Letters to the Editor: Harman v. Winograd, Fishel Reflects,

It is puzzling that Rob Eshman supports Jane Harman rather than Marcy Winograd for the 36th Congressional District Democratic nomination (“Harman v. Winograd,” Jan. 15). Winograd has merely questioned whether a two-state solution is the most effective peace program for the Middle East. She has also stated that she would support negotiations that resulted in Israeli and Palestinian countries behind secure borders, a position consistent with that of most American Jews. A descendant of pogrom and Holocaust survivors, and a longtime synagogue member and Jewish community activist, Winograd’s credentials as part of our people are impeccable. And unlike Harman, who opposes reduced-cost drugs for AIDS and Parkinsons victims, opposes bankruptcy for medical reasons, and strongly supported the invasion of Iraq, Winograd is in the Jewish mainstream. It is Harman who is the outlier in this community, not Winograd.

[additional-authors]

JewishJournal.com

January 21, 2010

Harman v. Winograd

It is puzzling that Rob Eshman supports Jane Harman rather than Marcy Winograd for the 36th Congressional District Democratic nomination (“” title=”Fishel Reflects on Challenging Tenure”>Fishel Reflects on Challenging Tenure,” Jan. 15) does a fine job of summarizing John Fishel’s contributions to this community. When Fax interviewed me at considerable length, I noted the bulk of his accomplishments as reflected in the article in last week’s Jewish Journal and especially empathized with the nature of a very pressure-laden job coupled with the unstable situation he was confronted with when he arrived.

Fax quoted my observation that an overarching vision was never presented to the community by both the lay leaders and him. By not putting my comment in context, it leaves the impression that I give him no credit for performing as he did in the most difficult job in the Jewish community. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Gerald Bubis
via e-mail

Illuminating Mason

The Journal interview with Jackie Mason provides a valuable public service (“” title=”A Shandah in Spain”>A Shandah in Spain,” Dec. 18). He states that it was a halachic conversion. The term “halachic conversion” by any Conservative and Reform rabbi is an oxymoron. Did the rabbi who performed the conversion inform the family that the conversion would not be accepted by the Orthodox branch of Judaism and what that would mean concerning any aspect of Judaism? I would venture not, or if it was discussed it would have been glossed over as being of no consequence. Did the Conservative rabbi tell the family that the Conservative movement does not believe in all of Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Faith and therefore it would be impossible for any Orthodox rabbi to accept any conversion? I believe that the answer to this is probably also “no.” The fault does not lie with the Orthodox but with the Conservative and Reform rabbis who do not explain the dire consequences of their conversions and cause an untold amount of grief to families when the results are found out. The families involved then tend to blame the Orthodox instead of the real culprits, the Conservative and Reform rabbis involved in these conversions.
The Conservative movement is losing members and synagogues while the Reform and Orthodox are increasing in number. The Reform is becoming more Conservative while the Conservative instead of being for “Tradition and Change” is now more Change and less and less Tradition. It is now change on a whim. It’s a good thing that the Conservative rabbi who promoted the change on homosexuality didn’t have a daughter who wanted to marry a chimpanzee because then chimps would also be counted in a minyan. This is what Rabbi Rembaum should be bemoaning and is the real “shandah.”

Mort Resnick
Oxnard

Beware of All Discrimination

Gina Nahai’s article that deals with the LAX incident at the Delta counter (“