A League of their Own...and still on our own

I am a 90s girl through and through.  My first issues of YM magazine arrived at my house right after River Phoenix's death and immediately I remember being immersed into the world of pop culture where we truly cared about our celebrities and what happens to them.  I immediately loved all things pop culture - movies especially.  Watching movies was - and still is - not only about the plot or the characters in the movie.  Movies have always been about the immersive experience, allowing those personalities to jump off the screen and relate to me and my life, and whit means in context of what’s going on in our larger culture.  

During these formative years a number of movies entered my own personal Canon - West Side Story, Goonies, Grease, Cinema Paradiso, and, of course, A League of their Own.  The other movies are for a discussion at another time.  But today I wanted to talk about A League of their Own, and namely the Amazon reboot of the same name. 

As some of you might be familiar with, A League of their Own takes place during WW2 when American women stepped into the cleats of the country’s men who had gone off to fight overseas.  These were women from across the country and spanned all socio-economic statuses.  They stepped in to entertain America at a time where that was so much needed to heal the soul of the country.  

So you can imagine my excitement when I heard that Amazon Prime was rebooting the movie as a series.  Written, EP'ed and Starring Abbi Jacobson this reboot promised to dive deeper into the private lives, personalities, struggles and triumphs of these women - topics of which the movie barely had time to scratch the surface.  Notably, the series was gaining attention for diving into the homosexuality of many of these women - something that the culture was not ready to deal explore in 1992 when the original film was released, but 30 years later we are more than ready to talk about it. 

Additionally, with the character Max - an African American woman with a mean fast-ball - is unceremoniously and aggressively ejected from try-outs just based on the color of her skin.  Her impressive pitching skills notwithstanding.  

In the first episode there’s a scene when Carson (Jacobson) enters the baseball diamond and encounters a field full of women practicing their ball skills.  I got choked up watching this scene filled with women of all shapes and sizes (ok so they were also all white but as previously mentioned they’re gonna deal with race).  But despite their varied body types these women were all confident, skilled and - yes - beautiful.  This show was going to show that there’s more to a woman’s worth than her restrictive bust-waist-hips dimensions. 

The queer-ness and shame or secrecy surrounding these women’s personal sexual preferences is handled with nuance, and delicate care.  Appropriately evoking sympathy and caring for these characters.  Additionally, the emotional distress endured by the black protagonists are overt and painful.  Being ejected from a baseball tryout without being given a fair shot, having your request to apply for a job being rejected or being ignored by the fish-monger at the white supermarket when politely and assertively requesting to be served.  

All of this nuanced and sensitive treatment to marginalized people while also actively working to debunk gross stereotypes is powerful and very much needed in our society.  However, what it also accomplishes is making the gross stereotypes of the lone Jewish character so painful.  Shirley Cohen, played by Kate Berlant, is the lone Jewish character.  And upon our introduction to the character we’re also introduced to her many neuroses, anxieties and hypochondriac nature.  Wikipedia, in its list of characters, gives her the description of “a highly anxious player” When the ladies go out for lunch in episode 2 she tells Carson she has specific dietary restrictions and heads over to get some tuna from the supermarket (see above fish-monger scene).  She is being set up as not only Jewish but at least somewhat observant alluding to her need to have kosher food.  Almost as though to say, the more “Jewish” you are, the more neurotic you become.  She is a peripheral character and also someone set up to be the butt of the jokes.  The one towards whom eye rolls are accepted and the one that everyone agrees is annoying and ridiculous.  She’s not othered to the extent of Max, the black woman, but she’s accepted just enough to make the WASPy players feel better about themselves.  She’s the perfect foil - she can generally pass as a white player, but the second she opens her mouth it’s clear that she’s not the same. 

Even is 2022, when we as a society are so sensitive to the needs of others, to the plight of minorities and to the pain of marginalized people, it’s still ok to sideline and mock Jews for the stereotypes that have followed us for years.  Shame on Abbi Jacobson and the producers of this iteration of A League of their Own.  Shame on Amazon for allowing these stereotypes to be promulgated.  Shame on the press for not calling this out.  This show takes place during the 1940s and World War 2, a time when millions of Jews were being slaughtered based on gross stereotypes and here we have a show - coming almost 80 years after the fact - created by a Jewish woman - who doesn’t seem to take issue with the fact that she’s perpetuating caricatures that have plagued her people for millennia.  Jews are more than the stereotypes that have followed us for years.  We don’t deserve to be the people upon whom stereotypes can remain.  For a show to take such care and kid-gloves to marginalized people’s plights and yet care little about what it says about its Jewish characters means it’s missed its own point.   

We love to say about media that “representation matters.”  It’s important for there to be representation in our media for people who feel underrepresented to feel like they belong in society.  For those whose differences often make them feel small and insignificant or even ashamed to see someone who acts or looks like them projected onto the big (or little) screen.  To feel seen to feel mainstreamed.  When a little black girl sees a black muppet on Sesame Street singing about how much she loves her hair it gives that little girl the sense of belonging and love of herself.  When an Arab person sees themselves on screen being depicted as a main-stream doctor or lawyer and not terrorist or delivery person they feel as though they’ve finally broken out of the stereotype that has plagued them.  And then there are the Jews - always neurotic.  And then there are the Jews - always neurotic.  Always showcasing a version of the neurotic Woody Allen-esque Jew no matter how progressive the show portends to be. 

This isn’t just an issue with this one show.  As I mentioned at the top - one of the most interesting parts of movies and TV for me is how it relates to our culture and what it says about us.  This show is just a symptom in a culture that allows for antisemitic talk to be accepted. When JK Rowling dared to speak her opinion as it relates to trans women she was immediately canceled - no dialogue, no engagement with her.  Nothing.  Canceled.  And yet when Kanye West spews horrific Antisemtic venom we have a national conversation about antisemitism - even Orthodox Jewish pundit Ben Shapiro offers his 2-cents saying that Kanye’s words aren’t so bad because he’s experiencing a manic state.  Yes - it’s just as bad.  There is no - and should not be - any excuse for this despicable speech and yet, there is.  There always is.  What if the black or queer characters in A League of their Own embodied gross stereotypes people in those communities have been battling for centuries?  Would that be tolerated by society? Definitely not.  It’s time that Jews be put into the same category of protected minority where the stereotypes placed on our heads be shot down at every turn.  That not happening is what allows the Kanye’s of this world - and much much worse - be allowed to spew their hatred without fear of - or any- retribution.  

So, in closing, I implore you, Hollywood.  Include the Jews in your sensitive treatment of marginalized minorities. We are done being mocked for being neurotic or anxious.  We are through sitting on the sidelines, afraid to cause a stir.  If you want to explore how certain peoples have been treated unfairly throughout history, include us in that exploration.  There are 6 million of us who cannot speak out about the permanent damage that this has caused so maybe you’ll listen to this one. 

RUN

What’s the ultimate expression of selfishness and privilege? HBO’s latest dramedy RUN has the answer.  Two people unhappy with the lives they’ve made for themselves decide to run away from them and throw the lives of everyone else around them into turmoil rather than acting like grownups and resolving them appropriately. 

Merritt Weaver’s Ruby is a married mom who is feeling bored.  The first scene lays the groundwork for the bored housewife motif with her, new yoga mat in hand, sitting in her car staring at the only two paths life has laid out in front of her - Ralph’s Supermarket or Target.  Neither is the road less traveled.  When she gets a mysterious text saying nothing other than RUN.  She replies in kind which sets off a frenetic, anxiety laden cross country trip to NY.  She’s running from what, we don’t know exactly and to whom is a mystery as well but we do know that she suddenly cares what her hair and makeup looks like. 

It turns out she’s running towards Billy (Domhall Gleeson), a college friend? Lover? Unclear but apparently this adventure has been a possibility since they were students together 20 years earlier.  He’s also running from something whose details unfold in the following episodes.  What we do learn is that these two college friends had made a pact that if at any point either one of them texts the other “RUN” and the other responds in kind it would set off an immediate plan where they meet in Grand Central Station and then hop on the next train westward.  Using the classic trope in American cinema of traveling East to West to discover something unknown comes off as trite and  simplistic as the revelation never truly comes to fruition.

By episode 2 we still don’t have a full picture or any reason to think she’s anything but a desperate housewife.  The 17 year itch perhaps?  Whatever it turns out to be, I can’t help but be annoyed with these characters from the outset.  They both have jobs, homes, family.  To put it simply: responsibilities.  And in a moment of impulse they abandon it all to fulfill a 2-decades old pact that they made when they were still teenagers.  The fact that they’re nearing 40 makes this even more intolerable because they are full blown grownups who should know better and act as such.  

The glorification of fulfilling a fantasy that I’m sure thousands - if not more - people have to just leave it all behind and escape the life that they’ve made for themselves is, frankly, gross.  It’s also an expression of such white privilege.  Imagine the connotations if, let’s say, it was an African American man escaping his fatherly duties to run away with a woman he knew 20 years ago.  

I won’t give away the ending, but I will say this: the ending didn’t change my overall feeling of the show.  It was a huge disappointment given the talent attached.  Archie Punjabi as Billy’s Production Assistant is underused as her character is never fully developed and Executive Producer Phoebe Waller-Bridge has a small role that feels more like a cameo more than anything else.

Yes the acting is great - at this point I would expect nothing else from HBO shows and from these fine actors.  But that is not enough to make this show compelling.  What’s particularly sad to acknowledge is that since our media acts as a reflection of our culture and mores, this show is tapping into the thoughts and actions of American audiences.  Selfish parenting on screen is nothing new, but the proliferation of it seeing how commonplace it's becoming is another sign of the times that it’s not going anywhere soon. 

This Is Us and Building Resiliency

This is Us has been teasing us with Jack’s death for a season and a half now.  Every episode we seemed to have been getting a little closer to finding out how he died and why the kids are so screwed up over it.

Last week we finally found out.  In a self-referential post superbowl episode we find out that patriarch, Jack Pearson died from a heart attack following excessive smoke inhalation after not only rescuing his entire family from a fire, but Kate’s dog and a pillowcase full of family mementos.  

The entire series has painted Jack and Rebecca as amazing parents. They parented each kid according to their own needs.  They pushed them out of their comfort zones when they needed pushing and above all loved each one so wholley and individually.  So of course it's fitting that Jack's death occurred as one final act of selflessness in service to their children. Knowing his daughter would be crushed at the loss of her beloved dog, of course he went back to get him. Of course he would do anything to spare his daughter the hurt of losing a pet. Of course he went back to get Katie-bear her audition tape as a reminder of how much faith he had in her abilities of a singer. Furthermore, as the diligent husband he was, of course he went back to grab a necklace, a photo album, and other trinkets of their lives together. 

But maybe that's not what he should have done. 

Maybe he should have put his own life first in this instance and taught his family a different lesson. That pets aren't people. That trinkets can't replace the love of a husband. In what was his last act of fatherly and husbandly valor he lost sight of what was actually important - himself.  His presence in their lives. 

Jack was an amazing dad, but this was his fatal flaw. It's was made him mortal and imperfect. Thinking he could be all and do all for his family. Thinking he could forever shield his kids from pain and suffering is what caused the most pain and suffering. 

Seemingly, as a result of this final act which caused him more smoke inhalation and ultimately led to his death, he caused his family immeasurable sadness. Intentional or not, the show is saying that love and selflessness in service of your family is not ultimately what a good parent makes. I've been asking myself, how could two loving, emotionally stable and supportive parents produce such emotionally unstable children?  Kevin, Randall and Kate are all rife with different issues.  Kate’s obesity is linked with emotional eating, depression, feeling a lack of self-worth.  Kevin’s addiction issues that he’s inherited from his father is coupled with his narcissistic personality and impulse control issues.  Randall struggles with his own anxiety disorder. 

So what happened to these three kids whose parents loved and supported them?  They had a dad who did love them and wanted the best for them, but he also overestimated his mortality and by doing so, for instance, didn't teach his daughter that suffering a loss of a pet is easier to overcome than suffering the loss of a parent.  They didn’t allow their children to struggle with the small stuff to build resiliency for when the big stuff hit.  It’s those relatively small moments of despair and sadness in our lives that what strengthen us for the big ones and it’s a parent’s job to help children through the small(er) tragedies and to give them the support and resilience so that when they have to face the big ones – either alone or with said parent – they have the tools to do so.

In an age of television where parenting has become a contest of who can be the most selfish (see: Blackish, Modern Family, and others) THIS IS US offers a glimpse into a different model of parenting where the kids needs are actually put first. For the most part it's beautiful and refreshing, but it also reminds us that parents need to remember that teaching resilience through allowing their kids short term pain will give them the tools for emotional stability later on. 

Sesame Street

Like I’m sure many people were, I was confused and surprise when I heard the news that the beloved public television TV show, Sesame Street would be moving over to premium HBO.  Sesame Street, home to childhood favorites like Big Bird, Snuffy, Bert, Ernie, Elmo and Grover (and others I know) taught generations of kids their numbers, letters, how to share, how to be nice and inclusive to other children, showed scores of videos of real kids doing real things alongside cartoons of a more whimsical nature.  We sat in front of that TV for a full hour, mesmerized.  It was a comfortable place we could both learn and be entertained.  For me, watching it in the 80s and early 90s, we didn’t keep coming back because of the technological achievements or for the critical acclaim.  We came back because that’s where we could find familiar friendly faces with whom we sang and enjoyed spending time.

When the news came that Sesame Street would be moving to HBO along came the announcement that the show would be shortened to a half hour and would focus mainly on Elmo, Cookie Monster, Oscar the Grouch, Grover, and relative newcomer Abby Cadabby.  Having a 15-month old daughter who is already obsessed with Elmo, I was relieved that Elmo would still be around, but saddened by the omission of so many of the other beloved characters that are getting pushed to the side for what – marketability?  Merchandising?  

I’ve been watching the HBO version with my daughter and for comparison sake have also been going back to the older episodes to make sure my nostalgia for the original format isn’t taking over my sensibilities.  That being said, this new version of the show is a far cry from where it originated.  The 1/2 hour format feels very rushed and compressed.  It starts with a 10-15 minute segment that takes place on Sesame Street, usually featuring Abby and Elmo and 1-2 human counterparts.  Then there’s a song that features all of the characters singing about what the letter of the day will be (it’s a total earworm, I don’t recommend listening to it unless you want to be kept up at night because you can’t get it out of your head) and then maybe another small sketch, and then a song with The Count and the rest of the cast of muppets singing about the number of the day (another, less offensive earworm) and then the show generally closes with either Elmo’s World or Elmo the Musical.  It's a nice neat, predictable package that doesn't veer too much outside of it's schedule.

This new format leaves much to be desired, and feels, essentially, like a dumbed down version of the original.  First of all, the letter and the number of the day are largely irrelevant to the viewer.  Whereas in the longer format version of the show would be introduced to a letter and a number and those would both be repeated in nearly all segments, there are so few segments now that even if it were repeated it would only happen 1 or 2 times.  Second, since the premiere there have yet to be any sketches that I’ve seen (and again, I watch with my toddler so full disclosure I’m occasionally distracted) that show real kids interacting in real and meaningful ways that the viewers can emulate. 

I lament the lacking educational component on this new shinier version of the show as what used to be on public, educational television is now on an entertainment channel vying for subscribers.  PBS will get second run-rights to the show after the 9 month exclusivity window closes, but the format will remain the same.  In the meantime, my daughter and I are watching both the PBS and the HBO versions.  The differences are still stark.  Even though PBS has shortened the show to a half hour, probably to prepare for the switch in a few months, they still manage to pack more education into each episode, ensuring that Murray gets around town teaching kids the “word on the street” or having a character interact with a celeb of the day to learn about the word of the day.  There’s more focus on counting and learning numbers during the heart of the show.  

True, television viewing habits have changed, and are constantly evolving, but don’t we owe it to our kids to give them the opportunity of longer attention spans instead of forcing the shortened spans of their parents’ on them right off the bat?  I know funding is tight for public television, and unfortunately this merger was probably essential for the show’s survival, but with that comes HBO’s creative input and rather than leaving the creativity and the education to the masters who have been entrenched in it for decades and who have the actual educational degrees, it seems as though that has been sacrificed for pure entertainment value.  No doubt HBO is a programming master and knows how to create and market quality television, but something about public programming moving to the premium pay space just doesn't sit so well with me.  Let me be clear, the new version of Sesame Street isn’t bad, it just isn’t as rich as it once was, or as it could be. 

Son of Saul

Son of Saul is one of those haunting films that stays with you long after the credits begin to roll.  As you think more about it and your 107 minutes spent with Saul Auslander more questions and revelations about his story creep into your mind.  Who was this man?  What was his history? 

Set in Auschwitz concentration camp during WWII, Son of Saul follows 2 days in the life of Hungarian Sonderkommando, Saul Auslander (Géza Röhrig).  Responsible for collecting the dead after slaughtered in the gas chambers, cleaning said chambers, and bringing the bodies for cremating Saul goes through his duties expressionless.  Shot mostly in close up, the audience is there with Saul.  Much of the background is blurred out or obstructed from our view, we focus on Saul.  This changes when he comes across the body of a young boy who he takes as his son and seeks to have buried properly.  His mission and his will to live suddenly change as now he has a purpose.  He becomes totally obsessed with finding a Rabbi to do a proper preparation for and subsequent burial according to Jewish law.  This is all against the backdrop of not just the horrors of Auschwitz, but also as he and the other Sonderkommandos prepare a revolt against their captors. 

Throughout the less than 48 hours spent with Saul not a lot is learned about him.  We get bits and pieces throughout the narrative, but even those are questionable.  Is the child really his son?  If not, what is his motivation for obsessing over this child’s burial?  Did he have children at all?  Was he married?  We do meet one woman, who has a different last name as him, that he clearly has some past with, but what is that past?  Was he religious or is his preoccupation with finding a Rabbi for this child his way of honoring the shred of his humanity that is left.

The cinematography is also fascinating.  The first three shots of the film are very long takes, focusing in on Saul as he performs his duties.  They are from behind and from the side, not focusing in on his face.  These takes set the scene, they draw the viewer in.  Subsequently the camera mostly focuses in on Saul’s face.  In contrast to Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), the close ups here don’t serve to highlight specific expressions, rather they highlight lack of expression.  Paired with quick takes and cuts it creates a chaotic sense of claustrophobia that is uncomfortable for the audience.  We cannot look away.  We cannot escape.  We are disoriented and unsure of our surroundings.  We are Saul, stuck in the mire of the horrors of the camp. 

In the final scene (don’t worry, I won’t give away the ending but you might want to skip this if you don’t want any hints to the ending) Saul offers, for the first time, a new expression, followed by one of, if not the, widest shots in the entire film.  Its meaning is also ambiguous, although I took it to mean peace, the scenic shot and new expression on Saul’s face offer a different aesthetic from the rest of the film and even though the ending was not what we were hoping for there is value in the conclusion.

On a separate note, this film represents something that is valuable to what I call the “Jews on screen” narrative.  Since WWII, Holocaust films have been abundant.  Both about the Jews as they suffer at the hands of the Nazis, or in the PTSD era of how they had to cope with the horrors they lived through while many of their families did not (The Pawnbroker, for instance).   Traditionally, the narrative has been “Jews as victims” and only recently has it morphed into “Jews as heroes.”  Recently, with films such as Defiance, Inglorious Basterds, The Debt, No Place on Earth and others, the Jew as hero narrative begins to emerge.  Jews are not people who are mere victims, unable or unwilling to take charge of their own destinies.  They won’t lie down and take what is being given to them.  They will fight back, physically or emotionally. 

What I find to be really fascinating about this shift is that it comes at the same time that Anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world, but now it’s disguised as anti-Israel sentiment.  Jews are being celebrated on screen for defending themselves, but when they do it in “real life,” they are disparaged.  While Palestinians murder Jews in the streets of Israel and in their homes, the world is calling for boycotts of Jewish goods from Judea and Samaria, not to mention the insistence that Jews leave their homes in that area.  When the IDF or the Israeli police retaliate and neutralize (kill) the murdering terrorists or when they return the rockets that are fired from Gaza, the world cries out that Israel is not showing restraint and they should react with “proportionality.”   Jews can be masters of their own fates on screen but when it happens in reality there is a disconnect and people don’t know how reconcile that.  How can those who celebrate strength and honor in the face of imminent destruction decry the same strength and honor in another scenario? 

Son of Saul brings up all of those questions through focusing in on a short time spent with one man in a horrific situation.  Maybe through these on screen Jewish heroes during their darkest time, the world can translate that to modern day and honor the actions of Jews today as they live and defend their rightful homeland, the one place in the world where they can be safe from the horrors that the world wishes to impose on them.

Black-ish

Blackish, the new show on ABC offends me. Not on the basis of race, as many people assumed it would be, but based on how incredibly immature and selfish the adults in this show are. 

Blackish was originally marketed as a show which would buck stereotypes and show a thriving, affluent black family with two professional parents living in a nice house on a nice block.  They have 4 kids who go to a good school. 

Aside from the fact that the frenetic pace of the show and the dad's obsessive preoccupation with his kids being "black enough" makes it practically unwatchable, the parents utter selfishness just compounds it. 

Father Andre and mother Bo force their children to conform to their wants and needs. In one episode rather than taking pride in his son's social and academic achievements, Andre laments his son's disinterest in subscribing to black codes and notes that are largely irrelevant to his life. It's one thing to build in a love of ones heritage into a child's upbringing, it's another thing entirely to force it down their throats after the fact. And even another still to do it for your own reasons because of your own guilt and needs and not really for your kids. 

This is a running theme throughout the show. The parents time and again insist on their children behaving in certain ways because it's what they want, not because it's best for their kids.  This seems to be a growing trend in TV parents overall. There's an infantilization of parents and adults throughout TV these days.  It's hard to say or understand exactly why, but it seems like networks are pandering to their target audience - 25-54 year olds - and if they keep them feeling young they'll keep tuning in. Maybe that means it's not a problem with the shows, but rather with this generation of young adults who aren't ready to grow up and who aren't being told that they have to grow up. I'm not excluding myself from that group, it's scary to grow up and to be told that we have real responsibilities, but ignoring them and sidestepping them will not benefit anyone - not ourselves and not our children. Our children need mature adults to look up to and to learn from. They don't need to grow up emulating parents who look out for themselves and the best interests above all else. 

Media has always been a lens that both reflects and in turns influences our culture and society. Do we want to project the best or the worst of what the parents of the next generation will be. Do we want our children growing up to emulate parents who look out for themselves or for their children's needs. 

I won't be turning in to watch more of Blackish. It's too upsetting and frustrating to see what parenting has become, or expected to become. 

Patriotic Cognitive Dissonance

How do you reconcile two diametrically opposing feelings? I've been struggling with many emotions since the horrific news of the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers, Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Fraenkel. Even more emotions have piled on since the devastating news of their deaths crept out in the news.  Sad and angry for the senseless deaths. Pain for the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, grandfathers, cousins and friends who are directly enduring this loss. Sadness for a nation who weeps at the loss of three young innocent souls whose only crime was following in their parents' footsteps of fulfilling the promise made to our forefathers of inhabiting the land designated to the Jewish people. Sadness for a culture who swears "never again" but slowly sees antisemitism rearing it's ugly head under the guise of anti-Zionism and pro-Palestinian sentiments.

Piled on top of those overbearing emotions is the disappointment and upset I feel towards our US leaders. How could president Obama remain silent for 18 days? How can he continue to fund a government that is known to be backed by an internationally recognized terrorist organization? How can the nation I live in and love for it's freedoms of human rights be so callous to say that both sides should show restraint when one celebrates by handing out candies and cakes upon hearing the news that Israelis have been taken?

Therein lies my internal conflicting feelings. I voted for president Obama twice, admiring his domestic policies. True liberal ideals, equal rights for all - gay marriage, women's health, universal health care, raising the bar on educational standards, etc. Even with many of his the overseas policies I agreed as he vowed to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He promised to be a continued friend to Israel. And now, the president who I trusted with the country in which I live has torn my heart out regarding his attitudes for the country in which my heart lies. As a Jew living in the United States I feel marginalized. I feel all of a sudden like a second class citizen without equal rights. The hundreds of tweets, letters, and calls he received on this matter (many of which from me) fell on deaf ears. He ignored his own people who were pleading their needs to him. He avoided responding to the cries of a people who had sought out this country when their countries oppressed and slaughtered them.  Now as it's happening in the country of our homeland he's silent.  How can I on the one hand be proud of the domestic issues he tries to push through into policy and be shamed in how he's so mishandled issues regarding Israel.

Never did I think the day would come where being an American and being a Zionist would conflict, but the day has come. How do I support  a president whose policies on Israel are so antithetical to my belief system yet his American policies are so in line with what I would wish for for this country? I'm split in half and grappling with this tremendous weight. 

How has being a supporter of Israel become something that is split on party lines?  At a recent Shabbat meal when I said I was a liberal and an Obama supporter, the first question from a staunch republican was - "But do you think Obama's been good for Israel?"  Why are the republican Senators and pundits, who make me sick when they talk about US policy, the only ones who have said anything in support for Israel in the past few weeks?  Where is the outrage from Democratic leaders over the hypocrisy and violations of human rights by Hamas?  Why does a vote in support for US ideals mean a betrayal for my devotion to Israel?  When did it mean you are anti-Israel if you are Pro-choice in this country? 

These are the issues I've been facing of late.  I love both of my countries. That of my communal people and that of my personal history and place. How can my chosen leader betray me so?  I've been grappling with this since his first moments of deafening silence 18  days ago, I continue to grapple with it today and likely for days to come.