just got it. The Beatle cut.”

The new Beatle cut was not without its early drawbacks.  Their road manager Neil Aspenall recalled, “The boys were an easy target for troublemakers who attended those early dates. Gangs would often make it a point of shouting insults at them. It was their childish way of looking for a fight or getting back at the Beatles because their girls thought so much of them.”

In August of 1962, drummer Ringo Starr was asked to join the band. Drummer Pete Best never joined John, Paul, and George in combing his hair in their new over-the-forehead look. His hair was too curly. When later asked why he never combed his hair into a Beatle cut, he replied, “They never asked me.” This bit of non-conformity, while not the entire reason, was probably one of the contributing factors when when the Beatles decided to give poor Pete the sack after two years of loyal drumming with them.

At the time, Ringo not only had a greasy swept-back haircut, he also sported a stylish beard. Ringo recalled John’s phone call to him, asking him to join the Beatles. “You can keep your sidies (sideburns), but lose the beard,” he was instructed. Early publicity photos, as well as Ringo’s picture on the Beatles’ first album Please Please Me, show Ringo clean-shaven, but still with a slightly swept-back coiffure.

By late 1962, the Beatle haircut was firmly established as an easily-recognizable part of the Beatles joint persona. In the early months of 1963, the band had already gotten used to being referred to as “the four moptops” by the British press. In September of 1963, The Beatles record “She Loves You” was played on Dick Clark’s popular dance show American Bandstand. According to Newsweek, when kids saw a photo of four long-haired kids, they just laughed. The record received a mediocre 73 rating in the “Rate A Record” segment of the show.

When they first came to America in February of 1964, TIME magazine referred to their hair as “mushroom haircuts.” Besides the obvious Beatles wigs, the Fab Four cottage industry also spawned Beatle hairbrushes, Beatle combs, and Beatle hairspray. Their then-controversial haircuts became fodder at every Beatle press conference.

John stated that he hadn’t visited an actual barber in years; George cut his hair when they were on tour and his wife Cynthia cut it when he was home. Ringo’s girlfriend Maureen Cox, a hairdresser by trade, cut his hair (the two married in February of 1965).

On the Beatles tour of Australia in mid-1964, two girls named Grace Ferrigno and Val Bahrens got to cut John, Paul, and Ringo’s hair in Melbourne (George was out at the time on a “scenic mountain drive.”) Later, the girls tried to sell the precious sheared locks of hair outside Festival Hall. They ended up making no sales. No one believed the hair was real.

Interestingly, when asked in an early interview about what his future goals were, Ringo stated, quite sincerely, that his dream was to own a string of hair salons. Although he led an incredibly successful life with huge accomplishments, this was one goal Ringo was never to achieve.

By Ted Regencia and Lindsay Minerva for Tablet Mag

Near the corner of Westchester Avenue and Pugsley Street in Parkchester, just off the elevated tracks of the No. 6 train, Yaakov Wayne Baumann stood outside a graffiti-covered storefront on a chilly Saturday morning. Suited up in a black overcoat with a matching wide-brimmed black fedora, the thickly bearded 42-year-old chatted with elderly congregants as they entered the building for Shabbat service.

The only unusual detail: This synagogue is a mosque.

Or rather, it’s housed inside a mosque. That’s right: Members of the Chabad of East Bronx, an ultra-Orthodox synagogue, worship in the Islamic Cultural Center of North America, which is home to the Al-Iman mosque.

“People have a misconception that Muslims hate Jews,” said Baumann. “But here is an example of them working with us.”

Indeed, though conventionally viewed as adversaries both here and abroad, the Jews and Muslims of the Bronx have been propelled into an unlikely bond by a demographic shift. The borough was once home to an estimated 630,000 Jews, but by 2002 that number had dropped to 45,100, according to a study by the Jewish Community Relations Council. At the same time, the Muslim population has been increasing. In Parkchester alone, there are currently five mosques, including Masjid Al-Iman.

“Nowhere in the world would Jews and Muslims be meeting under the same roof,” said Patricia Tomasulo, the Catholic Democratic precinct captain and Parkchester community organizer, who first introduced the leaders of the synagogue and mosque to each other. “It’s so unique.”

The relationship started years ago, when the Young Israel Congregation, then located on Virginia Avenue in Parkchester, was running clothing drives for needy families, according to Leon Bleckman, now 78, who was at the time the treasurer of the congregation. One of the recipients was Sheikh Moussa Drammeh, the founder of the Al-Iman Mosque, who was collecting donations for his congregants—many of whom are immigrants from Africa. The 49-year-old imam is an immigrant from Gambia in West Africa who came to the United States in 1986. After a year in Harlem, he moved to Parkchester, where he eventually founded the Muslim center and later established an Islamic grade school. Through that initial meeting, a rapport developed between the two houses of worship, and the synagogue continued to donate to the Islamic center, among other organizations.

But in 2003, after years of declining membership, Young Israel was forced to sell its building at 1375 Virginia Ave., according to a database maintained by Yeshiva University, which keeps historical records of synagogues. Before the closing, non-religious items were given away; in fact, among the beneficiaries was none other than Drammeh, who took some chairs and tables for his center.

Meanwhile, Bleckman and the remaining members moved to a nearby storefront location, renting it for $2,000 a month including utilities. With mostly elderly congregants, Young Israel struggled to survive financially and, at the end of 2007, was forced to close for good. The remaining congregants were left without a place to pray. During the synagogue’s farewell service, four young men from the Chabad Lubavitch world headquarters in Crown Heights showed up. Three months earlier, Bleckman, then chairman of the synagogue’s emergency fund, had appealed for help from the Chabad.

“The boys from the Chabad said they came to save us,” said Bleckman. “We were crying.”

At this point, Chabad took over the congregational reins from Young Israel, with members officially adopting the new name Chabad of East Bronx. Still, for the next six to seven weeks, Bleckman said they could not even hold a service because they had nowhere to hold it.

When Drammeh learned of their plight, he immediately volunteered to accommodate them at the Muslim center at 2006 Westchester Ave.—for free.

“They don’t pay anything, because these are old folks whose income are very limited now,” said Drammeh, adding that he felt it was his turn to help the people who had once helped him and his community. “Not every Muslim likes us, because not every Muslim believes that Muslims and Jews should be like this,” Drammeh said, referring to the shared space. But “there’s no reason why we should hate each other, why we cannot be families.” Drammeh in particular admires the dedication of the Chabad rabbis, who walked 15 miles from Brooklyn every Saturday to run prayer services for the small Parkchester community.

For the first six months, congregants held Friday night Sabbath services inside Drammeh’s cramped office. As more people began joining the congregation, Drammeh offered them a bigger room where they could set up a makeshift shul. (When it’s not in use, students from the Islamic school use it as their classroom.) Inside the synagogue, a worn, beige cotton curtain separates the men and women who attend the service. A solitary chandelier hangs just above the black wooden arc that holds the borrowed Torah, which is brought weekly from the Chabad headquarters. A large table covered with prayer books stands in the center, and a picture of the Lubavitcher Rebbe is displayed prominently on a nearby wall. During Shabbat, when Jewish congregants are strictly prohibited from working, they have to rely on the Muslim workers at the center or on Drammeh to do simple chores such as turning on the light and switching on the heater.

At first, it did not make sense, said Hana Kabakow, wife of Rabbi Meir Kabakow. “I was surprised,” said the 26-year-old congregant who was born and raised in Israel. “But when I came here I understood.” The Kabakows have been coming to the service from Brooklyn for the last two years.

Harriet Miller, another congregant, said she appreciated the center’s accommodating the synagogue. “They are very sweet people,” said the 79-year-old Bronx native and long-time resident of Parkchester, who added that she welcomes the new Muslim immigrants in her neighborhood: “We were not brought up to hate.”

Drammeh also understands the importance of teaching tolerance more broadly, and for turning the school—which was itself founded at the nearby St. Helena Catholic Church on, of all days, Sept. 11, 2001—into a model of sorts for religious tolerance in New York.

“We’re not as divided as the media portrays us to be,” Drammeh said. “Almost 90 percent of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian teachings are the same.”

His latest project involves introducing fifth-grade Jewish and Islamic school students to each other’s religious traditions. Other participants of the program, now in its sixth year, include the Solomon Schechter School of Manhattan, the Al Ihsan Academy of Queens, and the Kinneret Day School of Riverdale. At the end of the program, students organize an exhibit that shows family artifacts of their respective cultures and religion. The principal of the Islamic school, who is also Sheik Drammeh’s wife, said that even after the program ended, the participants became “fast friends” and would visit each other’s homes.

“They would have birthday parties together,” Shireena Drammeh said. “When someone invites you to their house, I mean, that says it all right there and then.”

While the Jewish congregants are thankful for their new home, they hope that one day they can rebuild their own synagogue. That day may be far off: Even now that they have space to worship, they still struggle to operate. They don’t have proper heating inside, and the portable working heater could not reach the separate area where the elderly women are seated, forcing them to wear their jackets during the entire service. Congregants are appealing for financial support from the Jewish community and other congregations.

But Leon Bleckman and others say they now also have loftier goals, including reviving the Jewish presence in the neighborhood and reaffirming the positive relationship with their Muslim friends. “We are able to co-exist together side by side in the same building,” said Assistant Rabbi Avi Friedman, 42. “That’s sort of like a taste of the future world to come—the messianic future where all people live in peace.”

Ted Regencia is a digital media student at the Columbia Journalism School. His Twitter feed is at @tedregencia. Lindsay Minerva, a digital media student at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, is an intern at Newsweek. Her Twitter feed is at @lindsayminerva.

Pakistanis for Peace Editor’s Note- A story like this illustrates the good in all of us. A few months ago, we highlighted an article on Heartsong Church in Cordova, Tennessee where Christians in that part of the US welcomed a Muslim community that was undergoing construction of their mosque nearby. Now this kind deed is being passed forward to another flock of faithful when Muslims in New York are offering a helping hand to Jewish members of their community. This is the type of love for one another God of all religions wants and appreciates. May God bless them all.

Filed under: American Muslims, Democracy, Freedoms, Islam, Israel, Muslims, Peace, United States Tagged: Al-Iman Mosque, Chabad Lubavitch, Interfaith Relations, Islamic Cultural Center of North America, Israel, Jewish Community Relations Council, Judaism, Muslim Americans, New York, New York Mosques, NY Jews, Yaakov Wayne Baumann, Young Israel

For those who have not yet read Andrew Sullivan’s Newsweek piece on Obama, published this past week, take note: it should be required reading for all U.S. voters as the country continues its journey toward the 2012 presidential election. Self-identified as a conservative-minded independent, Sullivan takes on the liberal, conservative, and moderate critiques of Obama’s term in office with dexterity — slashing some of the most pervasive arguments from both parties and all sides as fallacious, overblown, and often even factually or internally inconsistent — and maintains that the President’s character, record, and promise remain “grossly underappreciated.” But his main point is this: Obama has been pragmatic from the start, never focused on making short-term gains for which he can immediately and loudly take credit, but instead taking a long view strategy that entails slow, deliberate, unprovocative persistence and makes the changes he achieves more durable.

The point of Sullivan’s piece is not to deify Barack Obama. It is to ground an assessment of the President’s work in reality, which he does quite well. And it can remind Cuba watchers (myself included) of the character and nature of the man we’re considering when we discuss Cuba policy and Executive capabilities and actions.

First, it can help us to remember and recognize the sheer number of challenges the President faced when he took office. The economy was swirling lower into recession, with employment tumbling and our financial system threatening to pull the country into a true depression without swift and decisive action by the Executive and Congress. The U.S. global image was tarnished by our record on torture and by our bloated military presence and arrogant rhetoric. Yet still, not long into his time in office and even as he focused largely on addressing these and other pressing issues, President Obama fulfilled the only concrete campaign promise he made with respect to Cuba policy: he granted Americans unrestricted rights to send money to and visit family in Cuba. Even this small step was met with criticism, and attempts have been made in Congress to roll this policy back. But Obama has held his ground — quietly but firmly — threatening executive veto in order to make sure that his policy remains.

Second, we can recall the number of actors involved in affecting policy, which include, of course, not only the President and his administration but also the legislative branch and nongovernmental actors like lobbying groups, Cuban-American constituencies, think tanks, and others. The Executive seldom acts alone to change policy except, as we have seen, in situations deemed (correctly or not) particularly urgent and crucial to national security. Whatever the merits of changing U.S. policy toward Cuba, it simply does not fall into this category. And he does not yet have Congressional consensus on Cuba.

Third, we are reminded that Obama was not elected as a liberal crusader, but as a pragmatic, unifying reformist. Cuba policy may be ripe for change, but should the President unilaterally decree a set of changes called for by Cuba watchers, think tanks and other nongovernmental actors, he would have to willfully ignore a Congress that has been determined to avoid such changes. This is not his style. Ultimately, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” came from the President working with top military and defense leaders, and they (including Admiral Mike Mullen) came forward and made the case for doing away with the policy. Had Obama acted unilaterally, the repeal would no doubt have taken more heat than it did, would have met with more resistance, and might not have been durable in the long run. We can expect to see the same with further change to U.S. policy toward Cuba, or any changes put in place will be at risk of immediate opposition, counter-attack, and retaliation or repeal. Remember: pragmatic, unifying reformist, not crusader.

And finally, we are reminded that for Washington, Cuba has always been a long game. The basic tenets of our current policy toward the island have been around for half a century without yielding any measurable “success”. Any movement in broad perception, understanding and opinions has been glacial, but we are, however slowly, moving as a population toward a different consensus than that under which current policy was designed. And as more Americans learn about and visit Cuba under the current people-to-people travel regulations, the consensus can be expected to grow.

All of this does not have to make us more patient about seeing additional changes in long-standing U.S. policy toward Cuba. But it could help us see the long view. And perhaps the President is on track.

“Human Security Is The Primary Purpose Of Organizing A State In The Beginning.”
– Surin Pitsuwan, ASEAN

In the wake of the Arab Spring, and in light of the ongoing global economic disorder, world leaders would be well advised to examine their understanding of national security. Recent events paint a picture of national leaders who are wildly out of touch and hopelessly behind the principal national challenge of the 21st century – human security.

(Source: Newsweek)

In 2011, the world witnessed the sudden and total political implosion of a handful of states that up until recently were firmly in the hands of their autocratic rulers. There was much debate about how the warning signs and red flags were missed. Clearly, N. African leaders were out of touch and not able to sense the social fissures and stress points that indicated popular rage.

Though one of the core lessons of the Arab revolts is that super angry citizens now have virtual meeting grounds to vent, meet, organize and to act, the most memorable lesson of the revolts is that governments must provide for the legitimate needs of their people or face ouster. Authorities must quickly learn that protecting their people from state on state conflict or homeland attacks (i.e. Freedom of Fear), must be balanced with the human requirement for the basics, or what social scientists call “Freedom of Want” (think shelter, food, clean water etc.). In most societies, this need is satisfied when people are productively employed in the economy and basic goods/services are made available through a combination of social programs and a healthy private sector. Mubarak, Gadaffi, and other modern day pharaohs simply failed to effectively work with the ‘whole of society’ to deliver on their respective “Freedom of Want” promises.

From Pharaoh to Prisoner (Source: Newsweek)

As we prepare to start a new year, basic food prices across the globe remain at historically high levels and although great strides have been made in the anti-poverty fight, the numbers are still staggering.

• Approximately 9.2 million children under the age of 5 die each year, mostly from preventable diseases. That’s approximately 25,000 children each day.
• 69 million children are out of school around the world, a figure equivalent to the entire primary school-aged population in Europe andNorth America.
• Food prices have risen 83 percent since 2005, disproportionately affecting those in poverty who spend a higher percentage of their income on food.
• Daily disasters. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—all treatable diseases—claim the lives of over 8,000 people every day in Africa due to lack of access to health care.
• More than 800 million people go to bed hungry every day…300 million are children.

(Statistics are from the World Bank and the ONE Campaign)

To make matters worse, the global economic recovery continues to stall with very little sign that industrialized nations have a solid game plan to get the ball closer to the goal line. Sadly, even with this bleak economic reality, developing nations today account for the majority of arms purchases in the world, buying arms supplied mainly by the permanent UN Security Council members—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Yes, I know what you’re thinking.

So while the international community and mainstream media focus their collective attention on containing the nuclear genie, nations that can least provide human security for their people purchase conventional weapons from the countries that claim to want world peace and social development.  Perhaps all should heed a warning from Thomas Jefferson who once said, “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty”.

Presidents and Prime Ministers — Fear And Respect Your People!