Lakewood Follows Daas Torah
Avraham Sharaby’s op-ed last week about Lakewood left out one major point: daas Torah. The members of the Vaad would not do anything against daas Torah.
For example: Non-yeshivish people who have settled in Lakewood are trying to push for an eruv around all of Lakewood. Daas Torah does not want this to happen. So to counteract this proposal, the Vaad is increasing Lakewood’s population so that it will come under the halachic ruling of Reb Moshe that forbids an eruv in mega population centers.
Bentzion ben Yisroel
Don’t Justify Anti-Semitism In Lakewood
I am astonished that The Jewish Press published “Who’s At Fault In Lakewood?” last week and blurbed it on its front page.
Rise Up Ocean County is well-known for its anti-Semitic positions and activities. Implicitly justifying such anti-Semitism by charging Lakewood’s committeemen with corruption – without the slightest proof – is worse than what Rep. Omar did.
Here’s How to Resolve the Immigration Debate
I just came up with a way to settle the open-borders debate. I suggest that those who support unrestricted immigration vacation in Europe along with members of Congress like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Their itinerary should include countries that accepted poor asylum-seekers from the Middle East and Africa.
Since I wish no harm to the happy lot, I suggest they leave their children home. As a precaution, I would also suggest that airbag Schumer leave his yarmulke at home as the peace-loving invaders of Europe are not partial to yarmulkes or people who wear them. I advise females to protect their virtue and wear a chastity belt as it is open season over there on infidel women, regardless of age.
As a personal favor, I would appreciate if they asked the locals how much they enjoy the company of these asylum seekers and report back to me.
Far Rockaway, NY
Disgusting Parade Floats, Swastikas, and Democrats
Last week in Belgium, a UNESCO-recognized parade featured anti-Semitic floats showing bearded chassidic men with long noses in streimels and bekeshes sitting on top of money bags. The old canard again: Jews are rich, Jews run the world, and we are poor because of them.
Here in the U.S., we have students at a Newport Beach high school in California making a swastika out of red, plastic drinking cups and laughing about it.
Meanwhile, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi fears new younger Democrats like Ilhan Omar, who, no matter how many times she apologizes, cannot hide her hatred for Jews and Israel. Nor can Rashida Tlaib from Michigan. At the same time, the Black Democratic Caucus will not denounce Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam.
With anti-Semitism growing in the U.S. and Europe, Jews must reconsider their support for the Democratic Party, which cannot find it within itself to denounce people like Omar and Farrakhan. Learn from history, my friends.
Chaya Leah Starkman
What Should We Learn From the Omar Affair?
What is to be learned from the Democrat Party’s refusal to single out Rep. Ilhan Omar for condemnation? The cowardly congressional resolution that contained a laundry list of prejudices – never once mentioning Omar – fooled no one. Or perhaps it did fool some liberal Jews who want to believe Nancy Pelosi who stated, in essence, that Omar was “just a young lady, likely uninformed, but not mean-spirited.”
Yeah, well, let’s look at the record. This young lady has been the voice of Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah in all her prior statements regarding Israel and Jews in America. Her hateful distortions and vicious diatribes have defined her.
But she isn’t the problem, merely the symptom. The Democrat Party is the problem – and has been for too many years. This party no longer reflects the humanity, wisdom, and decency of people like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Pat Moynihan, and Henry Jackson.
The age-old symbiosis of the Democrat party and the Jewish people is null and void. At this point, it’s a farce utilized to keep taking much money from people who cannot break the spell. Jewish “leaders” like Chuck Schumer, who have interestingly remained silent during the Omar affair, only prove my thesis.
Too little, too late, and too meek from the likes of Jerrold Nadler, Adam Schiff and others proves that the primary loyalty of Jewish Democrats is to the party, to incumbency, to big donors.
The depressing news is that it will only get worse. The Democratic Party’s base now consists of young social warriors who seek “free stuff for all” and a great many believers in identity politics who attack all who dare disagree with them.
Omar Did Us a Favor
We should be grateful to Ilhan Omar for finally exposing the Democratic Party for what it is: a party tolerant of anti-Semitism.
The Democrat resolution condemning anti-Semitism was watered down to condemn all forms of hatred except, of course, the only hatred acceptable to the Democrats: hatred of regular white men. Sadly, most Republicans showed their lack of integrity by supporting the watered-down resolution; only 23 Republicans had the courage to call it for what it is.
But the question for Jewish Democrats is: Where do you go from here? Are you going to continue to support a party that questions the loyalty of Jews to America? Do you honestly believe it’s going to get better if you continue to support it?
G-d Forbid to Single Out Anti-Semitism
Why is it that Jewish concerns never seem to be allowed to stand on their own? They must always be universalized, or at least include the pain of others.
House Democrats recently gave us a master demonstration in how this is done. Rep. Ilhan Omar has repeatedly made vile anti-Semitic statements. But instead of condemning her anti-Semitism, the Democrats drafted a resolution condemning “Islamophobia” – notwithstanding the Muslim anti-Semitism behind Omar’s rants – racism, and all sorts of other things. All worthy of condemnation, but their inclusion utterly neutralized the Jewish element.
What could have been a critically important statement against anti-Semitism was gradually turned into boilerplate virtue-signaling mush. A stunning victory for the Muslim/black/progressive House bloc, but a truly dark omen for American Jewry!
Richard D. Wilkins
Are They Truly ‘Innocent’ Civilians?
Reader Avi Goldstein seems to have a problem with the targeted killing of “innocent Palestinian civilians” when fighting terrorism. Anyone who supports this policy, he argues, is adopting “the position of such groups as Hamas and ISIS.”
Not quite. Terrorists do not grow up in a vacuum. They generally get support from their community and family. We’ve seen news reports of mothers of suicide bombers praising their children and even saying they hope their other children follow the same path.
How is the culpability of such a parent – who has reared her children to hate and kill – different from that of a mobster, for example, who sends out his henchman to kill? Is the mobster not culpable because he himself did not commit the crime? Of course he bears responsibility.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s policy of sending stipends to families of terrorists is an excellent illustration of a culture that promotes murder. What civilized society pays the family of murderers money for their atrocities, and then has the diabolic audacity to praise them as if their inhumane acts were great accomplishments? And how wicked do his citizens have to be not to rise up in protest?
To put all non-combatants in the same category by labeling them “civilians” is absurd. I’m not aware of any Jewish organization or family that indoctrinates its young with a mentality of murder and mayhem. Although I don’t advocate killing truly innocent civilians, there is a huge difference between Israeli civilians who want nothing more than peace and some Palestinian “civilian” who is a direct cause of murder and mayhem but looks like someone’s grandmother.
An Enemy Need Not Be Evil
Avi Goldstein’s letter last week contains so many strange comparisons and arguments that one hardly knows where to begin. First, I’d like him to explain what the term “crime against humanity” is supposed to mean. Who is this humanity that a crime is being committed against?
Certainly Arab, Asian, and African societies have no problem fighting wars the way they have been fought for thousands of years – which involves inflicting suffering and death on civilian populations that support their armies. So a crime against “humanity” evidently only means a crime against the sensibilities of Western nations – i.e., a small part of humanity.
I’m not even sure most Westerners are really offended by the death of innocents, but at least I’d like to point out how inane the very term “crime against humanity” is.
Second, I’d like to know when intentionally killing innocents became immoral according to Mr. Goldstein. Is he suggesting that killing innocents was fine in 1945 when the British carpet-bombed Germany and America dropped the A-bomb on Japan, but suddenly became a horrific crime the following year?
Mr. Goldstein also wonders how I can support killing civilians while criticizing ISIS for doing the same. But I don’t criticize ISIS for doing the same. I actually don’t criticize ISIS at all. I oppose ISIS because I’m an American and a Jew and I want to live.
Whether ISIS kills only soldiers or civilians too is irrelevant to me. I have a question for Mr. Goldstein: Would he be incapable of opposing Hamas if it suddenly stopped killing innocents and only targeted IDF soldiers?