New service lets Jews tweet a prayer to G-d

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_prayer_tweets

By STEVE WEIZMAN, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM – Judaism's holiest site has entered the Twitter age.

The Western Wall now has its own address on the social networking service, allowing believers around the globe to have their prayers placed between its centuries-old-stones without even leaving their armchairs.

The service's Web site says petitioners can tweet their prayers and they will be printed out and taken to the wall, where they will join the thousands of handwritten notes placed by visitors who believe their requests will find a shortcut to G-d by being deposited there.

The wall, in Jerusalem's Old City, is all that remains of the second temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. It stands where the bible says King Solomon built the first temple, which was destroyed by the Babylonians more than 600 years earlier.

The Tweet Your Prayers site does not identify its founders, saying only that the driving force behind it is a "young man from Tel Aviv".

No charge is made for placing a prayer at the wall. Visitors to the Web site are invited to make donations by credit card and it has sponsored links to an outdoor reception hall on the nearby Mount of Olives and a publisher of custom-made prayer books.

Throughout the ages, Jews have prayed at the Western Wall.

Tweet Your Prayers opened earlier this month, but for several years the Western Wall Heritage Foundation has operated a fax hot line and a Web site where people overseas can send their prayers and have them printed out and placed in the wall's crevices.

Twice a year, at Passover in the spring and the Jewish New Year in the fall, the Wall's rabbi clears out the accumulated notes which are buried in accordance with Jewish custom, which forbids the destruction of writings that mention G-d, such as worn or damaged Torah scrolls, prayer books and other religious articles.

The Tweet Your Prayers site's Frequently Asked Questions page asks what recourse users have if their prayers are not answered.

"Take it up with the Big Guy upstairs," is the reply. "We're just the middlemen!"

 

Double standard

 

The U.S. government took, sometimes after instigating a war, land from the indigenous population and drove - in the case of the Cherokee Nation - the people half-way across the country, causing countless deaths (Cherokee Trail of Tears).

The U.S. government also took, occasionally by warfare or purchase from a foreign conqueror, huge chunks of land now part of the southern United States (from Florida to California).

The Russians annexed, often by force, large chunks of northern Europe and Asia. The Russians also exiled thousands from their homes and forced thousands more into special areas where the populace could be easily controlled - and abused on a whim.

Communist China forcefully annexed Tibet and suppresses dissent.

Syria's Asad and Iraq's Hussein destroyed towns containing people who dared object to their despotism.

England annexed Scotland after a series of wars and, through "repopulating" Northern Ireland, managed to tear asunder a nation. The Brits also, without consideration of tribal affiliations, partitioned India and Pakistan, causing wars to this day.

The French and the Brits carved up the former Ottoman Empire after World War I, establishing some states where none existed before (Saudi and Jordan in particular; Syria and Lebanon have histories back to pre-Davidic times).

The Spanish abuse the Basques.

Iraq and Turkey are no friends of the Kurds, and Kashmir has its independence thwarted by India.

And "The World" is quiet.

Granted, the United States' abuses were "pre-tv." Likewise the antics of the colonial powers, of which France and England were but two. Still, no one is demanding redress of these wrongs. All the American Indians, save for the Seminoles of Florida, have lost their language and pride. (The Seminoles are, or at least were when I went to elementary school in Miami, still in a state of "war" with the U.S. government; albeit one with a long-lasting truce that benefits all.)

So why, I ask, is "The World" so upset when Israel - long denied access to Judaism's holiest city by Jordan (that took Jerusalem by force as the Brits withdrew in 1948) - wants to build homes for Jews in an Arab-dominated portion of the city Israel reunited after Jordon attacked Israel (1967)?

When the U.S. wanted Indian land, it simply expelled the native population. Marched the Indians cross-country while the death count mounted. Most Americans (now) know about Wounded Knee when the U.S. cavalry slaughtered an entire village (maybe that's where Sadam Hussein and Hafez al-Assad learned how to exterminate whole communities).

Until the 1960s, there was no "Palestinian" people. There were Arabs (Moslems and others) and Jews in an area that was in the 18th and 19th centuries known as "Palestine"; that would make the Jews in Israel before 1948 as much "Palestinian" as any Arab claiming that title - and indeed, passports of Jews in the region - that included Jordan - listed them (the Jews) as Palestinian.

Unlike the U.S. treatment of the native population, MOST Moslems who left Israel in 1948 did so because they were encouraged to do so by their Muslim clerics. There WERE some chased out by Jews who feared the Moslems would be "Fifth Columnists" - enemies within the community. On the other side of the coin, Jews were forced to flee, often with nothing but the clothes on their backs, from Muslim-dominated counties. Not all Jews left - some countries kept "their" Jews hostage; Syria does so even today.

But "The World" fails to seek redress for the Jews.

Since Jerusalem was reunited by Israel, for the first time since 1948 Jews were free to enter and leave the city, as were Muslims and other non-Jews. It was, for the first time since Jordan annexed Jerusalem, a city open to all (including, sadly, Islamic terrorists).

Jerusalem, while an "open" city is NOT an "international" city any more than Rome or Geneva or New York or Paris or Bagdad or any other nation's premier city. Jerusalem is an Israeli city, and Israelis - Jews and non-Jews alike - have the right to live anywhere in the country, including Jerusalem.

Can a Jew live anywhere in, say, Rabat without fear for his or her life? Morocco, although a breeding ground for Islamist terrorists, is a relatively "modern" Arab state. Is Amman or Cairo any better despite the two countries having a peace agreement with "the Jewish state"? Ahh, but "The World" is silent.

When "the Jewish state" of Israel started building a fence to keep out terrorists, "The World" screamed "Shame on Israel." Never mind that the people on the other side of the fence were coming to murder Jews - not just soldiers, but old and young civilians including babies in strollers.

When Israel closed its border with Aza - an area that Sadat in his wisdom refused to take back from Begin - "The World" screams "Shame on Israel" and never mind that terrorists infiltrated the Jewish state to murder innocents. But no one screams "Shame on Egypt" when it refuses to let its Moslem brothers and sisters into its Moslem country for ANY reason. "The World" is silent. During Israel's long-delayed retaliation for countless rocket attacks from Aza, the Jewish country STILL admitted enemy and non-combatants injured in the fighting for treatment in its hospitals, diverting medical attentions from ITS OWN PEOPLE. Did "The World" take note? Hardly.

It seems "The World" has a double standard. One for the powerful nations (e.g., U.S., Russia, China) and the once-powerful nations (e.g., France, England), and for Moslems (ignoring Somalia, for example, where Moslems continue to murder non-Moslems and continue to prevent aid to starving non-Moslems).

No, no, and no again; all Moslems are not "bad" people.

No, no, and no again, all Moslems and non-Jews in Israel are not "anti-Israel." Most Arabs - Moslem and non-Moslem - in Israel know that even as "second class citizens" they are better off in all respects that their kin in Islamic-dominated countries.

So why, given all that, does "The World" find it convenient to condemn Israel for every action is takes while turning a blind eye to atrocities elsewhere?

Why is it that while there is a U.S. law (Equal Housing Act) that makes it a crime to prevent someone from living any place that person can afford to live yet, when Israel wants to allow Jews to live any place in the Israeli city of Jerusalem, "The World," including the U.S., condemns Israel.

Has anyone heard "The World" demanding that the Moslems in Occupied Israel - Hebron, where the Jewish patriarch Abraham BOUGHT land - allow Jews to live peaceably among the Arab population?

For this, "The World" remains silent.

Very civil servants and air conditioners

I don't know if it's a sign of the times, or if over the years I was living outside Florida something changed, but whatever ...

When I came back to Florida in 1979 after living in Israel for four years I was greeted with generally surly government clerks.

Not all were uncivil servants - I remember fondly the Customs people at Miami International and a local officer who exercised some discretion for a very minor infraction - but dealing with county personnel was a challenge. (A move to Florida's west coast proved to me that lack of civility was limited to a few southeast coast counties.)

Jump to 2009 - 30 years later - and as I deal with tax assessors, get vehicles registered - not a one-step process, get a Florida driver's license, and the usual municipality odds and ends I find the local civil servants truly civil.

Florida has what amounts to a $100-per-vehicle impact fee for first time residents. We lived here before and the State's vehicle registration database found us - for a $200 savings. We knew to ask the clerk to check because the receptionist/information person told us to ask. The clerk who did find us in the database was not only efficient but kind as well.

This repeated itself at the drivers' license office. My license was reinstated after an eye test. "Welcome back, Mr. Glenn."

Filing for the tax exemption likewise was, if not "enjoyable," at least comfortable. (If only parking was validated. Oh well.) Since I forgot to register to vote when getting my new license, the clerk sent me down the hall to register. The alternative was a $15 penalty, but since I wanted to register anyway, "not a problem." The woman who registered me was delightful. (OK, it was not a day of long lines, but credit where it's due.)

That's not to say settling in has been hiccup free, but for the most part, things have gone much better than my previous experience in southeast Florida would have given me to expect.

I don't know what promoted the change of attitude, but it is more than welcome.

It's good to be "home" - even I am only a "semi-native" and even if the "feels like" temperature was a bit above 100 the other day.

 

What's happened to us?

I was looking at my old junior high's Web page - now Kinloch Park Middle - and noted that it got air conditioning in 1975 - long after I went there.

My high school - Miami High - was no different. No air conditioning in my day. I don't know when the "Million Dollar" (in 1928 dollars) school finally was air conditioned.

When I was a young airman stationed in Orlando (1360 USAF Hospital, if you please) I would drive to southeast Florida in a clunker that had 4-40 air conditioning: four windows cranked down and 40 miles-an-hour. The biggest hazard to lack of AC was sticking my left arm out the open window and getting a nasty sunburn (a courts martial offense if I was unable to report to duty - I always reported for duty).

Maybe the novelty will soon wear off, but as long as the rain holds off, I still like to turn the AC off and drive with the windows down - no "rolling," they're electric now. Not at highway speeds; that adds mileage-dropping drag, but around the neighborhood, even if the "feels like" is 40 ... Centigrade. 'Course this is written by a guy who walks around Bet Shean in the heat of a summer day - "mad dogs and Englishmen" comes to mind.

For all that, I can't understand how some people accommodate the heat - or maybe "accommodateD" the heat - while others suffer loudly, sometimes VERY loudly. Maybe "back in the day" we simply didn't know we were uncomfortable.

If my abode had hurricane awnings (vs. the very nice slide-into-place window covers) I'd probably shut off the AC, open the windows, and turn on a fan even as the rains came down. No I wouldn't - my Spouse would never approve. But if I could ...

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn @ gmail.com

Chutzpah

 

I know we live in a global community, but should the United States really be telling North Korea or even Iran to abandon its nuclear program (although I understand the leadership of both sovereign nations is suspect in the area of mental health)?

Should the United States be telling Honduras that what seems to be an apparently legal, enforced impeachment of a sitting president is illegal and that said president must be returned to office (even if, in the long run, this may be detrimental to United States' interests in the region)?

I understand the Organization of American States (OAS) echoes the US position, but I wonder if the OAS simply isn't a bully pulpit for Uncle Sam (in the guise of Obama/Clinton).

I know that Israel depends (too) heavily on handouts from the United States' treasury - so do most Middle East countries - but is it the United States' prerogative to tell Israel how to deal with the so-called "Palestinians"? Is it Washington's place to tell Israel that it must surrender Jerusalem - all or part makes no difference - to a people whose main purpose in life is to wipe Israel (and its non-Moslem population) off the face of the earth? (All of which begs the question: Why didn't the United States and the United Nations apply the same rule to Jordan when it controlled Jerusalem as a closed city?)

What gives Washington, on advice from an often ignorant State Department, the right to insist that a country have a US-style or even (UK-like) parliamentary style of "democratic" government ... especially since the US lacks a democratic form of government! The United States still maintains, with the Electoral College, a republican form of government; in this case, both "democratic" and "republican" are small "d" and small "r" and neither relates to the bid "D" or big "R" political parties.

When I was somewhat younger there was a book titled "The Ugly American." The book was about Americans - in itself chutzpah; is the United States the only country in "America?" - traveling overseas and being loudly boorish; rather than appreciate what the Europeans had been living with for centuries, these "ugly Americans" made it clear that everything was better across the Atlantic, and besides, why can't those foreigners (forgetting that "these foreigners" were on their home soil) speak (American) English?

Aside: The French still are getting even. They keep their major airport in a state of confusion and force travelers to speak French or to find someone who will condescend to translate - that usually means another traveler. I speak from unfortunate experience and now avoid CDG and France if at all possible.

Washington also can't seem to understand that there are different mentalities. Even, as the case of Vietnam, when the evidence was clearly before its collective eyes (as the equally self-absorbed French were chased out of the country).

The United States has several times "given" its neighbor Cuba "democracy." Each time the Cubans have reverted to a dictatorship. Did Washington learn anything? Hardly.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudia, and a number of other countries - not all Moslem - can't handle "democracy" as practiced in the United States, yet Washington insists on (trying to) push it down those nation's figurative throats.

The United States needs to back off; it is not a "parent" to other nations nor should it be a policeman to the world. Honor its commitments, by all means. Strive to promote peace and tranquility.

But stop trying to interfere in other countries' business.

Granted, I fear North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs, but while their leaders rattle their sabers I don't think the United States has the right to insist these programs come to a halt. On the other hand, if there is any - any - evidence that an attack from either country on any country is imminent, I would encourage a pre-emptive strike.

The reason I fear North Korea and Iran is two-fold. One, these countries' leaders seem to have no concern for their people; if a few million Koreans or Iranians die so the leaders can accomplish their goal of wiping out a perceived enemy, so what? Az mah? Two, like the Pakistanis, they are willing to "share" or sell their technology or weapons to the likes of several mostly-Moslem terrorists groups.

For all that, I can't see that the United States has any right, and certainly no obligation, to force its will upon any nation short of responding to an imminent threat to it or to an ally. (The United States has a very UNenviable record when it comes to providing timely assistance to its friends; Hungry during the Eisenhower administration comes to mind.)

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com