Letters to the Edtior: Flotilla, Musical Instruments on Shabbat, Mass Transit

Friend to Friend on Flotilla

I read with some discomfort David Suissa’s article titled “In Praise of Disunity” (June 18). This article was a reply to Rabbi Sharon Brous’ earlier article titled “A Narrowing of Heart and Mind: The American Jewish Response to the Flotilla” (June 11).

My discomfort with David’s article is that he misses the point. No one is trying [to suggest] (and Rabbi Brous was not suggesting) that all Jews be single-minded on every issue affecting Israel. What she was lamenting was the knee-jerk reaction of many American Jews to defend the actions of the Israeli government without so much as a thoughtful reflection on the positions taken by that government.

Neither David nor Sharon nor I would ever tolerate the delegitimization of Israel as the Hamas/Hezbollah/Iranian supporters are attempting to do. But it is equally unfathomable to adopt a policy of “my Israel, right or wrong.”

The Israeli military handling of the boarding of the Mavi Marmara was poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly explained to the rest of the world. I was in Israel at the time of the flotilla incident and there were Israeli voices in the popular press calling for the resignation of the defense minister and others involved in this operation.

Moreover, my friend David Suissa misses the greater implications of Rabbi Brous’ sentiments. Her dream “of a democratic, pluralistic and diverse nation, one in which the Jewish past is honored and its future built, a country in which Jewish culture and language flourish and the spirit receives sustenance, and one that honors the dignity and equality of all its inhabitants” is slipping through our fingers with little mention by all lovers of Zion. The failure of the majority to protect the rights of the minority and to treat that minority with equality and dignity (one of the pillars of democracy) is a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state. The delegitimization of Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Jews; of homosexuals; of Israeli Arabs and others is as great a problem facing Israeli society as the attempted delegitimization of the state by its hostile Arab neighbors, and this is an issue that we have the power to fix, if Jewish leadership can find the political will.

Finally, David fails to understand that while he enjoys a “nuance-free demonstration, ” such “rah-rah demonstrations” are chasing away more young liberal American Jews from the cause of Israel than they attract in one-day, chest-pounding adherence to the rally. If he is not concerned about Israel’s rejection by young American Jews, I am, and I think a lot more effort ought to be put into the Rabbi Brous approach to Israel than the David Suissa approach.

Stanley P. Gold
via e-mail

David Suissa responds:

Mr. Gold, a champion of religious tolerance, shows the kind of intolerance I railed against. My column celebrated the diversity in the ways that Jews help Israel, including ways that were quite different than mine, like that of my friend Rabbi Sharon Brous.

Mr. Gold, however, prefers to delegitimize approaches he disagrees with. It’s not enough, for example, that he doesn’t believe in “nuance-free” solidarity rallies to support Israel. He must also give them no value whatsoever — not even as occasional morale boosters or complements to more conciliatory and critical approaches.

Israel has many needs, and just like there are many kinds of Jews, there are many ways of helping Israel. Declaring that “my way is better than your way” and “your way isn’t worth much” may make us feel good, but it won’t help Israel. Looking for the good in each other, building on what we have in common and seeing the value in our diversity will go a lot further.

In Harmony With Orthodoxy’s Rules?

As someone who greatly admires and applauds Dennis Prager and everything he stands for, I present my critique of Dennis’ last column (“Musical Instruments on Shabbat?” July 2), which argued why Orthodoxy should lift the ban on musical instruments on Shabbat, with great friendship and admiration.

No one is knocking Dennis’ 15 years in yeshiva and his erudition on all matters both secular and religious. At the same time, Mr. Prager knows better than most that to advocate for the lifting of a rabbinic injunction that has been in place for centuries cannot and should not be done through a casual newspaper column or by populist vote. Over time, Jewish law can and does change, but under very limited rules and circumstances. This occurs in the beit midrash (study hall) through rabbinic consensus of Judaism’s great halachic decisors.

To be sure, there are challenges facing the rabbinic leadership of Orthodoxy today, both in Israel and in the Diaspora. But those challenges don’t negate the halachic process, a process that Dennis lauds and admires at the beginning of his column as the reason why we’ve been around as a people for so long. He would do well to recall the age-old maxim, “More than the Jews have kept the Sabbath, the Sabbath has kept the Jews.” And the “Sabbath” includes all those ancient and seemingly arcane rules such as muktzeh, eruv and, yes, musical instruments. It is the holistic acceptance of rabbinic law that keeps the Orthodox community intact and committed; once you pick apart one law, the whole system begins to unravel.

But as I said, deep down, Dennis already knows this. If I may direct my comments to you directly, my friend: If you’d really like to debate the issue, then you and I should sit in the beit midrash together, as serious Jewish scholars have been doing for centuries, go over the primary and secondary halachic texts, and fight the friendly “milhamtah shel Torah,” the battle over the Torah. Your article called upon Orthodoxy’s leadership to display “courage” in being open to changing rabbinic law. It also takes courage to critically analyze the halachic texts and system from within with rabbinic scholars and be willing to accept the outcome unconditionally. I invite you to study with me b’hevrutah (one on one), and let’s see who convinces whom.

Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin
Los Angeles

PR Won’t Solve This Problem

Rob Eshman makes some good points about the characteristic rush to find new PR strategies for Israel to deal with each new outburst of international venom (“Six Steps to Better Israel PR,” June 18).

For example, shortsighted ideas like trying to turn Israel into a popular brand name cannot succeed, because Israel is not simply a commodity but a cause that has been viciously maligned and whose merits need to be affirmed anew in the court of public opinion. No one will change their visceral disgust for someone they have been falsely led to believe is a murderer because they are shown that he is handsome, personally charming or intelligent.

However, Eshman superimposes his own political thinking when he says that “a final status agreement with the Palestinians … [is] critical for Israel’s long-term well-being.” While all would welcome a genuine Palestinian peace partner, the fact remains that Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority is not willing to make peace with Israel. Israel needs to make this fact widely understood — not prioritize a false PR message over national security by pursuing further concessions and negotiations with a non-peaceful Palestinian partner.

Morton A. Klein
national president
Zionist Organization of America

Find a Solution — Civilly

David Pine is certainly correct when he complains about the lack of civility displayed when he spoke at the recent gathering (“Seeking a Bridge to Peaceful Two-State Solution,” June 18). We need to remind ourselves that even those who have different solutions to the conflict are no less passionate about the need for Israel to survive.

It is difficult, however, to take Americans for Peace Now seriously after Arafat and the Palestinians rejected the Clinton/Barak offers of 2000/2001. Also, one just has to watch their TV programs (see Palestinian Media Watch), which, in Arabic, clearly point to a one-state solution. And so do their school textbooks, showing a Palestinian state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

Despite that, Americans for Peace Now still perseveres [toward] a two-state solution, which at this point is really a three-state solution and, should that not work out, we can always hope that Hamas will metamorphose into the kind of society run by the Palestinian Authority that, by its actions, wants there to be a one-state solution. 

So, as he points out in his article, it’s still Israel’s fault?

Jack Salem
Los Angeles

David Pine, Americans for Peace Now director, condemns the “political orthodoxy” of very many Los Angeles Jews (ìSeeking a Bridge to Peaceful Two-State Solution,î June 18). Inserting the term “political orthodoxy” into the debate [implies] that there is something sinister and destructive in those that stubbornly support Israel.

He is absolutely certain that the two-state solution is Israel`s only hope for survival. He may be right. He may be wrong. But when Americans for Peace Now in the United States set themselves up as knowing what is best for the state of Israel, and takes on the government of Israel and its leaders by name, they are exceeding their moral, humane and Jewish authority. Only the citizens of Israel have the right to determine their future. Just as the hecklers at the rally were out of line, Americans for Peace Now preaching to the world the course of action Israel should take is out of line.

Hershey Gold
Los Angeles

On Board With Mass Transit

Thanks to Ellen Isaacs, Eli Lipmen and Jody Litvak for their excellent opinion piece on reasons to get on board with mass transit (“It’s Time to Get on Board With Transit,” June 25). They make the essential point that, while BP surely deserves much criticism for the Gulf oil tragedy, the cornerstone blame lies with we individual Americans because of our addiction to oil, way too much oil.

In addition to mass transit, there is an additional route that many of us can take to wean ourselves off of oil. Moderately priced plug-in electric vehicles are coming to market by the end of the year. In the future, such vehicles can be powered by 100 percent clean, renewable electricity from the sun and the wind. Solar photovoltaic panels on one’s house or property can supply sufficient electrical energy to power both a home and a car. When one buys electric, ample personal rewards will include no more trips to the gas station and a feeling of knowing one has done the right thing.

Ben Zuckerman
Los Angeles

Powerful Voice Speaks Out

The article by Jose Maria Aznar (“If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down,” June 25) should be published in every newspaper in the United States and around the world. It may do no good, as the world is so anti-Zionist (anti-Semitic). It does the Jewish heart good to hear at least one human being, with, hopefully, a powerful voice, speak in rational terms about Israel. Too bad our president does not feel the same way.

Harvey M. Piccus
Tarzana

Kosher Vs. Crow Flies Out the Window

Sorry, Rob, your conclusion that Yehuda Avner got a lesson on when to eat kosher and when to eat crow doesn’t fly very well.

In his 2008 keynote address at the International Chabad Shluchim banquet, Avner shared the amusing anecdote of the time he attended a White House dinner as part of an Israeli delegation to the White House. At dinnertime, he alone was ceremoniously served a disproportionate serving of lettuce, topped by cottage cheese, while the others, in his words, feasted on their pheasants.

When a surprised President Gerald Ford turned to Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin for an explanation, the latter thought better than discussing†why some Jews observe†the laws of kashrut while others negate them (perhaps fearing a political fallout back home if the†story was picked up by the Israeli†press).†Thinking quickly,†Rabin replied that it was Avner’s birthday and this was a special dish in his honor. Ford jumped up to toast Avner, and the entire assemblage followed with the singing of ìhappy birthday, Yehuda!î

Seems like Yehuda Avner is a pretty principled guy after all, and†he’s put the word of G-d ahead of the first family’s food†on more than one occasion, without any qualms or reservations. He makes me proud!

Y. Sapo
via e-mail

The Order of Public Opinion

In his June 18 column (The Supreme Court?), Raphael Sonenshein makes some comments that call out for rebuttal. Sonenshein writes: “In the Citizens United case … the court expanded on the concept that corporation are, like persons, entitled to free speech protection.”

He goes on to say: “The Supreme Court majority seems to believe that the threat to the free speech of private entities is a bigger problem in American political campaigns that the threat of an outsize roll of private interests.”

Even a cursory review of what the Court talks about in its decision shows that Mr. Sonenshein is wrong about the decision.

In the majority decision, the Court writes: “The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Note that the Constitution does not distinguish between the free speech rights of corporations and those of individuals.

The Court’s decision in the Citizens United case is summed up by this section of the majority decision:

Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.î (Citations omitted.)

This is the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. As is his wont, Sonenshein has engaged in a straw-man argument, where he attributes something to his opponent that the opponent has not said and may not even believe and then attacked that comment.

Sonenshein makes another comment in his column that should be noted: “The Supreme Court may now feel free to overturn state laws.”

If there is any intellectual consistency to Mr. Sonenshein’s writing, we must conclude that he disagrees with Roe v. Wade, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 states.

It is not that difficult to find the text of a Supreme Court decision. Perhaps Mr. Sonenshein should do that before he next writes about legal matters.

Susan Jordan
Hollywood

Abrahamís Vision Bears Fruit

Your article on Abrahamís Vision needs an addendum. Our granddaughter Avital Aboody, a native of Sherman Oaks, was a participant from UC Berkeley in 2006. It had a†major impact on her and she graduated from Berkeley in Peace and Conflict Resolution. She recently completed a year fellowship in Israel with a group called Breaking the Silence, which is funded by the New Israel Fund (NIF). This group coordinated trips to Hebron for Israelis and foreign dignitaries, including the former prime minister of the Netherlands. She is now in Bosnia-Herzegovina as a staff member of this yearís Abrahamís Vision. After this she will come to L.A. for a few weeks and then move to Brooklyn, N.Y., to become involved with Avodah, a Jewish organization, where she will be involved in community organizing. She is one of the success stories from Abrahamís Vision.

Lester Paley
Sherman Oaks

Searching for Lost Cousin

I am looking for a long-lost cousin in the L.A. area. If you know this person, please tell them to contact me: Sandy Lyon, born March 31, probably around 1960. Daughter is Beth, born Aug. 27, 1970; son is Michael, born April 9, 1968. Tell any of them to e-mail me at {encode=”syb1023@aol.com” title=”syb1023@aol.com”} or call (913) 660-0542. I live in Jerusalem, Israel. Thank you.

Sybil Kaplan
via e-mail

Jewish Geography

Hello, my name is Howard Rockman. I was born and raised in the Wilkes-Barre, Pa., area back in 1955, now living in the New York City area. I am back in Wilkes-Barre at least one week a month. Your article about Layos Lenovitz, now known as Lou Lenart (ìWorld War II, Israel Independence Pilot Honored,î July 2), caught my eye, and when I read it, I was surprised to read about his Wilkes-Barre connection.

I remember a Max Lenovitz (changed his name to the more common spelling of Lenowitz, the more ìAmericanî spelling); my dad and I used to walk with Max every Shabbat to shul as Max was the gabbai (caretaker) of the synagogue for many years.

I remember Max finally retired to Florida many years back, and I ran into him there in the late 1990s. He was an elderly man back then; I presumed he passed away some time back.

Apparently, since you interviewed Lou Lenart, you have contact with him. Would you ask him if he was related to Max Lenovitz aka Lenowitz? Many thanks for an enjoyable article, and for putting Wilkes-Barre on the map.

Howard Rockman
via e-mail

THE JEWISH JOURNAL welcomes letters from all readers. Letters should be no more than 200 words and must include a valid name, address and phone number. Letters sent via e-mail must not contain attachments. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Mail: The Jewish Journal, Letters, 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010; e-mail: letters@jewishjournal.com; or fax:(213) 368-1684.