Cong. Steve Rothman talks to students at Yavneh Academy. Photos by Jerry Szubin

Before a sanctuary filled with seventh-graders at Yavneh Academy in Paramus, Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) placed his hands on either side of his face and pretended to be a horse.

“Most people walk through life with blinders on,” the congressman exclaimed while pantomiming a horse’s trudging. “They live in their own little community. They don’t think about anything else.”

Rothman faced forward and lowered his hands. “Now other people,” he said, “who take their blinders off, they see things. Maybe they see people being bullied. So they call the principal, call the kid’s parents, get a bunch of friends to distract the bully, they do something!”

Rothman came to Yavneh on Tuesday to address the seventh grade as part of the curriculum in a course called Advisory, a “social and emotional class” dedicated to promoting ethical behavior and building life skills, according to Aliza Frolich, director of guidance for the middle school.

“They have learned about the power of political action and Cong. Rothman’s visit is meant to be a way to help them practically implement this lesson,” Frolich explained.

Rothman addressed a range of topics with the students, including being a Jewish-American member of Congress representing both Jewish and non-Jewish constituents, the importance of the U.S.-Israel alliance, and his view of the importance of civility in politics.

Asked about the fate of Jonathan Pollard, convicted of spying for Israel and sentenced to life in prison, Rothman said, “Mr. Pollard committed an act of treason against the U.S., one of the most damaging acts of treason in the history of the U.S., so it was justified to punish him for this act…. The question is, how much punishment is enough and how does this punishment compare with punishment against others who have committed acts of treason?” He added that he believes that Pollard has been sufficiently punished and should be released.

A girl asked, “But does the information Pollard gave Israel still hurt the U.S. in any way?”

Rothman replied, “I’m told in classified briefings the material he was involved with is still of great danger to the U.S. and the very bad effects of his actions are still being felt.”

After several other students asked about Pollard, Rothman said, “One in five American children go to bed hungry every night. Did you know that? How do you feel about that? Do you want to think about that?”

As for the U.S.-Israel relationship, he said that many Americans are strong supporters of the Jewish state because of its importance to U.S. security, citing Israel’s location near the Persian Gulf.

“To have a powerful ally right there at that key location, one that shares key intelligence information, is a great advantage to the U.S.,” he said. “Israel is a sovereign nation, not a state of the U.S., but we are such close military and economic allies it is as if we are one.”

Rothman said he is the first Jewish-American from New Jersey’s ninth congressional district, which is 90 percent non-Jewish, to serve in the House of Representatives.

“So how does a Jewish person get elected in a district that’s 90 percent not Jewish?” he asked. “It’s America, so thank God people get elected in terms of perception of character and the contribution they can make … to the whole community, not just the little section they come from.”

Later he added, “I like to say, ‘I am half-Jewish, half-Catholic, half-Muslim, [and] I am Chinese-American, Korean-American, Filipino-American,” and went on to mention several other dual nationalities.

He stressed that Jews are a tiny minority of the U.S. and world populations.

“Sometimes people in the pro-Israel community … Jewish and non-Jewish, think everybody wakes up every morning all over America and the world, and every day turns on the TV to see if the news is good for Israel,” Rothman said.

He asked the students, out of 310 million Americans, how many are Jewish. When a boy answered, “Six million,” Rothman said, “Six over 310. Is that the majority? Is that in fact a really tiny fraction?”

He went on to ask what portion of the world’s population is Jewish and concluded, “Are we the majority? [Or] are we like a speck of sand on a vast beach?”

One girl asked, “With the recent change of government in Egypt, how do you think this will affect Israel?”

Rothman answered, “We don’t know for sure….We’ve been involved with Egypt and its military and its democratic movement for a while…. Hopefully, we’ll prevent a takeover in Egypt [by] a government that would not honor the peace agreement; that would be bad for the United States and Israel.”

After his talk, he answered children’s questions. One boy asked, “Why can’t the U.S. tell Hamas and the [Palestinian Authority] that until they let Gilad Shalit go free, we won’t give any aid to Hamas or the Palestinians?”

Rothman answered that the United States does not provide Hamas with aid. Regarding aid to other Palestinians, Rothman said, “We provide humanitarian assistance to some of the Palestinians.… It is our position it is in our best interest and that of Israelis for it to continue.”

After the talk, Talia Davidovsky, 12, of Teaneck, said, “He was trying to tell us we should be more open to the world and not just Jewish and Israeli concerns.”

“There are other problems besides Israel,” said Sydnee Anderson, 13, of Tenafly.

“He said Pollard committed a big act of treason, but Israel should have known that information,” said Ayelet Berger, 13, of Teaneck. “The U.S. made an agreement that if Pollard cooperated he’d get 10 years, but they put him away for life. Also, it wasn’t actually treason because Israel is a U.S. ally.”

The Obama administration announced last week that the United States would not participate in the Durban III World Conference Against Racism, scheduled to take place in New York City in September, during the U.N. General Assembly opening session. New Jersey members of Congress commended the president’s decision, noting the irony that a conference purportedly against racism has in the past degenerated into an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic event.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said in a statement: “I applaud the State Department’s decision to forgo participation in the Durban III World Conference Against Racism this year. People of democratic principle understand the misnomer, that Durban III will be yet another ugly opportunity to single out Israel and become a megaphone for anti-Semitism and anti-American vitriol.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) responded to the Standard’s request for comment, saying, “President Obama has made the right decision to pull the United States out of this year’s conference in New York City.” (Both men signed a letter last year led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-N.Y.] urging the U.S. to refrain from participating in the conference.) “Instead of providing an opportunity to address the very serious issue of racism,” Lautenberg continued, “the Durban conference has been tainted by anti-Semitic and anti-American demonstrations. This conference,” named for the first such gathering in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, “is intended to provide a forum on eliminating discrimination, and the United States should only participate when this issue can be legitimately addressed.”

Rep. Steve Rothman (D-9), reached for comment by the Standard, concurred with Menendez, stating, “Despite being called a ‘Conference Against Racism,’ Durban III, like Durban I and II, is exactly the opposite. The agendas of these Durban conferences have been and continue to be filled with anti-Semitism and hateful attacks against Israel. I applaud the Obama administration for announcing that America will not be taking part in this charade.”

Rothman contended that the administration’s decision to forgo “Durban III” signals not just a commitment to stand with Israel in diplomatic forums but on security issues as well.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-8) also weighed in, saying, “The president made the right call…. The original conference in 2001 contradicted itself with displays of blatant anti-Semitism. Intolerance committed under the guise of breaking down racial barriers is simply an insult to American intelligence, and I’m glad the United States won’t be participating in the event.”

The first Durban conference was described by many commentators as an anti-Israel hate-fest, with representatives of the Arab Lawyers’ Union at one point passing out pamphlets depicting hook-nosed Jews dripping blood from their fangs with pots of money nearby. The conference produced a document condemning Israel as racist while condemning no other country. Speakers included Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro, who reportedly delivered an anti-American tirade.

“Durban II,” in Geneva, Switzerland in 2009, featured as its keynote speaker Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has expressed doubts about the Holocaust and endorsed the destruction of Israel. At Durban II, he characterized Israel as a “racist government” and condemned its establishment.

The United States and Israel walked out of Durban I, and the Obama administration made the decision to boycott Durban II 48 hours before it opened. Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Poland joined the boycott.

Critics contend that by waiting until two days before Durban II to decide to boycott it, the Obama administration weakened efforts to build a solid coalition of democracies to boycott the event. Both Great Britain and France attended in 2009, although both countries’ representatives walked out during Ahmadinejad’s speech.

Commentators have speculated that timing Durban III to coincide with the annual opening of the General Assembly may increase the presence of prime ministers and presidents who might not otherwise attend. There is speculation over whether the timing and location of the event is coincidental. The conference is being billed as a commemoration of the 10-year anniversary of Durban I — but some say it is too close to the 10-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks for comfort.

So far, the conference has met with opposition from the U.S., Israel, and Canada.

WASHINGTON – Rep. Steve Rothman is accustomed to being re-elected to his northern New Jersey congressional district by wide margins.

This year, however, Rothman faces what could be a tough, redistricting-induced primary battle against a fellow eight-term Democrat, Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr., who also has a history of winning re-election handily. Pascrell’s current district is mainly in Passaic County. It marks the second time in less than a year that a redistricting brought a Paterson legislator deep into Bergen County territory. Several months ago, Democratic Assemblyman Gary Schaer found himself representing such areas as Cliffside Park, Ridgefield, and Little Ferry.

Among many pro-Israel activists, the stakes in the Rothman-Pascrell race are seen as high. Rothman is regarded as a key — and outspoken — pro-Israel voice on Capitol Hill.

“There are less than a handful of congressmen who bring the kind of passion, intensity, and commitment to America’s security and Israel’s security that Steve Rothman does,” said a congressional aide whose boss previously served with Rothman on the House Appropriations Committee. “He has a laser beam-like focus on defeating the enemies of Israel, and he’s definitely not shy about holding the State Department accountable.”

The race between Rothman and Pascrell is the result of the new congressional map adopted late last month by New Jersey’s redistricting commission.

New Jersey is losing a congressional seat, as a result of the 2010 census. The new map put Rothman’s residence in Fair Lawn and a fifth of his constituents into a more conservative district, a large majority of which is currently represented by Republican Rep. Scott Garrett. Meanwhile, the largest portions of Rothman’s and Pascrell’s constituencies were shoehorned together into another district.

Hoping to avoid an internecine primary battle, some Democrats reportedly urged Rothman, 59, to challenge Garrett. It would have been an uphill battle for Rothman, however, because the district as carved out favors the Republican.

Instead, Rothman and Pascrell, 74, will face off for the same seat. Rothman currently represents 54 percent of the new district’s constituents, while Pascrell represents 43 percent.

“I decided that I wanted to continue to represent the people who I was born and raised with and who I have lived with most of my life,” Rothman said.

The media-savvy, bespectacled congressman previously served as mayor of Englewood, which is located in the district he is now contesting and back to which Rothman said he was moving.

“I will be reminding my constituents not only of my strong support for Israel, but my great success in helping tens of thousands of constituents every year with their problems and bringing home to the district more than $2 billion in federal funding for a variety of essential local projects,” Rothman said.

A spokesman for Pascrell’s campaign, Sean Darcy, offered a different take on who would be the best choice for Democrats in the June 5 primary.

“Congressman Pascrell has a track record of fighting for middle-class taxpayers,” Darcy said. “He is not afraid to take on extreme right-wing conservatives and stand up for Democratic principles and ideals.”

Both lawmakers receive relatively high ratings for their voting records from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action.

Rothman’s power base is Bergen County, while Pascrell’s stronghold is neighboring Passaic, an area with a large Arab-American community. Both men have lined up endorsements from local elected officials.

“I think Rothman starts off as the favorite in this,” said Alan Steinberg, who writes about New Jersey politics for Politicker NJ and NewJerseyNewsroom.com. “In this primary, he will have overwhelming support from the Jewish community.”

Rothman is a longtime supporter of President Barack Obama, endorsing him in the 2008 presidential primaries over then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of neighboring New York State — the first member of New Jersey’s congressional delegation to do so.

While Rothman has been critical of aspects of the Obama administration’s Israel policies, including what he has said was a misguided early focus on Israeli settlement activity, he has been at the forefront of defending the president from Republican attacks on his record.

In a July opinion piece for the website Politico, Rothman wrote that the Obama administration “has given — and continues to provide — unprecedented support for the defense and security of Israel.”

He also has hammered leading Republican candidates for supporting an overhaul in the way U.S. foreign aid is allocated, alleging that their positions contradict American understandings with Israel on aid.

Ben Chouake, president of the New Jersey-based pro-Israel political action committee NORPAC, said that Rothman is “very knowledgeable and very engaged and is looked to by other members of Congress for information and advice on matters concerning U.S.-Israel relations and the Middle East.”

Chouake called Rothman “one of the premier congressional leaders and ‘go-to’ people on [Capitol Hill] regarding U.S.-Israel relations.”

NORPAC, the country’s largest pro-Israel political action committee, has raised money for both Rothman and Pascrell in the past.

“While both would carry the status of friendly incumbent in an ordinary election, there is such a wide difference in the records of the candidates that Rothman receives our preference and endorsement in this particular race,” Chouake said.

Rothman sits on two key appropriations subcommittees handling assistance to Israel: the state and foreign operations subcommittee and the defense subcommittee, where he has helped secure funds for Israeli missile defense systems.

“Steve Rothman has been instrumental in actively championing missile defense cooperation for years,” said an official at the Israeli embassy who was familiar with Rothman’s work on missile defense.

Josh Block, a former longtime spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said that Rothman’s “record of pro-Israel leadership is second to none, and in this particular race the differences couldn’t be clearer.”

Block accused Pascrell of having “actually sided against American support for Israel’s right to defend herself against weapons smuggling and attacks by terrorists.” He pointed to Pascrell’s signing of a January 2010 letter to Obama criticizing the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza. The letter, signed by 54 House members, called on the president to press for the easing of the blockade to improve conditions for Palestinian civilians.

Darcy, the Pascrell campaign spokesman, defended the congressman’s record and noted that he “has voted for and fought for security aid to Israel in every year that he has been in Congress.” Darcy also explained Pascrell’s reasons for signing the Gaza letter.

“At the time, Congressman Pascrell agreed that certain aspects of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, including restrictions of certain types of food and medicines, were counterproductive to that goal and hurt ordinary Gazans far more than the terrorists in Hamas,” Darcy said. “He believes that support for Israel’s right to defend itself and a concern for the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip are not mutually exclusive.”

In June 2010, the Israeli government announced that it would modify its Gaza blockade to allow in a wider array of civilian goods.

NORPAC’s Chouake said that while Pascrell does vote for foreign aid and support Iran sanctions, his support for the Gaza letter “upset many of his constituents.”

JTA Wire Service and the Washington Jewish Week