Letters to the Editor 9-18-09

Young Israel more important than ever

To the Editor: I read with interest Jonathan Bell’s letter to the editor “Is Young Israel redundant?” (September 4, 2009). As a Jewish “activist” (so I’ve been called), I have always sought to bring together various groups and also wondered about the need for such a large array of Jewish organizations. In this instance, however, I believe he is totally misguided. The Orthodox Union and National Council of Young Israel have different philosophies. An example of this is the now infamous invitation to a meeting of Jewish organizations with President Obama. Obama invited the OU but not Young Israel, for the same reason he didn’t invite the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), but invited J Street. The Young Israel is independent, outspoken, and actively pro-Israel in the policies, programs and ideas that it brings to its synagogues and that resonate with its membership. The OU is much less outspoken. Perhaps its presence was designed to lend an aura of legitimacy to a meeting with leftist organizations such as J Street — designed to rubberstamp Obama’s policy that is the antithesis of what most, if not all, Orthodox synagogue members support. The Young Israel is even more important today in its mission of promoting Orthodox Jewry and in being a clear, decisive, and most importantly, unambiguous voice championing the Orthodox community’s strong support for Israel. The Young Israel and ZOA deserve our community’s continued support and thanks for articulating our concerns and being our voice. Rubin Margulies Manhattan Beach

Missed a hero

To the Editor: “In Search of Jewish Heroes” (September 11, 2009) is a wonderful article highlighting a lot of the great work of the nominees in the Jewish Community Heroes contest. I do want to point out one quote which is quite inconsistent with the majority of the article: “Following close behind Yanklowitz, another nominee was selected for being head counselor of Camp Stone.” I am curious as to why this sentence was put into the article? Unlike all the other people mentioned this person is left nameless and, indeed, the reason for their nomination is not even accurate. Her name happens to be Sharon Weiss-Greenberg and she was nominated because of her work in inspiring young Jewish people, many girls, to serve the Jewish community and find meaning in their lives. Over the years she has worked with thousands of young Jewish students and now is the Director of the Jewish Learning Initiative on Campus at Harvard University. You did not have to include her in the article but once you did why did she receive such unequal treatment compared to everyone else discussed? Rabbi Ben Greenberg Cambridge The author is the Co-Director of The Jewish Learning Initiative on Campus at Harvard University

Why didn’t Bush prevent 9/11 attack?

To the Editor: I am perplexed by your editorial, “Keep the change, Mr. President” (September 11, 2009). One argument I don’t understand is your statement that “(w)e have gone eight years without another attack on US soil,” which you attribute to “the tough minded approach taken by former President George W. Bush from the first hours after the Sept. 11 attacks until he left office.” If we accept the thesis that Bush’s post-9/11 tactics kept us safe from attacks post 9-11, that begs the question: why didn’t he implement these tactics pre-9/11, and thus prevent on his watch the biggest security failure in the history of our nation? The next statement that bewilders me is that President Obama has issued “unseemly, toadyish comments about Islam.” Bush repeatedly stated that Islam is a religion of peace, and indeed tried so hard to appease Muslims he earned condemnation from Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/4739/shoeless-george-bush-discusses-islam). If that is not “unseemly, toadyish,” I don’t know what is. Lastly, you conclude that, “eight years after Sept. 11, 2001, on President Obama’s watch, the world is even less safe than it was before.” George W. Bush was in office for 234 days before 9/11, and thus by your logic, “kept us safe for that long.” If, G-d willing, we do not sustain another terrorist attack, would you be willing to admit that President Obama has kept us safe longer than President Bush did? Somehow, I suspect you’ll rationalize a reason not to. Carl Maltzman North Woodmere Editor’s note: The writer chooses not to acknowledge that the editorial called the world under President Obama less safe than before specifically in reference to the President’s apparently failing effort to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state. More precious to G-d To the Editor: Listening to the news this week, I heard a story that deeply impressed me, especially at this time of year. A young lady living in Manhattan is a cancer survivor. She awakens early each morning to walk to the river. There in the serenity of nature and the peaceful silence of the still-sleeping city, she offers a short prayer to G-d in her own words thanking Him for letting her live. I began to wonder: which was more precious in the eyes of heaven? The simple, heartfelt “thank you” of this sincere young woman, said in the solitude of the morning at the riverbank, or the rushed, lightning-fast, half-understood, prayers, mechanically read without conviction at the services I attend each morning, accompanied by the disturbing chatter and background noices of uninterested congregants? Don’t we have anything to say “thank you” for? Nathan Finkiel Cedarhurst