Reform movement saves Judaism ??

 

In an opinion piece on Israel Hayom titled The Reform movement saves Judaism, (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=1978), Uzi Baram writes "The decision to provide government funding for Reform and Conservative rabbis' salaries is a necessary step. All those who are fearful for the future of the Jewish people need to know that it is preferable to find a common denominator, even if it is relatively low, rather than have an exclusively Orthodox identity for Judaism. This exclusivity will lead to total loss in the end."

The authors credentials never are given.

I lived in Israel, There were, at the time, a few non-traditional congregations, primarily supported by Americans who viewed so called "orthodox" Jews as relics of the 18th century.

Some Israelis who remain unaffiliated with the non-traditional movements feel - and felt - the same way but they elected to remain unaffiliated helonim.

Since "my time," many of those Jews calling themselves "Orthodox" - the denizens of Bnai Brak, Mea Sharim, and those who vote according to Shas' ever hardening line, suggest that perhaps the 17th century might be too modern for these folks.

There are many "modern Orthodox" and many more "observant" Jews in Israel than there are extremists, "my way of the highway (but never on Shabat)" Jews.

The Jews who stand on a hill side and throw rocks at passing motorists on Shabat - driving (making a fire) is prohibited on Shabat, but causing a person's injury or death is OK ??? - and putting chains across roads that decapitate motorcycle riders - these are the reasons the non-traditional movements are gaining a foothold.

Good "Orthodox" Jews who shun both the army and national service are poster boys for the non-traditional movements.

Israel has gotten along nicely since its emergence as a modern state with essentially two options: observance or non-observance. I have both in my family. I have a brother-in-law who was married in a civil ceremony because of his dislike of the rabbinute. I have a son-in-law who, despite being generally heloni, was married by a rabbi who probably would be found acceptable even by my civilly-wed brother-in-law.

I'm not sure Israeli taxpayers should be obliged to support ANY rabbis or ANY congregation. If a congregation wants to build, let it do as congregations do in the U.S.; raise the money and build. If a community - Bet Shean, for example - wants a community rabbi, a "chief rabbi" if you will, let those in the community who want such a person pay that person's wages - and write his job description.

For all the noise the non-traditional Jews are making, I don't recall a similar noise from either the Sefardi/Mizrahi or Ashkenazi communities about funding "the other guys'" congregations. We had no intra-Judaism wars where I lived in Holon - in front of my apartment was a large Ashkenazi congregation; immediately in back was a small Temani congregation, and a few meters beyond that was my Sefardi/Mizrahi congregation. The congregations coexisted or perhaps simply ignored each other.

As an observant Jew in the U.S. I support "my" congregation.

I do not fund, nor attend, any of the other congregations within walking distance.

None of the congregants of the nearby congregations regularly contribute to my congregation.

Works for us.

What about a person too poor to "join" a congregation?

Somehow all the traditional congregations I know about - Sefardi/Mizrahi mostly - manage to accommodate the people unable to pay dues.

I don't know how traditional congregations operate outside of the U.S. and Israel so I won't address that.

I DO know that no traditional congregation ever asked for tickets at Yomai Noraim services. I also know that some non-traditional congregations demand payment - often over and above membership fees - for Yomai Noraim.

I'll admit I find bidding on Torah honors distasteful. I left one congregation because the bidding was more important that the service - pushing the beginning of Kol Nidre back into the night's darkness. Still, I recognize that because we - collectively - have so many "three-day" (often, now, "one-day") Jews, congregations need to fund their activities anyway possible and at every opportunity (but not, please, as the cost of the reason the congregation exists).

Maybe traditional Jews in Israel should be obliged to fund their own resources. Likewise yeshivot, especially those that prohibit their "boys" from joining the IDF or performing national service.

Perhaps because I grew up with a self-sufficient attitude, I am against government support for group-specific funding. Fund hospitals and schools from which we all benefit. Don't fund churches, synagogues, mosques, and meeting houses. Let the people who benefit from those places pay for those places (and the people who work there). It is enough that these places are tax free.

Humanitarian, but DUMB

 

"Following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu's condemnation of the weekend massacre in the Syrian village of Houla, newly appointed Vice Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz on Wednesday said that Israel should consider opening a humanitarian relief corridor in the Golan Heights to aid Syrian citizens." http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=4509

Sounds like something Ehud Barak might propose (and I think he has ordered plans developed to accommodate Syrians who want to "escape" into Israel).

Israel should not offer a safe haven to its enemies.

If any state wants to offer safe have, let it be Syria's neighbors

Syrians can flee to any number of Moslem states; Syria shares a borders with

  *  Iraq

  *  Jordan

  *  Turkey

I don't count Lebanon since it is controlled by the Syrian despot.

The escaping Syrians don't have to stop in Jordan or Iraq or even Turkey. They can continue on to Saudia and Iran, and if that's not far enough, to the UAE, Oman, and Yemen, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

There is NO need for Israel to open its borders to a people who want to wipe it off the face of the earth.

Just because there are Syrians who are revolting against the despot is NO reason to think these same people when - perhaps if - they come to power will rush to sign a true peace treaty with Israel.

Besides, it is almost guaranteed that among the refugees from the despot's army will be more than a few determined to slaughter Israeli civilians and visitors, not a few of which, I would guess, originated in Iran.

Israel always has opened its doors to refugees. Sometimes refugees - such as those from the Sudan - broke open the doors and flooded the country illegally, that is, sans a government invitation.

Israel also has allowed others to come into the country to work in various, usually low-paying, jobs, and now it is "stuck" with these people.

It is enough that Israel provides an infrastructure for its "guests," but it now is giving citizenship to these people who have become permanent residents.

Unlike the United States which grants citizenship to illegal aliens - both parties do this to the detriment of both citizens and people who are in line to legally immigrate - Israel is supposed to be a Jewish state, a home, a haven, for Jews; the only place in the world where Jews can escape when their countries of residence turn against them.

If the demography of Israel becomes other than Jewish, then the "homeland" will no longer BE a "homeland." It is sufficient that the Israeli Left and its Reform allies are working diligently to de-Judenize the country. (Yes, I know many Israelis are heloni, but they at least are not anti-Judaism.)

It's one thing to bring in Jews from all over - even if some of the Jews are "as Jewish as the pope" (i.e., not Jews at all). It is another matter to allow the country to be over-run with people who have no claim to Judaism - such as the Sudanese and the Syrians.

(As an aside, I wonder why no serious action was taken when the Sudanese invaded southern Israel; only when Tel Aviv became a Sudanese city did the government decide it was time to act. Perhaps because the few MKs who don't live in Jerusalem live, or work, in Tel Aviv?)

Israel's economy cannot take the pressure.

Israel's security must not be endangered.

If Israel MUST accept Sudanese, if Israel MUST accept Syrians, let them be held in camps until they can be expelled to other countries. Make the expulsions within 90 days of the refugee's arrival - Israel does not need UN camps that encourage generation after generation to remain on handouts from the world.

I feel sorry for the Sudanese, be they Christian or Moslem. Let Christian and Moslem countries accept them; send the Christians to Italy, France, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

Let the Moslems integrate into Saudia - a short sail across the Red Sea from Sudan, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Egypt is perfect - it borders Sudan, as do Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Let the UNRWA pay for the refugees' temporary housing and relocation; after all, it has money for generations of Arabs who will not or cannot leave its camps in Aza and Lebanon.

Jews paid for Jews to immigrate to Israel. Let Christians and Moslems pay for their coreligionists to emigrate from Israel to "wherever."

Compromise

There is a flap in Israel today about the question:

Should yeshiva "boys" be drafted into the IDF or national service?

Thanks to Israel's first prime minister, yeshiva "boys" were exempt from both so they could study in the relative safety of yeshivot. In 1948 there were, I'm informed, about 900 yeshiva "boys." Today there are thousands, all exempt and most on the dole, taking money from Israel's working citizens to support their studies and th3eir always expanding families.

(Some of the "boys" are long past their boyhood.)

As with all Israeli PMs, the first needed a coalition of the varied Israeli populace. In order to bring the haridim into the government, the yeshiva concession was made.

A person I consider a friend is a yeshiva graduate. Note I wrote "graduate." He is not a yeshiva lifer. He still studies of course, and he has a job as a "professional Jew," a teacher and synagogue rabbi. We met when he was a koller.

This rabbi/friend and I send emails back and forth, frequently disagreeing, albeit politely. Because we have different viewpoints I, at last, gain from the exchanges.

On a recent exchange we discussed whether yeshiva "boys" should spend some of their roughly two-months of vacation playing like "weekend warriors" with the IDF or, alternatively, performing national service.

The rabbi suggested that if these "boys" had to spend vacation time working for the good of the State rather than hiking the hills or otherwise enjoying their free time, in the end they would have no free time.

But, I replied, if the "boys" get roughly 8 weeks vacation across the course of the year, that means they get - again "roughly" - six weeks MORE vacation than the average Israeli. When I worked for Tadiran in Holon I got an annual two-week vacation, and I was typical of the "working class."

Back in the day, when Moses and later Joshua were leading us around, the cohanim went to war. There were exemptions: for newlyweds, for new homeowners, for cowards, but there were no exemptions for yeshiva "boys."

Even after the Temple was built, there is no indication that cohanim - other than those on duty at the Temple - were exempt from either war or work. The hakhamim of the talmuds were, for the most part, engaged in something in addition to study; some working in "non-professional Jew" roles, e.g.; Abba bar Abba (Avuha diShemuel) - silk dealer, Efrayim Safra - scribe, Elazar ben Pedat - coin tester, Mar Shenuel - physician and astronomer, Yohanon haSandler - cobbler (Note 1).

Back to today.

The quandary: Allow the yeshiva "boys" to continue their studies during times of "hot" war - remembering that Israel always is in a state of "warm" war with the Moslem world - or send them to the IDF or national service?

National service might be a good option; the "boys" could fill in for those people who normally performed national service, people such as unskilled hospital workers, baggage handlers at the air and sea ports, perhaps school teachers or even traffic cops.

The ones that elected to serve with the IDF could fill non-combatant roles such as corpsmen or ambulance drivers - even the American pacifist Quakers (Society of Friends) volunteered for that during the world wars - or cooks and clerks. The "boys" could study during their off hours which, except for those who were with the front lines, would be plentiful (compared to the front-line soldier).

Then I had another thought. It's one I seriously doubt the yeshiva heads would even consider, but it would bring Torah - or at least talmud - study close to the troops the study is supposed to protect.

Buy travel trailers - everything from small "pull-behind-anything" units to fifth-wheel monsters.

The travel trailers would be used as mobile yeshivot, complete with limited libraries, desks and chairs.

The units could be painted תלמידי ישיבות in bright colors on the top and sides - with equally large markings in Arabic. Surely the enemy, seeing that the trailers contained only yeshiva "boys" would honor it as it honors the red Mogen David.

Pull the trailers right up to the front so that the "boys" could perhaps put a little more "feeling" into their prayers and studies, understanding that if their prayers and studies failed to have the desired effect, they, too, would suffer the fate of the soldiers.

It seems to me this would be a good compromise.

The "boys" could continue to study.

They would be close to the action so HeShem's vision would be directed to the combat area.

The solders would see the yeshiva "boys" trailers nearby and have a little respect for their bravery - even though everyone knows the enemy will show the same respect for the sanctity of the trailers and the students inside as they show to synagogues and Jewish cemeteries over which they gained control.

Rabbis going to war is nothing new, not in Israel and certainly not in the U.S. As a reporter I once wrote about then Captain/Rabbi Frank C. Breslau of the 101st ("Screaming Eagle") Airborne Division (Note 2). R. Bresleu, when not in uniform, also was an engineer.

TO BE FAIR There ARE yeshivot in Israel, "hesder" yeshivot, whose talmidim DO enlist in the IDF. These students are regular soldiers and perform like "regular" soldiers. And, "to be fair," not all religious Jews head for yeshivot. Many observant Jews, even second and third generation Sefardim and Mizrachim, willingly do their time. I'm not acquainted with any Ashkenazi families in Israel and have no ideas about Ashkenazi participation in the IDF.




Note 1: Information from Masters of the Talmud by Alfred J. Kolatch, Jon. David Publishers, ISBN 0-8246-0434-2 © 2003

Note 2: See http://9thinfdivsociety.org/octo/octov1_2/

On converts

 

There was an article in Arutz Sheva's daily email by R. Eliezer Melamed, Head of Yeshivat Har Bracha .

The rabbi writes about how the Torah expects Jews to treat converts.

But what the Torah demands and what actually happens are often - too often - far different things.

Let's "assume" that the conversion is done strictly according to halacha.

Which means that the convert convinced a rabbi that his, or her. desire to take on more than the 7 Noahide commandments is sincere.

The convert, if a male, is circumcised or, if already circumcised, undergoes a dam brit.

The convert then, under supervision, immerses in the mikveh.

At that point, most authorities accept the person as a Jew.

According to Rambam (Moses ben Maimon or Maimonides), the potential "new Jew" need not know all 613 commandments and the potential "new Jew" need not promise - on pain of having the conversion revoked - to practice all 613 commandments. This, in any case, is an impossibility.

Since the new Jew is not a cohen, he cannot bless the kahal as cohanim are commanded to do.

But that's OKI. The cohen, and the levi with him, cannot have a pidyon ha'ben for their first born son, a mitzvah very few men have the privilege of doing. (B"H we are about to have our fourth in the family; are we exceptional? [Of course.] )

Unless the new Jew is a farmer in Israel, most of the agricultural mitzvoth are unavailable to him - or her.

True, a man can light the Shabat candles and a woman may light a hanukiah, but there are commandments that are "sex specific." ("Gender" applies to words; "sex" applies to living things, and that IS "politically correct." See Meriam-Webster Online, below.)

In reality,

* We have rabbis who won't accept any conversion other than their own

* We have rabbis who expect the new Jew to be "more Jewish" than the average (if there is such a person) "Orthodox" Jew - but whose "orthodoxy?" Litvak, Polish, German? What about Sephardim and Mizrachim who really don't HAVE an "orthodoxy" per se; rather they have levels of observance, none of which abrogates a person's Jewishness.

* Do the extreme "Orthodox" declare harim (excommunication) on a born Jew who fails to keep kosher? Who drives on Shabat? Who dishonors his parents, living or dead?

Hardly, but a new Jew who either never learned all the applicable mitzvoth or who, for whatever reason, reduced his or her level of observance - THAT person will have the conversion revoked by Israel's rabbis.

Rabbinical double standard.

In many synagogues, new Jews are treated differently.

Some "born Jews" never accept the new Jew. After all, the "accident of birth" Jew who may be a total ignoramus when it comes to things Jewish, considers the new Jew to be less knowledgeable because they are late comers to the club.

Never mind that while the new Jew may not fully appreciate matzah balls and herring in cream - or hamin and mabukah - he new Jew may know more, often substantially more, than the "accident of birth" Jew.

Few "real" Jews know that they are prohibited from even raising the issue of conversion with a new Jew. If the new Jew wants to discuss the subject, well and good, but unless the new Jew opens the subject, the "real Jew" can't go there.

Pity the poor new Jew who is "different." A different color skin. Different facial features.

Israelis learned - some not willingly - that Jews come in all shapes, sizes, and colors.

American Ashkenazi Jews are still having problems with people who are different, especially the absence or abundance of melanin. Sefardim and Mizrachim generally are more tolerant.

What the Torah demands of us regarding new Jews, and what really is the new Jews' situation are, unfortunately, often distant from each other.

We should be ashamed.

Merriam-Webster On line's

Definition of SEX

1: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2: the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

3a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior

Definition of GENDER

1a: a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c: an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass

Why is everybody Always pickin' on me?

 

The other day the media world got up in arms because a toddler was prevented from boarding a plane.

Who would EVER suspect a toddler of being a terrorist?

Worse, the toddler, a cute little girl a bit older than my grand-daughter, is a Moslem. Her mother wears a hijab; I suspect this, more than the parent's last name, was the "give away."

Obviously whomever had the gall to prevent the toddler from boarding did so because she is a Moslem.

The child's parents, the media told us, were both born in the USA and lived in New Jersey. The media failed to mention if the couple had made excursions to hot spots out of the country.

OK, so what justification DID the profiler have for preventing the toddler from boarding?

How about the fact that Moslems are willing to sacrifice their children to slaughter infidels which, by the way, is anyone who does not believe as their particular brand of Islam believes: Christians, Jews (top of the list), Shintos, Buddhists, you name it.

How about outfitting their children with explosive vests and sending them into crowds?

How about creating an underwear bomb? Or a shoe bomb. Who, after all but some anti-Moslem would think that a toddler's diaper held more than the usual "load"?

For a long time, pregnant women leaving Israel were taken aside and patted down by girl soldiers to assure they were pregnant - and that included ALL women, Arabs, Christians, Jews, Hindus. No exceptions.

But these Moslems claimed they never harbored any ill will toward the U.S. - at least until they were prohibited from boarding their flight.

So why "pick on" innocent Moslems?

Because there is no way to identify an "innocent" Moslem and a terrorist.

Part of the problem is that whenever the terrorist Moslems slaughter innocents, the majority of the Moslem community in America either celebrates the crime or remains quiet, lending tacit support by their silence.

I know there are "good" Moslems. I've worked with some in the US and in Israel.

But until American Moslems start to "take care of their own" - getting the terrorists off the street and reporting their fellows determined to murder innocents for a headline - ALL Moslems will be looked on with suspicion.

The Moslem community in America has it in its hands to change the perception most non-Moslems have of Moslems.

Given Islam's record of murder throughout the ages, I would be foolish not to prefer being safe than sorry.

AND IN A RELATED MATTER, when did Customs (and Border Patrol) stop demanding passport information when tickets for overseas flights are booked.

People, like cargo, should be identified and validated before reaching the counter to collect a boarding pass. The US used to demand passport information, but I am slated to leave the country mid-month and the Feds and airline have yet to ask for my passport information.

We talk about security but when someone DOES something that might protect others, that person is chastised by the media.

SO WHAT that the child is a toddler - with Islam, sacrificing a child for a headline is a small price to pay.

Defend only "those like me"?

 

From Israel HaYom (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=4362) comes an article headed Religious soldiers refuse to enter church on IDF tour.

According to the article, "The (IDF's) Education and Youth Corps conducts a wide range of activities for soldiers, in an attempt to familiarize them with the different populations within Israeli society. Among these activities there are also tours of holy sites. A soldier who cannot visit a church due to his religious beliefs, is not obligated to do so."

The flap is about a few "Orthodox" members of a crack commando unit who object to entering into a church during "an educational tour of Jerusalem and its surrounding area, scheduled for Jerusalem Day." The soldiers, ten officers and soldiers called the scheduled event "idol worship" or the worship of foreign gods.

I might - in fact I would - agree with the soldiers if there was a religious service going on. But there is no suggestion that this would be the case.

A monk from the church is to give a talk; I would dangerously assume it would be about the facility's history. I would not expect an attempt to proselytize the soldiers.

The IDF's purpose in the tour is to make the soldiers aware of the different cultures in Israel, of the different people it is called upon to defend.

Granted, an observant Jew is prohibited from praying in a church, but not because a church is a place of worship to "a foreign god" but because of symbols of the non-Jewish religion. Jews may - if they dare - pray in a mosque since the Moslems, like most observant Jews, prohibit images in the sanctuary.

The really interesting thing about the protest is that the IDF already allows "Orthodox" soldiers to beg out of most "all-hands" events, including entering a church. These soldiers are complaining about the mere fact that the church is even on the list of places to visit; it's not enough that they are exempt from entering the building; they want it removed from the tour itinerary.

On the one hand, the soldiers deserve a כל הכבוד for serving in the IDF; too many "Orthodox" Jews hide in yeshivot and duck all responsibilities attendant to citizenship - e.g., serving in the IDF or performing national service.

On the other hand, I think these folks are taking an unnecessarily extreme position.

Let them consider the church a cultural diversion; they are learning something about the people who they must protect. Since non-Jews may join the IDF, they may be learning something about the soldier who might be fighting next to the reluctant "Orthodox" soldier.

These ten officers and soldiers seem to me to the type Jew that blindly follows his rabbi, no matter what fiat the rabbi issues, even if it goes against halacha (e.g., those rabbis that deny halachic conversions). These are the type Jew who, I believe, give us - all Jews - a bad image which, by extension is a חלול השם.

But then I am not a rabbi and I don't play one on tv.

Sometimes it is difficult, but

הריני מקבל עלי מצוה עשה של ואהבת לרעך כמוך, והריני אוהב כל אחד מבני ישראל כנפשי ומאודי

Islam's ignorance

!שקר

 

According to Palestine Media Watch, http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=6854, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, contends that Jerusalem, a city that has had a Jewish presence since the time of King David, has "only has Islamic and Christian history ."

Perhaps there is something that infects politicians when they reach a certain level that forces them to become history revisionists.

Who, if not the Jews, built the Temple on which the Moslem abomination now sits?

David was king over all of Israel from about 1003 to 970 BCE (Before [the] Current Era, equates to "BC"). (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David)

Christianity didn't really get started until Paul (nee Saul of Tarsus) started evangelizing around 43 CE (Current Era, equates to AD), and Paul's preaching was to the non-Jewish world, ergo his 13 "Letters" to the likes of the Corinthians (2), Galatians, and Thessalonians (2). (Sources: http://www.ebionim.org/?gclid=CPiAycff9a8CFQSxnQodOw7zUg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles)

Christianity had to be imported into Israel; it did not develop there.

Muhammad lived from approximately 570 to 632 CE. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad).

Jerusalem - and not by any other name (e.g., Zion) - is mentioned 669 times in the Tanak (the Torah or "Five Books of Moses" plus Prophets and Writings). (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem and http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080127162649AAy11F5

The Christian addition adds another 123 times for a total of 792 "mentions."

The Koran mentions Jerusalem by name zero times although it is suggested that Muhammad went to heaven from the "Farthest Mosque."

There is no denying that both Christians and Moslems have had a presence in Jerusalem for thousands of years, but to even suggest that Jerusalem is not a "Jewish" city is ludicrous, stupid, and wishful thinking on the part of Abbas, a/k/a terrorist Abu Mazen.

Jerusalem is so "holy" to Moslems that they turn their backsides to it when they pray (toward Mecca). It rates as Islam's third holiest site, after Mecca and Medina. But it is NOT a Moslem city.

It has been controlled by Moslems - as well as Romans, Greeks, Turks, and others whose kingdoms are now only of historical interest. The flag has set on the English empire although the tiny island still exists.

Even when Moslems prevented Jews from accessing Judaism's holy sites, Jerusalem still had a Jewish presence.

In 1948 the Jordanian Moslems, the real "Palestinian" people, tried to starve out the Jews, but failed.

For AT LEAST 3,015 years there has been an UNBROKEN Jewish presence in Jerusalem.

Islam cannot make that claim.

Christianity does not make that claim.

So where does Mr. Abbas/Mazen find the absolute hutzpah to even suggest that Israel is attempting the "Judaization" of Jerusalem? (Source: http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=6854)

Jerusalem IS Jewish and Israel tolerates Islam and Christianity

Unlike Rome, which ghettoized its Jews, both Moslems and Christians are free to live wherever they like (although to be honest, they would not be particularly welcome in some neighborhoods given their history with Jews, Judaism, and Israel - ancient and modern).

Christian and Moslem places of worship are protected by the government, unlike in Saudia and other Moslem countries where churches and synagogues are banned or the worshippers harassed.

Again, "to be fair," in Morocco until today Jewish cemeteries are guarded and maintained by Moslems and, until today, the few remaining Jews live in relative peace with their neighbors. Will this continue tomorrow with the "Arab Spring?"

Jerusalem was, is, and - G-d willing - will remain a "Jewish" city with tolerance for others, even others who fail to reciprocate in kind.

Customer service

 

I've flown a number of different airlines around the U.S. and overseas.

Some, like Eastern, National, Pan Am, and "Tiny Weenie Airlines," a/k/a TWA, are in the air only in aging film clips and yellowing photos.

I'm about to take a 16-plus hours-in-the-air trip mostly with Delta. One leg of the trip will be on a code share, Alitalia. I'll be in Rome's international airport long enough to run from gate to gate, so there's no opportunity to get my passport stamped by Italian customs.

I like Delta, although we got off to a rocky start.

My first experience was having a Belgian shepherd flown up from Orlando FL to Indianapolis IN. Shadow, the dog, was supposed to be transferred to an Indy-bound flight in Covington KY, Delta's Midwest hub that I later came to know very well indeed. Shadow went on to "somewhere" only ending up in Indianapolis many hours later than expected.

I swore at, and swore off, Delta.

My next trip was on United from Philadelphia PA to Ely NV via Salt Lake City UT. Philadelphia may be "The City of Brotherly Love," but the airport is something I've learned to hate. When the continental flight touched town at Salt Lake City, I was supposed to find my way to a regional flight on to Ely, a small copper mining town in northeastern Nevada. I was one of maybe 10 passengers heading to Ely that cold December night.

Apparently United felt the passenger count was too low to make the flight to Ely and then on to Reno NV and probably Sacramento CA. With that it mind, United hired a jitney and packed - stuffed might be a better word since we all had heavy winter coats on - all the Ely-bound passengers into the jitney for a 5-hour ride (compared to a 1 hour plane trip). United was thoughtful; it found a jitney that lacked a working heater so, despite our bulky outer wear we still suffered the cold common above 5,000 feet elevation. (Ely is in a valley at 6,000 feet.)

Later, as a captive consultant, I flew a few miles with US Air, mostly between Tallahassee Fl and Tampa Fl. The flights in twin-turbo prop jobs were great, but then I like small (and smaller) aircraft. I became a US Air loyalist - for awhile.

On a nearly yearly-long gig in Charleston WV - lovely, interesting town, by the way - I made every-other-week trips between the work site (Charleston) and my then home (Norfolk VA). I drove once and decided falling snow and slippery roads were not compatible with this "raised in Florida" practitioner .

Two airlines made the Charleston (CRW) to Norfolk (ORF) trip - US Air and Delta. US Air routed me via Charlotte NC (CLT) while Delta initially got me to Norfolk via Covington KY (CVG).

Because I was (then) a US Air loyalist, I tried to book my first flight with US Air via the internet. I managed to fat finger something and tried to straighten it out via the WWW. Impossible. I went to the airport (CRW) and talked to a desk person. "Sorry, the ground can't communicate with the IT people." I eventually got the problem resolved, but for a fee.

For my next trip I tried Delta. Same price and about the same time point-to-point. Once again, I managed to fat finger the reservation. This time I found a phone number and called Delta where a very kind lady checked and, amazingly, failed to find my fat-fingered reservation. She did take my new reservation and Delta won me over.

I still occasionally flew US Air. Both it and Delta seemed always to "lose" my luggage at the hub. US Air always got the bag to me the next day. Delta, on the other hand, always managed to deliver the bag to my door the same day. This happened so often that, once assured my bag was not on the carousel, I'd walk toward the Lost Luggage office and the lady inside would greet me by name.

One flight from ORF to CRW left me - and about 20 others - stranded in CVG for more than a few hours. The flight, slated to leave at 10:30 p.m. didn't. Nor did it leave at 11:30 p.m. At about midnight a couple of tired Delta clerks pushed out a cart loaded with junk - sorry, snack - food and soft drinks, on Delta, thank you very much.

We eventually departed for Charleston's CRW about 2 a.m., tired but not hungry.

Then Delta in its "wisdom" changed the connecting flight schedule and forced me to fly CVG to Atlanta GA (ATL) and then on to ORF. But by then my gig was almost up.

This will be my first over-the-water flight with Delta. I've done it before with KLM - great service and Amsterdam's Schiphol (AMS) airport is a pleasure. I've also made the flight via El Al, Northwest (before it merged with Delta) and Air France; if I never see Charles DeGaulle (CDG) airport again it will be too soon. I made one trip via a British carrier - BMI - that compared unfavorably to my early "stranded in Salt Lake City by United" flight.

Unlike JFK and Schiphol where international travelers are "quarantined" to a controlled access area,, international travelers at CDG and London's Heathrow (LHR) have to run between terminals; translation: passengers have to go through check points and passport controls before they get to their next flight. My flight into LHR on a BMI plane was late - late boarding, late leaving, late arriving - but, credit where it is due, my United connecting flight waited until I boarded to push back. KLM is the only other airline I've ever seen wait for passengers from a delayed flight.

I know "things happen" and "nothing is perfect," and I expect that Delta may lose my luggage again, but at least its personnel on the ground and in the air are "PR conscious."

Iberia, with which I have only ticket counter experience, seems to treat its customers nicely, especially if the traveler arrives early and the counter crew has not been harassed by late arriving passengers who are demanding instant service.

El Al, which often does some foolish things, probably is the most secure airline to fly, and despite being one of the most terrorist-conscious airports around, Lod (TLV) is one of the easiest for travelers to pass though, at least going out. It's come a long way from my first trip in 1975.

International airports are "interesting." Flying out of Lod ^{Note 1} (TLV) I listened as the LOT (Poland's national airline) ticket checker called for passengers to board. The call was made in Hebrew (TLV's native language) and English. I asked a LOT representative if anyone at the gate spoke Polish. Answer: No. Compare this to the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) where announcements are given in English and a variety of Asian languages. At CDG I failed to find anyone who admitted to speaking English and the El Al counter staff lacked both Hebrew and English. (The El Al security people did speak Hebrew and English as well as French.) In Miami (MIA), the primary language is Cuban Spanish, but most airline and airport staff also speak English (even Iberia's crew).

If you wonder why I refer to Israel's main international airport by its original name, Lod, visit The Altalena Remembered at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_altalena_remembered.html

Air France BMI Delta El Al KLM LOT Northwest Orient United US Air
AMS ATL CDG CLT CRV DTW LHR ORF TLV

Not world's policeman (anymore)

 

Elliot Abrams, a "Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies" at the Council on Foreign Relations ^{Note 1} wrote in his blog at http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2012/05/06/standing-idly-by-in-syria/ that if only Americans would pay attention "American leadership would change the balance diplomatically and on the ground, affect the policies of the Europeans, Jordanians, and Turks, improve the morale and performance of the Syrian opposition, and begin to move those still on the fence into an anti-Assad position."

It is not enough that we publicly are involved in Iraq (still), Afghanistan, and Pakistan; that we are undoubtedly surreptitiously meddling elsewhere. No. Abrams would have the U.S. involved in Syria's civil war. We didn't learn from Iraq? We haven't learned from Afghanistan. We certainly didn't learn the lesson the Vietnamese taught the French since we went in after the French were chased out.

Does anyone remember a little document called the Monroe Doctrine? In its simplest form, the Monroe Doctrine states that in return for the European powers of the time staying out of our perceived "realm of influence" - then mostly North and Central America - we, the United States, would stay out of the European's affairs. Unless of course the U.S. deemed it was endangered by Europe's affairs or was "invited" to join the fray (as in World War I).

We had NO business in Libya. We had NO business in Egypt. We had NO business in Iraq. We have NO business in Syria.

If any organization has any business in Syria, it might be the Arab States' organization.

If any organization has any business in Iran, it ought to be the Arab States organization; after all, Iran is a threat to Saudi since it's brand of Islam is different from the kingdoms; it is a threat to the so-called "moderate" Islamic states such as the UAE since they fail to follow the Iranian ayatollahs' extremism. It is a threat to the entire Middle East with its potential to start nuking any and all of its neighbors on its way to wiping Israel off the face of the earth - much as the Crusaders murdered thousands of innocents on their way to free Jerusalem from the infidels.

The Arabs have shown - in Syria and in Sudan - that they really don't care if a regime slaughters its people, even if those people are fellow Moslems. They care even less if the murdered are non-Moslems.

The United States has NO interest in Syria's civil war. If Russia wants to arm the rebels, let it. Will the arms buy Russia influence in the Middle East. Maybe, but not for long.

The U.S. and Russia, and to a lesser degree, France, long sought to buy influence in the region. The Arabs took what we (collectively) offered and in the end ignored everyone. If Iran supports Syria's despotic ruler, let it. Iran's brand of Islam is the same as Syria's rulers. If Iraq wants to support the revolutionaries, let it.

The United States has one - only one - ally in the Middle East, and that ally is NOT an Islamic state, not even a "moderate" Islamic state such as Turkey.

Abrams contends that ”It seems the Syrian people will not “somewhere, somehow find the means to defend themselves” unless we do (provide the means).

I'm sorry, Mr. Abrams, Syria is NOT THE U.S.' PROBLEM.. It's an Arab problem if it is any external entity's problem. The war is a civil war; the war is within Syria's (extended-to-include-Lebanon) borders. So far, the war has not spilled over into Turkey, Jordan, or Israel, although refugees may be heading for the borders.

I'm not an isolationist, but I see what happens when the United States, with its Western mentality, muddles in the affairs of a Moslem-dominated country with a far different mentality. For the U.S., it is a lose-lose situation and we should, we must, avoid being sucked into another intra-Islam conflict.

If someone from an Islamic state wants to enter the fray, let them. If an American Moslem wants to fight in Syria - for either side - let them, and let the U.S. turn a blind eye on this activity as it did when American's joined Canadian forces to fight the nazis before December 7, 1941. But the United States, as a nation, should keep far away from the Syrians' internal conflict.

Consider this: The U.S. is bogged down in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, countries far removed from America's borders. If the politicians really must fight, let them invade Cuba. It's only 90 miles away from Key West Florida - combatants could come home on weekends and holidays. To be perfectly clear, when I suggested that "they" invade Cuba I meant the politicians who want war with someone, anyone. I am NOT suggesting the U.S. send troops anywhere. The U.S. can no longer be, should no longer be, and must no longer be, the world's policeman.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Note 1: The Council on Foreign Relations is, by its own account (see http://www.cfr.org/about/ , "an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. CFR members, including Brian Williams, Fareed Zakaria, Angelina Jolie, Chuck Hagel, and Erin Burnett, explain why the Council on Foreign Relations is an indispensable resource in a complex world." The Wikipedia description is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations.

Yeshivot blacken own eyes

 

A headline in the English edition of Israel HaYom blasts

Police raid yeshivas getting state funds for 'fictitious' students

The "above the fold" leed paragraph claims "Police said the case involves 'millions of shekels' in fraudulently obtained stipends for fictitious yeshiva students. A number of 'expensive vehicles belonging to yeshiva administrators' were also confiscated and five people were either arrested or detained for questioning."

This at a time when more and more Israelis and non-haredi Jews worldwide are starting to take umbrage at the behavior of the haredim - the "black hats."

According to the article at http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=4223, this is not the first time the yeshivot have found themselves in hot water. According to Israel HaYom, "Israel Radio said the case was the fourth time this year that police had cracked instances of fraud involving fictitious students at yeshivas, which receive government funding."

Unfortunately, this is not something that will be kept "within the family."

These haredim, who generally look down on Jews who are different from them, are what the world sees as Jews and their actions slander the average Jew trying to earn an honest living.

Such behavior is not, unfortunately, limited to Israel. We have had several embarrassing incidents - in both Ashkenazi and Syrian communities - in recent years here in the States.

Meanwhile, Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's bill to force the haredim to do their part in Israel's life - serving in the IDF or performing community service - may be side tracked until after the September elections.

Israel's first prime minister - the one who instructed his army to kill Jews aboard the Altalena (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair) - agreed before the State's establishment to provide stipends to some 900 yeshiva "boys" in order to get the haredim's political support. The 900 has now swelled to thousands of "boys" who do nothing for the country except deplete its limited budget.

As an aside, a prime minister-to-be was in command on the shore and ready to murder fellow Jews.

I consider myself an "observant" Jew and I have no problem with Torah and talmud study, but I DO have a problem with people who make a career of study - in America they are called, derisively, "professional students."

I would not insist that every student go into the army - any student, any army - although I think it might be a good idea, but I believe everyone ought to do something for the country.

In the States, the Society of Friends, a/k/a Quakers, are pacifists and refuse to be inducted into the army. BUT these pacifists drove ambulances during World War I and now perform other national service.

Interesting word "pacifist." Both peaceful (paci) and threatening (fist).

There is a great deal these yeshiva "boys" could do for the State; start with teaching and mentoring in both cities and rural areas. Work in hospitals and institutions. Even just visiting the elderly and infirm would be worthwhile. Even in the IDF they could serve as non-combatants - medics, cooks, clerks, drivers.

No one is even suggesting that these "boys" abandon their studies. It wouldbe enough if they would invest a few hours-a-day to benefit the people who are taxed to fund their time in yeshivot, and to support their families.

When I was in ulpan, I worked 5 hours-a-day and was in class for four hours. Maybe the "boys" could do something for the country 3 hours-a-day and study the rest of the day? Is that too much to ask? Apparently, for the haredim, it is.

There are yeshiva students who DO serve; they attend "hesder" yeshivot and follow in the tradition of the luminaries of the Talmudic period, most of whom had incomes from their labors as shoe makers, water carriers, brewers, ranchers, and more.

The haredim should be positive examples to the rest of us.

Unfortunately, too many are not.

הריני מקבל עלי מצוה עשה של ואהבת לרעך כמוך, והריני אוהב כל אחד מבני ישראל כנפשי ומאודי