And, at all times, remember from where you have come.
Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’
The recent presidential election has caused terrible angst for some voters and incredible joy for others. However, American history has shown that no matter who is elected to the oval office, the fundamental principles of the country are sound, and life carries on.
Power in the United States regularly bounces from Republican to Democrat like a lively ping-pong game. Many new presidents are, in fact, elected as a protest vote against the previous regime. In a country that is governed by checks and balances, the volley of parties does not do permanent harm.
The United States staggered under the shock of Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal and consequently elected Jimmy Carter. It was humiliated by Carter’s inept handling of the hostages in Iran and elected Ronald Reagan. It was scandalized by the shenanigans of Bill Clinton’s high-risk, inappropriate romances and elected George W. Bush. Yet, through it all, the nation remained strong.
The people of America reeled under the attack of 9/11 and its aftermath. Perhaps everything that followed was not handled to perfection. It is very easy to be a Monday- morning quarterback. However, despite the mistakes of the president or officials in charge, our country has pulled through a terrible trauma. We are intact.
There seems to be a pattern to life, which belies the idea that we, alone, decide our destiny. Perhaps the answer is that we are not the sole arbitrator of what happens, despite our greatest efforts. Of course, we are mandated to do our best to put things in place. However, it seems that man can never really hold the “highest office.”
So hang in there. There are lessons to be learned. There are experiences to be had. There is a lot to process. Gam zu l’tovah, everything is for the best!
Bill Clinton. He was a president who had mass public appeal because he was a genuine people person. He always tried to work hard and serve the public.
– Sandy Cohen
Golda Meir, the first — and so far the only — female prime minister of Israel. I admire her because she led the country during some very turbulent times. She always held her composure and didn’t back down from pressure.
– Edith Goldstein
Menachem Begin. He was very active in the establishment of Israel and served the state politically throughout his life.
– Lilian Bergstein
To be honest with you, nobody. I’ve been around long enough to realize that politicians only know how to talk and not to deliver. They make promises, but once they
get into office they follow their own agenda.
– Leon Skolnic
With Caroline Kennedy’s New York Times op-ed article endorsing the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama because, in her words, she wants a president like her father; a president who, among other things, “holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards,” it seemed only appropriate to give an encore airing, with some revisions, to the following Media Monitor column that originally ran in 2003:
“Jack Kennedy was the mythological front man for a particularly juicy slice of our history. He talked a slick line and wore a world-class haircut. He was Bill Clinton minus pervasive media scrutiny and a few rolls of flab. Jack got whacked at the optimum moment to assure his sainthood. Lies continue to swirl around his eternal flame….”
– James Ellroy, American Tabloid
Assassination does wonders for a public figure’s place in history. John F. Kennedy was a president of questionable character and meager accomplishment, but his untimely and violent death, followed by decades of unceasing image control by the Kennedy family and their media apologists, has helped sustain one of the great myths of American history – a myth that there once existed in Washington a magical kingdom called Camelot, ruled by a dashing prince whose wisdom and bravery were matched only by his unshakeable devotion to his beautiful princess.
So powerful is the Camelot legend that the many seamy discoveries of recent years have managed only to tarnish, but hardly to destroy, the reputation of a man who almost certainly would have been impeached or forced to resign the presidency had even a fraction of what we now know been made public while he was still alive and in office.
Even the very term that has come to symbolize the Kennedy era – Camelot – is an invention after the fact. The notion of the Kennedy White House as Camelot has always been, as even Kennedy press secretary and longtime loyalist Pierre Salinger admitted, a “fraud” – the word was never once used to describe the Kennedy administration while Kennedy was alive.
The Camelot-Kennedy connection was nothing more than a widow’s successful attempt to glamorize her husband’s legacy. Not long after Kennedy’s murder, Jacqueline Kennedy, quoting the lyrics of the title song from a popular Broadway show, implored the writer Theodore White: “Don’t let it be forgot/That once there was a spot/For one brief shining moment/That was known as Camelot.”
White dutifully recorded her words in an article for Life magazine, and instantly and forevermore the Kennedy years became Camelot in retrospect. It is necessary to keep all this in mind when reflecting on any aspect of the Kennedy administration. Nothing was as it seemed, and the truth about those years began to seep out only after Kennedy had been dead for a decade.
In fact, the mythmaking about JFK was under way well before he was elected president – being born to a politically ambitious, fabulously wealthy and well-connected father has its benefits.
“Kennedy,” the liberal journalist Lawrence Wright observed, “had spent thirteen years in the House and Senate without passing a single important piece of legislation. And yet before his election to the presidency, people were comparing him with Franklin Roosevelt, with the young Churchill, with various movie stars, with Lindbergh.”
Kennedy’s best-selling books, Why England Slept and Profiles in Courage, which helped sell the notion that he was some sort of intellectual? Both were largely ghostwritten.
The World War II incident that bestowed on Kennedy an aura of heroism?
“It was true Kennedy had saved the life of one of his men on PT-109, on a mission in which Kennedy was supposed to torpedo a Japanese destroyer,” writes Wright. “Instead, the lumbering destroyer managed to slice the PT boat in half, killing two crewmen. Apparently, Kennedy had failed to notice the ship until it was bearing down on top of him. ‘Our reaction to the 109 thing had always been that we were kind of ashamed of our performance,’ admitted one of the crew, Barney Ross. ‘I had always thought it was a disaster.’”
Wright continues: “Was this heroism? Or just luck – that Kennedy was still alive and not brought before a court-martial? The Navy rejected his application for a Silver Star, and it wasn’t until a friend of the Kennedy family, James Forrestal, became secretary of the Navy, that Kennedy received a life-saving award.”
Among close acquaintances Kennedy was candid about his heroics. In his 1991 book A Question of Character, historian Thomas Reeves quotes the son of a Kennedy intimate as saying, “He told her it was a question of whether they were going to give him a medal or throw him out.” And in 1946, according to Reeves, Kennedy told a friend, “My story about the collision is getting better all the time. Now I’ve got a Jew and a nigger in the story and with me being a Catholic, that’s great.”
The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is getting louder and uglier by the minute as racial and gender politics threaten to fracture the Democratic base, and even those media outlets that in the past had defended or at the very least tolerated the Clintons give every indication of having finally lost patience with the shopworn act.
But did anyone expect anything other than a three-ring circus, particularly with a publicity-seeking missile like Bill Clinton launching himself at any available microphone or television camera?
Really, was there ever a president quite like Bill Clinton? The Oval Office has seen more than its share of questionable characters, but rarely had one embodied so many of the traits we normally abhor in a low-level political hack, let alone a president of the United States.
There is no need to recite here the dreary and extensive litany of Clinton’s flip-flops on both domestic and foreign policy. Suffice it to say that the man is a political chameleon who, as the editors of National Review once put it so memorably, “has been ruled ineligible for Mt. Rushmore because there isn’t room for so many more faces.”
Nor is it necessary to revisit the sordid details of all the controversies and scandals that came to attach themselves to a man for whom the word “shameless” always seemed the mildest of sobriquets.
The wonder of it all is not that Clinton twice managed to get elected president – he failed, after all, to garner a majority of the vote in both 1992 and 1996, and his victories owed much to the ineptness of his Republican opposition and the unbridled ego of Ross Perot.
No, the remarkable thing about the Clinton years is the narcotic effect they seemed to have on Americans, large numbers of whom were content to sleepwalk their way through the accumulating detritus of White House sleaze.
Jews in particular were enamored of Bill Clinton, and his approval ratings in Jewish strongholds from Great Neck to Beverly Hills were positively Rooseveltian. It was said in the 1940’s that for American Jews there was di velt (this world), yene velt (the next world) and Roosevelt; in that sense Clinton was FDR revisited, a man who could do no wrong in Jewish eyes, facts – and Israel – be damned.
The fact is, Clinton left office with Israel’s situation considerably more precarious than it had been at the end of the first President Bush’s lone term. And while Israeli leaders bore a considerable portion of the blame, it was Clinton who pulled, prodded and pressured Israel – and directly intervened in the Israeli political process – whenever he felt it necessary to sustain the mirage of Oslo.
And Hillary of course always was the perfect sideshow to Bill’s Main Event, someone who simply by opening her mouth in public during the Clintons’ White House years made the pundits cringe, her poll numbers plunge, and general chaos ensue.
It was Hillary, as author Sally Bedell Smith reminds us in For Love of Politics, her recently published account of the Clinton presidency, who almost single-handedly ran national health care into the ground. It was also Hillary whose behind-the-scenes machinations resulted in Travelgate and Filegate, among many other such Clintonian hijinks.
And, as Smith convincingly relates, it was Hillary’s insistence that her husband ignore the advice of his attorneys that necessitated the court depositions which eventually led to Bill’s impeachment.
By the time Hillary gave an excruciatingly embarrassing 1999 interview to Talk magazine (since defunct), once-sympathetic observers like the liberal columnist Richard Cohen were beginning to see the unflattering truth behind the first lady’s carefully cultivated veneer.
Describing Hillary as a “bit of a ditz,” Cohen asked, “What can we make of a woman who talks the language of afternoon television – an amalgam of psychobabble and fortune-cookie wisdom, with a dollop of religion here and there?” The Talk article, Cohen conceded, “raises real questions about her sagacity, her knowledge of how she sounds to others and – not least – her political wisdom.”
Later in 1999, the Suha Arafat imbroglio (Hillary had embraced Mrs. Yasir Arafat moments after the latter accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian women and children – and then offered up a series of excuses and explanations for her behavior) threw into sharp relief all the weaknesses exhibited by Hillary throughout her career as a public figure.
Those weaknesses were overlooked or forgotten as Hillary rather deftly settled into her role as U.S. senator from New York. But apparently they were always under the surface and have now reemerged: the transparent posturing, the dissembling and denial whenever her actions or statements blow up in her face, and the political spinning – always the political spinning.
Bill Clinton’s apologists continue to insist he was the most pro-Israel U.S. president – ever. Much of this is political theater, of course, as the Clinton Support Network cranks into high gear in its attempt to put Sen. Hillary Clinton into the office her husband occupied from 1993 to 2001.
But even those who view Bill Clinton in a less flattering light can’t deny that he was (and remains) the most popular president among American Jews since Franklin Delano Roosevelt – who, as fate would have it, was referred to by his acolytes as “the best friend the Jewish community ever had in the White House.”
And just as the Jews who worshiped F.D.R. never dreamed his name would come to live in infamy for his passive acquiescence in the destruction of European Jewry, so those who today sing Bill Clinton’s praises seem incapable of acknowledging that their man did more to legitimize the late Palestinian terror boss Yasir Arafat than any other president; gave new meaning to the term “moral equivalence” when he spoke in the same breath of the suffering of the children of Palestinian terrorists and the suffering of the children of those terrorists’ Israeli victims; interfered in domestic Israeli politics on behalf of the Labor party in not one but two Israeli elections, dispatching his political strategists to help Shimon Peres in 1996 and Ehud Barak in 1999; and came disconcertingly close to browbeating a sitting Israeli prime minister into making the most far-ranging and disastrous concessions imaginable to an Arafat who had long since served notice that he had no interest in peaceful coexistence.
Poor George Bush the First. Remember him? All he ever wanted back in the early 90’s was a freeze on settlements and a limited withdrawal of Israeli forces from Judea and Samaria in exchange for an enforceable peace agreement. For that, he was demonized as a striped-pants Arabist, a Saudi lackey, and quite possibly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic to boot.
Imagine how the former president must have felt as the very people who just a few years before had pilloried him for his Middle East policy fell all over themselves lionizing Clinton, who made demands of Israel that no other president, including Bush, ever even contemplated.
Clinton’s statement about Palestinian and Israeli children has been largely forgotten. The Monitor made mention of it in a previous column, and it’s worth repeating here because, in the words of author Yossef Bodansky in The High Cost of Peace: How Washington’s Middle East Policy Left America Vulnerable to Terrorism, “Clinton’s true sense of the dynamics of the Middle East was revealed when he publicly equated Palestinian terrorists and Israeli victims of terrorism.”
Here’s what Clinton said, addressing a group of Palestinian VIPs during a trip to Gaza in late 1998:
I’ve had two profoundly emotional experiences in the last less than 24 hours. I was with Chairman Arafat, and four little children came to see me whose fathers are in Israeli prisons. Last night, I met some little children whose fathers had been killed in conflict with Palestinians, at the dinner that Prime Minister Netanyahu held for me. Those children brought tears to my eyes. We have to find a way for both sets of children to get their lives back and to go forward…. If I had met them in reverse order I would not have known which ones were Israeli and which Palestinian. If they had all been lined up in a row and I had seen their tears, I could not tell whose father was dead and whose father was in prison, or what the story of their lives were, making up the grief that they bore.
Beautiful. Really makes one pine for the Clinton era, doesn’t it? Anyway, Clinton being Clinton, it seems the story he told about meeting those Israeli children was, ahem, contrived.
According to a story in the Dec. 25, 1998 issue of the Forward headlined “Clinton Lied About Meeting Children,” the Israeli Embassy minister for public affairs could not confirm that a meeting between Clinton and any Israeli children had taken place.
“Other Israeli government sources who would speak only on condition of anonymity,” added the Forward’s Washington correspondent, “said Mr. Clinton never met with the Israeli children. The White House and State Department did not return calls about whether such a meeting took place. There was no such event on the public schedule of the trip.”
Yes, the country is suffering a severe case of Bush fatigue. But nostalgia is never what it’s cracked up to be.
Looking For A Jewish DeLay
I read with great interest – even fascination – Congressman Tom DeLay’s speech to the Knesset (“Be Not Afraid,” Jewish Press, Aug. 8) We should all be ashamed. There are few (if any) Jewish leaders willing to do what DeLay has done: publicly argue against a Palestinian state unless the Palestinians truly purge terrorism from their ranks.
What impressed me most was not DeLay’s uncompromising insistence that the Palestinians be held to a real, not imaginary, standard of compliance and that America’s triumph over terror is
directly linked to Israel’s success in its fight against Hamas – though those sentiments are certainly welcome.
No, what intrigued me most was that DeLay represents the Christian Right, which shares his views on Israel. If only our own religious leaders and more liberal co-religionists would show the same gumption and all-out support for the Jewish state.
Unfortunately, I can’t imagine a rabbi or Jewish organizational leader making the kind of speech DeLay made. The steadfast faith, the unembarrassed leaning on biblical truth, just isn’t
there. We’re a people that excels at putting on lavish testimonial dinners for money-grubbing businessmen who use their donations to our schools and institutions as tax write-offs. But delivering a clear and ringing declaration of G-d?s Truth is an altogether different proposition. Who’s going to do that? Edgar Bronfman? Joe Lieberman? Abe Foxman?
I’d laugh if I wasn’t crying.
Los Angeles, CA
The so-called issue of the wall of defense in Israel is no issue at all. The wall is nothing less than a necessary means for the survival of the Jewish people, surrounded as they are by a
murderous rabble with no agenda other than to launch massacres unseen since the Crusades.
The wall must not only stand but be maintained at all costs. The “Palestinians” claim that as a result of the wall they will be out of work in Israel. Let them wander around the neighboring
states and beg for handouts from their Arab brothers.
Your goyishe buddy down in Dixie.
Mark “Coach” Segura
Powell Up, Rumsfeld Down?
The gist of your “Ominous Developments” editorial last week was astute and on target.
I re-read President Bush’s June 24, 2002 speech and it leapt right out at me. Bush’s early insistence on the neutralization of Arafat and the disarming of terrorists groups by the PA was
indeed based upon the belief that “there could not be real peace with Arafat in power and terrorists able to wreak havoc.” So it must follow, as day follows night, that there is no logical basis for continuing the road map if Arafat remains in charge and Hamas keeps its guns.
Unfortunately, the Colin Powell wing of the administration seems lately to be on the ascendancy while the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz faction appears to have been stricken silent on this
issue – and that doesn’t portend well for Israel.
New York, NY
Bush And Israel (I)
Re “Washington May Cut Israel Aid Over Security Fence Dispute” (front page story, Jewish Press, Aug. 8):
As Yogi Berra is supposed to have said, “It’s dej? vu all over again.” How is it possible that in 2003, a president of the United States, especially one with the last name of “Bush,” would go
public with pressure against Israel? It would be one thing to read the riot act to Israel in a backroom session. But to publicly condition U.S. aid on whether Israel follows American wishes at the cost of Israel’s security is not at all helpful.
Compared to Bill Clinton, the first President Bush was not all that bad when it came to Israel, yet he certainly did, as your editorial (“Ominous Developments”) last week noted, gain “the
undying enmity of the Jewish community” for holding back on loan guarantees if Israel proceeded with settlement construction.
I still think this President Bush is better than both his father and Bill Clinton when it comes to Israel, and I suspect the news of the possible cut in aid was a trial balloon floated by the State
Department. If that’s the case, however, Bush should have disavowed it immediately. The president’s heart seems to be in the right place, but he needs to be more consistent.
Bush And Israel (II)
I, like many other Jews, am disconcerted by some of the Bush administration’s recent pronouncements on the Middle East. However, I would caution anyone ready to turn his back on the president (a friend of mine told me he’d even vote for Al Sharpton over Bush) that all of the Democrats now running for president – including Sen. Lieberman – heaped scorn and criticism on Bush for two years because he refused to directly involve himself in the Israeli-Palestinian ‘peace process’ a la their hero Bill Clinton.
To these Democrats, a president who isn’t intimately involved (code words for pressuring Israel) in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations is, ipso facto, a president who isn’t doing his job. So, my friends, rather than discounting the solid support Bush has given Israel over the past two and a half years, and before pledging your support to a Joe Lieberman or a Howard Dean,
remember that whenever Bush displays a more even-handed approach or appears to press Israel to be more accommodating, he’s doing exactly what the Democrats have been clamoring for him to do!
And don’t forget that a Democratic president will not be beholden to the powerful and staunchly pro-Israel Christian Right, whose members vote Republican in overwhelming numbers. Tom DeLay, Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed – these gentlemen and millions of their fellow Zionist Christians will have zero leverage on a Democratic president. But an assortment of left-wing special interest groups will. Frankly, that scares me more than just about any other scenario.
New York, NY
Belzec Concerns Valid, But…
I read last week’s story about the controversy over the Belzec memorial with great interest. While I believe Rabbi Avi Weiss raises some legitimate concerns about the possible disturbing of human remains, I am troubled by the fact that he continues his protests with a clamor wholly out of place, particularly since approval for the project has been voiced by rabbinic leaders,
including the former chief rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, and the Israeli foreign ministry.
I am certainly not encouraged by the fact that Rabbi Weiss has brought a lawsuit to halt work on the project. Asking a New York State Supreme Court Judge to stop a project in Poland with which the Polish government is involved seems to me to be showboating of the worst kind. And it’s especially disconcerting given the Holocaust atrocities that are the backdrop to this unfortunate dispute.
(Dr.) Warren Kose
I hope that Rabbi Weiss’s histrionics do not obscure the issue at hand, as well as what appears to be hard evidence that human remains are indeed being disturbed by the construction of the Belzec memorial. It is important that the truth about their existence not take second place to the public relations campaign that is now going forward.
This is an issue that needs to be dealt with soberly and with a great deal of tact and reason. That it’s become a veritable circus does not speak well of those whose hunger for publicity trumps all else.
New York, NY
Troubles In The ‘Hood Just Won’t Go Away
Saying ‘Good Shabbos’ An Honor
I was shocked and dismayed by Rachel Weiss’s lengthy letter about the ongoing ‘Troubles
in the Hood’ (Jewish Press, Aug. 8). It’s a pity that a “suburbanite” like Weiss says she’s been
“consistently subjected” to Shabbos and Yom Tov greetings and would rather “share and bond with loved ones” and “disregard the persons” with whom she has “no correlation.”
To add insult to injury, Weiss mentioned that her “male counterpart has often lamented the intrusion he is subjected to – especially from female origin – on his Shabbosdik spiritual ‘state
of awe’ trek home from shul.”
I can’t believe that, only decades after six million Jews perished in the Shoah and with world anti-Semitism now on the rise, there are Jews today who are annoyed at the kindness of
fellow Jews. It’s a miracle that we are all here.
Weiss then went off on a tangent of lashon hara at the Jewish community, stating how the
“younger and more vulnerable single generation” is “creating enough havoc and harm in our society today” and that her previous neighbors were “overtly nosy and irksome.”
I can’t imagine why anyone would want to say ‘Good Shabbos’ to you, Ms. Weiss!
While reading her letter, I pictured the Lubavitcher Rebbe who would stand for countless
hours every Sunday to greet, listen to and bless countless people from all walks of life and
countries. When the Rebbe was asked how he could stand for so many long hours at his ripe old age, he responded that he never tired of counting “diamonds.”
I believe it says in Mesechta Shabbos that all yidden are royalty. So even if you believe that
there is “no need to overdo the friendly bit” and that saying ‘Good Shabbos’ is not everyone’s “cup of tea,” you should feel honored that the Ribono Shel Olam sends yidden to pass you on your walk home.
Each Jew we meet represents an opportunity sent to us by Hashem. And as my rabbi once told me, “Your face is not for you – it’s for others, because others see it.”
West Hartford, CT
Men Speaking With Women
After reading Rachel Weiss’s letter, I can see why our sages in their wisdom never allowed
women to become rabbis. She cites many halachic sources for why a man should not have a
conversation with a woman. However only a competent rav can interpret these sources as far
as practical halacha is concerned.
To illustrate the point, let me relate a true story from my past. Forty-six years ago, when I was 14, my mother and I spent an entire summer at a hotel in Bethlehem, New Hampshire upon
orders from my doctor. I was suffering from severe allergies and asthma. My father had to remain in the city to work and could not accompany us. It was a very memorable experience because I had the good fortune to spend an entire summer with none other than Harav Hagaon Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, who was with us at the hotel, together with many other gedolim, both chassidish and Litvish.
One morning my symptoms were very severe, and when I failed to appear for Shachris minyan, Rav Moshe came over to my mother and initiated a conversation with her inquiring as to my health. (Please bear in mind that my mother was a Modern Orthodox woman who did not put on a sheitel until much later in her life.) I am positive that Rav Moshe knew all the sources quoted by Rachel Weiss in her letter, as well as many more that she did not. Yet by his own conduct, we can plainly see that he did not agree with her interpretation, and permitted conversation with a woman. Indeed he made it a point to greet each and every Jew, frum or not, in the most kind and gentle manner possible.
I would like to add that as a result of that conversation, Rav Moshe came to me later that day and gave me a beracha that I should get well. His blessing was fulfilled and I was cured of my
chronic condition. The sooner we all abandon this “holier than thou” mentality and realize that the same Source that gave us the mitzvos of beyn adam lamakom also gave us the mitzvos of beyn adam lechavero – namely the Ribono Shel Olam Himself ? we will merit the coming of Moshiach.
I am finding the exchange in The Jewish Press Letters section about civility and courtesy very amusing. I didn’t realize that there actually are people willing to go on at great length in an
attempt to justify or explain the lack of social graces unfortunately found in some of our
communities. And then there are those who try to make the case that there are only a few who are guilty of such boorish behavior.
Really. Where were these people brought up? And whom do they think they’re kidding? Anyone who lives or has spent time in some of the neighborhoods in question knows all too well that incivility abounds.
Easier Said Than Done
To all of those letter-writers on sinat chinam with their earnest and oh so meticulous halachic
discourses: Chill and get a life. It’s not such a big deal. Remember Pirkei Avot and those mishnayot which talk about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and greeting everyone with a pleasant countenance. Or words to that effect.
It’s rather simple.
New York, NY
Haredi Chesed Unmatched
I daresay that the widespread impression that the haredi world is driven in varying degrees by a fundamental anti-Zionism also feeds the perception that they are very insular and unfriendly. Yet it is an objective fact, as a couple of other readers have pointed out, that virtually
all of the broad-based voluntary chesed organizations have been formed and are being
operated by haredim – particularly chassidim.
Is there anyone who has had to stay in a New York area hospital over Shabbos or Yom Tov who has not been exposed to a chassidic bikur cholim? What about the great numbers of gemachs? And the food programs for the needy? And the group homes for the impaired? And religious Zionists may hate to admit it, but Satmar leads the pack.
Pick your issues. But real sinat chinam is ignoring what people regularly give of themselves
Homowack Fire Brought Out The Best
I was zoche to spend Shabbos Nachamu this past weekend at the Homowack. I say that
without irony, as I was privileged to witness a remarkable scene.
We were roused early Shabbos morning to shouts of “fire” and the shrill of the alarm.
Volunteers went from room to room to evacuate all of the guests. People seemed to take it in stride as they were herded to the front lawn in their pajamas or robes. Although we had to wait a few hours to be admitted back into the building, I did not hear any complaints. This amazes me, considering that few people had time to relieve themselves before going outside.
The instructions of the fire marshals were pretty well followed, and I did not hear anyone
express resentment at being kept out for so long. Nor did I see anyone insisting that he or she be allowed back in to get anything unless it was life threatening.
As always, the Hatzolah volunteers were quickly on the scene, and did an amazing job of
ensuring public safety. They also coordinated the distribution of relief supplies, said to have come from Satmar. They were very complimentary of the manner in which everyone conducted themselves during the crisis. The local fire departments of Mamakating and other responders also did a fabulous job of fighting the fire and containing the damage to just the offices and kitchen.
What moved me most was the spontaneous organization of two minyanim in the outdoor
hockey rink, one each for Ashkenaz and Sefard. Many men did not have their taleisim, and four or five people would share the same siddur. As it happened, while the Torahs were not in the danger zone, we could not enter the building to retrieve them for this impromptu service. That meant that everyone came to hear the laining together after the “all clear” order was given.
We also heard the haftora together. Nachamu, nachamu ami…. Baruch Hashem, nobody was hurt. It could have been so much worse, as this was also visiting day weekend, plus a Young Israel weekend, and the singles weekend – certainly the largest crowd of the summer, if
not of the entire year.
This minor inconvenience was overcome and things were pretty much back on schedule by
lunchtime thanks to a very dedicated hotel management and staff. Regardless, they decided
to reduce everyone’s bill, without even being asked. Personally I do not feel I can keep it, so I
plan to donate the discounted amount to the local fire departments that responded, Catskills
Hatzolah and Satmar, b’li neder. Perhaps other guests feel the same way and will consider doing likewise.
I treasure the inspiration I received last weekend, and would gladly do it again if given the
Do Holocaust Organizations Ignore Jewish Concerns?
Treif Survivors’ Gathering
Re Malkah Kaplan’s letter to the editor (‘Something’s Not Kosher About Survivors’ Gathering,’ Aug. 8):
I felt the same way upon receiving the invitation to this event. I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Kaplan. It was so upsetting to learn the event isn’t kosher. How could that be? At first I
thought I hadn’t read it correctly because it just didn’t make sense.
My mother is a Holocaust survivor and I do not feel it would be respectful to her family and
loved ones, who perished in Poland under the Nazi murderers, to attend a treif dinner which is
supposed to commemorate this tragedy.
I appreciate Ms. Kaplan’s going a step further and making contact with Ben Meed, although it did not get her anywhere. I was devastated to read Meed’s excuse that kosher is “too expensive.” There indeed is something very unkosher about this. Once again, we are our own
I would like to thank Ms. Kaplan for the wonderful way she expressed her feelings (and
mine, too). It’s good to know she took a stand and let her beliefs be known, in honor of our beloved families and for all those who died al kiddush Hashem.
Hitler And Kashruth
I was not at all surprised by Malkah Kaplan’s letter last week about the failure of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors to provide a kosher menu for its upcoming event. It is a very sad fact that preservation of our exclusively Jewish traditions – which set us apart and made us particular targets of the Nazis – is not an important concern of a good number of those involved in trying to ensure that the horrors of the Holocaust never be forgotten.
I salute people like Ben Meed who devote their lives to this effort and I would never demean
the suffering of any of the victims of the Holocaust, or indeed, their sincerity. However, I do believe that any public gathering of Jews to mark history’s signal effort to destroy the Jewish
people must be characterized by what the world invariably associates with the Jew. As far as I’m concerned, this is one case where I would be concerned about what non-Jews say.
As for this matter of kashruth, we should never forget that Hitler’s very first decree as
Chancellor of Germany required the humane slaughter of animals, which, of course, was
defined in a way to exclude shechita.
Miami Beach, FL
Malkah Kaplan should not have been surprised by Mr. Meed’s callous disregard for kashruth-observing Jews. I have dealt with a number of Holocaust-related concerns over the years, and have found the organizations ostensibly representing Holocaust survivors and their heirs to be totally unconcerned with the religious aspects of Jewish life.
On top of that, they’re staffed by cold bureaucrats who, with some exceptions, generally care not a whit for the people on whose behalf they supposedly labor. Now, I don’t know Mr.
Meed, so I can’t accuse him of being cold and uncaring, but I’m very familiar with the secularist mindset that permeates survivor and Holocaust-related organizations.
Don’t these people realize that without Torah, there won?t be any Jewish survivors a hundred years from now?
New York, NY
No Marker For Mass Graves
My family and I lived in Poland. My parents, brothers, sisters and all my relatives were tortured and murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust; I myself barely survived a death camp.
My family and the millions of other Jews who were murdered by the Nazis do not even have a
Jewish marker on the mass graves where they perished. For the past five years I have been
writing to all the Holocaust institutions and Jewish organizations in the United States about
this. Unfortunately, I’ve never received a response from any of them.
Now I can understand better the Holocaust and the murder millions of Jews. Jewish and
Holocaust organizations in the U.S. have collected billions of dollars as a result of what happened in Europe, but won’t even place a Jewish monument on the mass graves.