Yeshiva World News

It was only a matter of time before the Charedim could be blamed for the massive fire which has killed dozens of people, and destroyed thousands of acres of land. The finger pointing started with the following Op-Ed by Alex Fishman in Ynet:

Imagine that a missile barrage landed Thursday on the Carmel, in central Israel, or in the Galilee region, producing fires in five different sites. What state would this country be in then?

Thursday’s catastrophe is merely an example of the helplessness of the State of Israel’s emergency services. The weakest link within this establishment is the fire department.

On Thursday, Israel’s firefighting force collapsed in the face of a fire storm. It was indeed spreading over a very large area, but in only one region. What would have we done in the face of dozens and hundreds of missiles producing fire storms in various regions nationwide, including urban areas with high-rises? Who in Israel is prepared to cope with such scenario?

The defense establishment has been talking nonsense for years now about home front preparations for a missile attack, yet on Thursday we got the real answer: We don’t really have a national firefighting force.

What we have is some brave people risking their lives, but we also have people who are turning these brave souls into a laughing stock with improper equipment and standards only familiar in the Third World.

And it’s not just the equipment. The operations of Israel’s firefighting force are odd, to say the least. The firefighting commissioner wanted the help of all fire departments nationwide, but he is not their boss. Firefighters in Israel are under the jurisdiction of regional councils and municipalities. Had they not volunteered to help, all we could do would be to plead for divine help.

Yet this failure has an address. This person disappeared from the public eye Thursday, and this was no coincidence. He is intimately familiar with the firefighting force’s grim state. His name is Eli Yishai and he is the interior minister, who holds the ministerial responsibility for the failure. Had Yishai shown the same kind of care for Shas’ schools and its yeshiva students, Rabbi Ovadia would have fired him a while ago.

Some six months ago, Minister Yishai received the state comptroller’s draft report on the nation’s firefighting services. The report will be published within days. If Yishai remains in his post after this report’s publications, the notion of ministerial responsibility would lose its meaning.

By the way, in the wake of the new draft report, the government decided to pour tens of millions of shekels in order to improve the collapsing firefighting services. Yet where’s the money? And where’s the equipment? Ask the bureaucrats.

On Thursday, we saw a pathetic government attempt to cope with this unforgivable failure. We deserve security, but we don’t have it.

(Source: Ynet)

The following Op-Ed by Rafi Sela, an Israeli airport security consultant, was printed in todays NY Times:

The problem with the Transportation Security Administration is that it is both the regulator and the operator of airport security. In other words, it is required to regulate itself, which cannot work.

The decision to use body scanners is one result of this flawed approach. The fact is, such scanners do not provide more protection and they are invasive.

Israel has a completely different security system. The Israeli regulator (Israel Security Agency) analyzes the threats and vulnerabilities. It then provides guidance to the airports and border crossings on how best to utilize technologies. Therefore Israel is not scanning for liquids, and neither does it have to use body scanners or screen personnel and crew.

American airport security needs a similar strategy. A national security advisory board made of security experts (not only police, F.B.I. and military generals) should define the standards and systems based on an ongoing threat analysis, vulnerability studies and security planning. The majority of the passengers, cargo, workers and crew pose no threat at all, and banned items like water, perfume, toothpaste, nail files and other do not pose any problems if carried by regular passengers.

The current security system in which everyone is a suspect is bound to be ineffective and burdensome. No system can perform efficiently when one is looking for a needle in a haystack by checking each straw individually.

Rafi Sela, president of AR Challenges, is an international transportation security consultant based in Israel.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(Source: NY Times)

The Washington Post on Saturday published the following article written by Pollard’s father, Professor Morris Pollard, in which he calls for his son’s release:

Twenty-five years ago this month, Jonathan Pollard, a civilian naval intelligence analyst, was arrested for passing to Israel classified U.S. data concerning Iraq, Syria and other Arab states, including evidence of Saddam Hussein’s development of chemical weapons. Pollard was later sentenced to life in prison – the only person to receive such a punishment for spying for an American ally or neutral country. Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense at the time of Pollard’s arrest, cited this dubious distinction in a recent letter to President Obama urging the president to commute Pollard’s sentence to the 25 years served. Korb attributed Pollard’s aberrational sentence to the “almost visceral dislike of Israel” on the part of Caspar Weinberger, who was then defense secretary.

In December 1993, The Post editorialized on a campaign seeking presidential commutation of Pollard’s sentence. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was urging President Bill Clinton to commute Pollard’s sentence to the eight years then served. That call was supported by members of Congress and a range of prominent religious and political figures. Longtime NAACP director Benjamin Hooks, who had himself served as a judge, wrote to Clinton: “I have rarely encountered a case in which government arbitrariness was so clear cut and inexcusable.” While opposing Pollard’s release at the end of 1993, The Post opined that “certainly a case can be made that a prison term ending when [Pollard] becomes eligible for parole in 1997 would be plenty long enough.” Pollard has served more than double the 12 years The Post cited as sufficient punishment.

A little background on the case itself: The type of information Pollard transmitted was part of an intelligence flow the United States had previously shared with Israel but that was cut off after Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. Former deputy CIA director Bobby Inman has acknowledged that he was so disconcerted that American-supplied satellite photography had been used to carry out that operation that he ordered withheld all intelligence data covering areas more than 250 miles from Israel’s borders. Thus it was a criminal action to transmit to Israel photographs of the eastern sections of Syria and Iraq, including chemical weapons plants in eastern Iraq. This became the basis of Pollard’s life sentence.

This information is presented not in an effort to exonerate Pollard but to question the severity of his punishment. It is uncontestable that Pollard has been singled out among all Americans who spied for non-adversaries. Of the more than 20 Americans caught spying for friendly or neutral countries, before and after Pollard’s arrest, none received a sentence remotely close to life. Of the more than 60 people caught spying for U.S. adversaries over the past quarter-century, many of whom caused massive and demonstrable harm to the United States, only a handful received life terms.

CIA agent David Barnett, who sold the Soviets the names of 30 American agents, was sentenced to 18 years and paroled after 10. Michael Walker, a key figure in the Walker family Soviet spy ring, was sentenced to 25 years and released after serving 15. William Kampiles, a CIA officer who sold the Soviets the operating manual to the KH-11 satellite, America’s “eye in the sky,” received a 40-year sentence and was released after 18 years.

Abdul Kedar Helmy, an Egyptian-born American, transmitted classified materials to Egypt used in a joint weapons program with Iraq to vastly increase the range of ballistic missiles, including Scud missiles, which were later fired on U.S. troops during the Persian Gulf War. Helmy received a prison term of less than four years. John Walker Lindh, an American who joined the Taliban terrorists fighting the United States, received a 21-year sentence.

In more than two decades, no evidence has been put forth of damage caused to the United States as a result of Pollard’s actions. Nothing that could begin to justify a life sentence. Even Weinberger, the former defense secretary, acknowledged in a 2002 interview that, “The Pollard matter was comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than its actual importance.”

The message of those still opposed to Pollard’s release is that, apparently, we can wink at espionage on behalf of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and China; we can limit the punishments of those who expose American agents, compromise sophisticated U.S. electronic intelligence capabilities, advance the development of enemy weapons systems and even fight alongside enemy combatants – but that unauthorized transmittal of classified data about Arab states to warn Israel of existential threats is unforgivable. For that crime even 25 years in prison is not enough.

A petition for executive clemency for Jonathan Pollard sits on President Obama’s desk. Will he bring the injustice in this affair to a long overdue end or be a partner in its perpetuation?

Morris Pollard, a professor emeritus of biological sciences at Notre Dame University and director of its Lobund Institute, is Jonathan Pollard’s father. David Kirshenbaum is an attorney in Israel and New York.

To the community,

I feel compelled to voice disagreement with the theme of a recent opinion piece from my longtime friend Ezra Friedlander that was published in Hamodia as well as on the web.

Ezra, an effective advocate for our community in the public realm, as well as an advocate for various public officials within our community, posits that political ideology and religious values should play no part in our decisions about who to support for elected office. Instead, the price of a vote should be exactly that; whoever will deliver the most resources.

Ezra greatly underestimates the impact of government policies on our everyday lives. While legalization of toeva marriage may not have a direct impact on the families of our community, it has the potential to have a devastating effect on our mosdos. The bill passed by the NYS Assembly on this issue contains no religious exemption for any of our institutions. There is a real possibility that should it become law, an Orthodox Shul with a catering hall would have to choose between hosting such a ceremony or reception or being sued for violations of that “couple’s” civil rights.

As for what Ezra defines as a most significant issue, tuition, most of our local liberal elected officials stand firmly against government aid to our yeshivas or even against tuition tax credits to help our families. The answer to the tuition crisis lies not in the small amounts of earmark dollars offered to us, but in wholesale policy changes toward non public schools and students. These policy changes are firmly opposed by many of the legislators that are routinely elected locally and ally themselves with the teachers’ unions at our expense.

Ezra says that we are a very small minority in the political world and we should therefore be content with the gifts politicians bestow upon us. In truth, the frum community could and should carry far more electoral weight that we do currently. Borough Park is not unified into one state Senate district to elect a frum representative but is instead carved up into five senate districts, Flatbush is diced into several separate Senate, Assembly, and Council districts. If we look at ourselves as insignificant politically, it is only because we don’t
show up on election day to flex our political muscle.

As for the core issue of mixing religion and politics Ezra is correct that no single issue alone should determine a vote. However, religious beliefs have long been a part of the fabric of American politics. Why is it acceptable for Evangelical or Catholic voters to hold fast to their values in the public sphere while we do not? Furthermore, non-Torahdik Jewish groups frequently quote their Jewish values as justification for liberal policies. Are we going to relinquish the public face of Judaism to them?

Ezra Friedlander raises important issues for debate within the community but unfortunately limits politics to a purely transactional business. We elect politicians not just to give us funding but to act as our representatives. We shouldn’t hide our values to suit them.

Michael Fragin

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

This past weekend saw two mammoth Jewish gatherings take place. The first was the General Assembly for the Jewish Federations of North America, and the other was the International Convention of Chabad Emissaries. Whilst both are awe inspiring in their grandeur and both are focused on Jewish continuity, the Chabad movement continues to rapidly grow at a spanking pace and the Federations appear to be largely stagnant.

The JFNA is a well oiled machine with an established infrastructure, smooth mechanisms and operational hierarchy. By contrast, although there are a number of supporting bodies, from an organizational perspective, Chabad in some ways appears as a haphazard band of ragtag rabbis independently operating without any authoritative organizational body, with no central CEO or board of directors and no endowment, trust fund or investment portfolio.

As opposed to the Federations, there are few, if any, studies, polls, or annual reports conducted within the Chabad movement, and none are able to quantify the precise number of its members. One would be hard pressed to find a flow chart or academic assessment of Chabad’s growth, although agreement is unanimous: Chabad is growing rapidly.

Chabad institutions have attracted some of the most sophisticated and advanced business and industry leaders as donors. At the concluding banquet of the conference this week the guests included the likes of Michael Steinhardt, Guma Aguiar, Lev Leviev, Eduardo Elsztain, Ronald Lauder and many others. Gennady Bogolubov delivered the keynote speech.

At first glance one may wonder why the informality doesn’t drive away savvy investors that are used to detailed reports, due diligence and rigorous accountability. The answer is simple; when one gives money to Chabad, one can rest assured that they will see the fruits of their contribution. Donating to Chabad embodies what has become known as true venture philanthropy or entrepreneurial idealism.

Of course any shrewd investor will appreciate the value of a deal, whatever package it is presented in, especially in today’s fast paced world where giants of industry demand immediate ROI.  Chabad will deliver exactly that: instant tangible results. Donations are not swallowed up by antiquated mechanical financial infrastructures; there is no red tape, application processes, panels or mazes of bureaucracy. The Chabad institutions are focused on the immediacy of the task at hand, and are innately adverse to anything that will slow it down.

Additionally, donors can always rest assured that a donation to a Chabad establishment will support a Jewish cause. The Federations, by contrast, earmark large contributions for general humanitarian causes in the spirit of ‘Tikkun Olam,’ but with so many modern day Jewish challenges to contend with, many donors are making the statement that our own should come first.

Much of the donor interest in Chabad can be further crystallized by making a comparison to the Tea Party movement. The movement’s primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government,  reducing wasteful spending, reducing the national debt and  adherence to an original interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Chabad’s primary concerns include cutting back the top-down, parochial mode of Jewish practice, maximizing the use of every philanthropic dollar, (there are no earmarks or pork barrel spending) lifting the pride and confidence of the Jewish people, and adherence to an original interpretation of Jewish law.

Chabad is a purist, entrepreneurial, visionary and versatile, completely action-oriented and results-driven organization. If you are an industrious venture philanthropist looking for immediate high returns, there is no better investment.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

The following is an Op-Ed written by Menachem Gsheid for Ynet:

For ages, it has been clear to us, the haredim, that we are not really wanted in the army en masse. They certainly don’t want to see us rising to senior positions. Our lifestyle is different and is incommensurate with the IDF atmosphere, slang, and conduct. We’re not really “one of the guys.” This is also the reason why we have no chance of integrating into the army as individuals sent to the various units.

Let there be no misunderstandings: In my view and in the view of my friends, anyone who does not study the Torah throughout the day must contribute to society, whether through military service or through national service at hospitals, non-profit groups or any other appropriate framework that benefits the public.

Personally, after I completed my studies and started to work, and after I did not join the army (because I was overweight,) I decided to contribute one day a week for the benefit of society. Ever since then, every Tuesday morning I report to the office of Israel Prize laureate Dr. Rabbi Elimelech Firer and accompany him from early morning hours to late in the evening.

And so, for more than a decade now, I feel that I contribute to society, while also contributing to myself. Thousands of my friends are doing it at other non-profit organizations without being officially recognized.

I will never forget the experience of going through my IDF tests as an adolescent. The slang that was used along with the cursing was more than I heard since the day I was born to that day. Indeed, those who boldly stand up and speak out bluntly are right: The haredim aren’t really fit for military service.

I have no doubt that fans of cheap populism will speak out now and slam these words, which many good people know are true. Meanwhile, some politicians will continue to utter hateful words, because this hatred motivates their actions and they won’t let the facts confuse them.

They shall continue to stick to their theories, just like they will continue to demand that the haredim head out to work, without checking how many are already working and how many want to work but can’t, because they did not serve in the IDF or because their studies are not recognized as an academic degree.

Indeed, I will not be surprised to see these politicians slamming those who utter the truth I uttered above. Too many people among our decision-makers are concerned by this truth, and they will aim to subject it to their customary “targeted assassination” campaign.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(Source: Ynet)

In 1773, colonists living in the British Empire led an uprising and revolt against the British Government. They resisted the heavy taxation the British Government has charged in order to raise revenue. The colonists objected the taxation with protests and boycotts claiming that this act is against the British Constitution. After much pressure, the Parliament eliminated much of the taxes while leaving the tax on tea intact. Tea was a popular commodity at that time and many companies sought the domination of selling this product. The government, however, managed the market and created a government-created monopoly. Even after the new legislation reversing the tax was signed into law, the colonists saw the government as a threat to their liberty. They were concerned about the extent of the parliament’s authority and wished to limit their scope. They feared that too much government intervention might lead to financial ruin. The protestors campaigned to raise awareness and got the government to raise the white flag. After a standoff between the people and the government of the colony of Massachusetts, people boarded three ships of tea that the government withheld and threw all of the cartons overboard. After the crises escalated, it went on to become what is now known as the War of Independence. The American Revolution, how it is often called, led to the US Declaration of Independence which rejected the monarchy and initiated a new thing called democracy. They drafted the laws of democracy in the US Constitution that was to detail the government’s power and extent of their authority. The philosophy of democracy was that the government is to interact when it is necessary and for the good of the people. Under democracy, liberty was to reign, where one can earn and live liberally without government interference. Many flaws and imperfections created many amendments to the constitution that clarified the role of government and the rules of democracy. Under democracy every person was to be equal and have a voice in the legislative process; representatives from every state would vote for laws and legislations on behalf of their people.
 
The 20th century was one of turmoil. After a world war has erupted, involving many countries and superpowers, dissolving many empires, the world went into a terrible financial strain. Starting in 1929, a massive stock market crash triggered a worldwide economic downturn. The recession triggered many countries to follow suit and the world’s financial state deteriorated immensely leading the world into, what is now known as, the Great Depression. The massive depression devastated many countries as rich and poor alike lost all of their finances. The decline continued to wipe out many markets in the world while driving up unemployment. Prices dropped as deflation raged and personal income plunged. President Hoover felt that more government intervention would stop the bleed, but nothing helped to reverse the downturn. An economist with the name of John Keynes challenged the economic theory of that time and claimed that government spending would boost the economy. President Roosevelt, as well as many other western leaders, followed his advice to induce government spending hoping that it will stimulate the economy. A series of economic measures, called the New Deal, passed through Congress that was to stimulate the economy and avert downturns of such magnitude in the future. Many parts of these legislations were challenged as unconstitutional and much of it was overturned. Scholars and pundits debated the effect of these programs, many claiming it had a counter effect on the economy. After World War II the economy jumpstarted again and most of the programs stayed intact. The Keynesian theory introduced a new economic ideology where government spending would be promoted. This created social liberalism to be implemented throughout many capitalist countries. In the 1960’s, social liberalism was heavily promoted under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson which was to reduce unemployment and further stimulate the economy. They initiated the ‘Great Society’, termed as ‘the war on poverty’, which promoted intense government spending. Indeed, the economy prospered and Presidents Nixon and Ford continued expanding the role of government and spending with this notion.

The economy went all too well after all of these spending programs were initiated, in addition to much spending for the Vietnam War. The Keynesian theory proved to be right as the economy flourished. However, the excitement was short lived. With GDP breaking new grounds and historic low unemployment rates, it eventually slowed, driving inflation to record high numbers of 15%. Stopping many of the spending programs didn’t stop the horrendous inflation and pessimism caused the dollar to plunge. The continued oil crises caused the stagflation to become even worse and Keynesian economics became largely unpopular. Ronald Reagan was elected amid fear of government invasion and he reinstated neoliberalism dubbed as ‘Reaganomics’. That overturned much of the ‘Great Society’ and proposed free enterprise while reducing government regulation and taxes. An induced recession caused inflation to drop and tax cuts stimulated economic growth. An economic advisor to President Reagan, Milton Friedman, denounced Keynesian policies and instituted a monetary policy promoting less regulation and a libertarian government. However, much of the prior spending programs stayed intact as they became popular among the voters and fatal for a politician to overturn. After Reagan left the White House, spending went back to normal. Creating and increasing programs became a turf for politicians as it got them more votes. While none of his predecessors were radical spenders, their moderate spending policies continued placing a burden on the national deficit. People were fed up as the economy headed for another major downturn and wanted change. Two wars added to the country’s debt and frustration grew. People voted for change to punish the Republicans for earmark waste and pork-barrel spending.

Barack Obama claimed victory after defeating long-time Senator John McCain in a landslide. However, he interpreted the people’s discontent with the government as too little intervention. He immediately began increasing spending to record levels thereby creating more bureaucracy and government control. Passing landmark legislation tanked his polls as even many Democrats voted against his proposals. Discontent grew and frustration mounted, yet he ignored the signs. Heated town halls were ignored and polls were dismissed like 6 year olds coloring with crayons as Obama perceived the image of being out of touch and arrogant. After losing key races largely seen as a referendum on the radical agenda, the Democratic majority continued stuffing legislation down people’s throats. Passing bills before reading them only escalated voters dissatisfaction and groups started to form in opposition. Dismissing them as radicals and just a minority, the government sought to demonize those worried and concerned. Building anxiety made those groups become the voice for troubled Americans, which were the majority. Yet, their voices were unheard and the radical leftist agenda continued. The protesting group adapted the name of their faction ‘Tea Party’ being an acronym of ‘Taxed Enough Already’ and a reference to the Boston Tea Party. They supported candidates who vowed reducing wasteful spending, lowering the national debt and deficit, lowering taxes and cutting back on the size of the government.

The Tea Party has become largely controversial. Ignored by the mainstream media in the beginning and demonized later on, they professed an image of radicals and racists; they energized the conservative base, challenged the establishment thereby ousting incumbents and humiliating popular politicians. While many believed in the movement, their approval ratings decreased as many distanced themselves from the group. Political analysts and pundits expressed outrage as the group ousted candidates deemed viable and replaced them with far-reaching nominees.  Indeed, many blame some of yesterday’s losses, in races originally deemed as safe Republican, on the Tea Party, most notably the seat of Majority Leader Harry Reid. Some even suggest that they caused the Democrats to retain control in the Senate. 

However, it was the Tea Party that created the first American Revolution and it is the Tea Party that created the second. They were the ones that created the enthusiasm and this upheaval in the first place. Many individuals that never dreamed of entering politics did so now, all over the nation, creating tight races in many local districts that were uncontested for years. The political pundits all called off the GOP after their substantial losses in 2006 and 2008, claiming that it may take them decades to recover. Hardly anyone predicted such a margin of victory for the Republicans in 2008. While many pundits have previously predicted the magnitude of this uprising, some claiming it to be like 1994, others pointing to 1938, I believe it is the worst in American history. Never has a dead man revived so fast and so strong. Two years ago a generic poll had the Republicans down 25 percent and now, a short two years later, they are leading with 15%. After losing over 50 seats in the last two election cycles gaining close to 70 seats is remarkable –truly a revolution. The misconception that Tea Partiers are extremists is wrong. They are independents that were called Revolutionaries three centuries ago and often referred to as Reagan Democrats. As Marco Rubio stated in his victory speech last night, it isn’t the GOP they voted for. It was the record spending and outrageous government they voted against. The Republican Party must begin sticking to their principles and get the message or else they’ll lose. They shouldn’t be Tax and Spend Lite, they should be pro-business and do as Chris Christie said: Put up or shut up!

Dave Hirsch is an orthodox Jewish political analyst and columnist. His opinions were featured in numerous newspapers and publications. He can be reached at davehrsch@gmail.com. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Yeshiva World News.

I predict a Republican victory of tsunami proportions on November 2nd.

For the last six months in various public forums, I have said that Republicans will take both the House and Senate. Most political observers, citing statistics from various states, continue to say that, while it appears certain that the House will go Republican, there are too few Senate seats in play for a Republican takeover. Further, many pundits state that Democrats will preserve their control of the Senate because the Republican Party has undermined itself by fielding whacko and semi-whacko candidates from the “tea party” wing or otherwise offering inferior candidates, e.g., Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Linda McMahon in Connecticut and Carly Fiorina in California.

Without being able to cite statistics that support my view, I nevertheless predict the Republicans will also take the Senate. Imagine what the Republicans could have done if they had really good and visionary leadership. But they don’t. Indeed, in New York State, the Republican Party is seen as a bad joke, totally leaderless and without candidates who can win, despite new corruption allegations involving the Democratic Party in Albany. Take, for example, gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino. He has disgraced the Republicans with his antics and ridiculous statements and is trailing by double digits in the polls. The Republican candidates running for the two Senate seats now held by Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand have had little impact and are given no chance of winning. Jay Townsend, who is running against Chuck Schumer, is totally unknown and unfunded, and running against a Senator who is known everywhere and is held in high regard. Joe DioGuardi, who is running against the recently-appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, is unable to engender major support at a time when incumbents appear to be bearing bulls-eye targets on their backs.

New York State notwithstanding, I predict that mounting anger around the country will carry Republicans to victory in both Houses of Congress.

Why would intelligent voters leave the Democratic Party that they endorsed so heavily two years ago in the 2008 presidential election? The reason is obvious – deep, deep disappointment in the record of President Obama. The President has wasted many opportunities in his term to date, and has lost by his own admission almost every battle for the hearts and minds of the electorate in pushing through Congress monumental legislation that he signed into law.

Why did the President and Congress insist on reinventing the wheel when it came to health care coverage? Weren’t there prototypes in Europe and elsewhere developed and used for more than 50 years with proven track records that could have been used as models? Did the President and Congress have to terrify people who had insurance coverage in order to provide coverage for the additional 32 million Americans covered under the new law? Couldn’t those without insurance have been attached in some way to the Medicaid rolls? Why did the President and Congress sell out to the prescription drug companies and strip Medicare of the right to negotiate volume discount purchases that could have saved U.S. taxpayers more than a trillion dollars over ten years? What rankles most for many, including me, is why have there been so few criminal prosecutions of those who are responsible for having brought the U.S. economy to its knees, destroyed the nation’s prosperity and caused millions of Americans to lose their homes, their jobs and a substantial portion of their retirement savings? Why when looking at Obama’s cabinet and advisers, do we see the faces of those who many hold responsible for the economic debacle?

It is for these reasons, I believe, the coming November tsunami will roll across America and give the Republicans, who are undeserving of the honor, control of both Houses. The American public is enraged and wants to punish those who have been in charge of the country. They know those who will replace incumbents may be as bad or worse, but they also believe they can’t do any greater damage. They are willing to put up with them until the next election to teach our elected representatives a monumental lesson — that public service is an honorable profession and must be performed competently and honestly.

We are an optimistic, generous people, who believe in fairness and justice. And we will be heard.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(Source: RealClearPolitics.com)

Anyone notice how recent press releases are disseminated to the public during election season, with endorsements on behalf of “Jewish Leaders?” What exactly is a “Jewish leader” and how does one apply for the job?

In my opinion, a Jewish leader is a leader of a particular group of people, such as an elected official or a prominent Rov, Rebbe, Rosh Yeshiva, or even a person directly responsible for running a large Jewish institution. But lately, the definition of leader is no longer the above, but rather self-proclaimed “Jewish leaders,” who either belong to no particular group, or do belong to a group, but won’t place that organizations name behind their personal name. The reason they won’t use their organizations name is because 1) not-for-profit organizations are not legally allowed to endorse a political candidate and 2) in many cases their organizations doesn’t agree with who they are endorsing.

Just reading through the recent press releases published here on YWN, have my eyes popping out of my head. There are names of very fine people. People who devote their time to doing community work, helping raise funds for Tzedakah, and of course having their names on the boards of organizations. But who elected THEM to representing US? Did someone wake up one day and tell them “you are now a Jewish leader, go issue press releases, hold fundraisers for political candidates, and most importantly, plaster your name all over it”? Were there community-wide elections to pick these self-proclaimed “Jewish leaders” to make statements and endorsements on our behalf?

A recent statement from some “Jewish leaders” endorsed a particular candidate for Congress. The endorsement was signed by a dozen individuals.

I would like to know if any of these these “Jewish leaders” spoke to a leading Posek, prior to making their fundraiser and issuing their statement to the masses. Have all those people gone to a Gadol, and placed all candidates names in front of him, and what their policies are, and asked him whom the community should endorse?If so, then they should add that information in their press releases.

I am not questioning if this candidate does or does not deserve our votes. I am just simply questioning who appointed these people to issue a public statement on behalf of the Jewish Community headlined “Jewish Community Leaders….Endorse….”?

In a more recent case, just today I saw in the paper an ad by Eric Schneiderman for New York Attorney General. The ad says: “Endorsed by Jewish Community Leaders, Rabbis, Rosh Yeshivas, Kehillos, Mosdos, Education Centers, Jewish Media and Organizations. Really? Which ones? I know that Sharpton has endorsed Schneiderman. I haven’t seen a single Rov do so but I guess if the ad says so it MUST be true.

I think it’s pretty obvious that the media is closely following all these visits by political candidates to the frum community. These endorsements by “Jewish leaders” will inevitably backfire on OUR community. In fact, the recent press obsession over Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino visiting the community proves that in many cases all these  “Jewish leaders” do is create a chilul hashem.

It’s time for these “Jewish leaders” to put up or keep quiet. Either tell us why you are “Jewish leaders” or issue a press release, “A bunch of random Jews endorse…”

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

(Chaim Shapiro – YWN)

[By Rabbi Moshe Lehrfield, Esq.]

Jewish education, a priority for many Jewish families, is at risk in the upcoming November election. For nearly a decade, children from poor families who attend parochial schools, including Jewish schools, have benefited from partial scholarship scholarships provided by the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship. These vouchers represent about $2 million of critical funding for many Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jewish schools throughout the State thereby offsetting the immense fundraising pressures within our community. The program is under siege by some of the candidates for Governor, Attorney General and Chief Financial Officer who have made comments or taken action that ranges from ideological hysterics to nuanced opposition. These candidates have the mistaken belief that support for this scholarship is an attack on public education.

The important role this scholarship program plays in the Jewish community is part of a much larger picture. The 29,000 students who receive these scholarships are predominantly black or Hispanic students from single-parent homes who attend 1,033 parochial schools. It is not surprising that this program enjoys an increasing amount of bipartisan support. When the scholarship was created in 2001, it had the support of only one Democrat. But last spring, when the Legislature approved a significant expansion of the scholarship, it had the support of nearly half the Democrats, a majority of the Black Caucus, and all but one member of the Hispanic Caucus.

Most families who send their children to Jewish schools do so at considerable financial sacrifice. They pay substantial amounts of tuition, which is not tax-deductible, to insure a Jewish education for their children. They also pay taxes to support public schools, for which they receive no benefit. In fact, the public schools benefit because they do not incur the costs to educate these children. Most of these families are not eligible for scholarships. However, the mission of Jewish schools demands that they accept students from homes that cannot afford to pay even small amounts of tuition and the difference is borne by the Jewish community at large, which is notable for its generosity and recognition of Jewish education as a sacred priority. The scholarship is available only to poor families.

Despite the program’s broad political support and its critical role in the Jewish community, the upcoming election in November could threaten it very existence. Dan Gelber, Alex Sink and Lorainne Ausley are all, to varying degrees, still clinging to an outmoded belief that to be a Democrat means to be opposed to all “vouchers.” Because all are running for statewide office, this obsolete manner of approaching public policy is cause for grave concern in our community.

Of them all, Gelber, who is running for Attorney General, remains the most faithful in his almost hysterical opposition. Despite increasing support among his Democratic colleagues, Gelber has voted against every measure of legislation that has either expanded this program or held it more accountable. A close ally of the teacher’s union, he is often quoted in the media as an aggressive opponent of the program. He has claimed that the program is “pathetic” and unconstitutional. As Attorney General, he would have the power to try to stop the program the day he starts the job. His opponent, Pam Bondi is a strong supporter of this program.

Ausley, who is running for state CFO, voted against the formation of the program in 2001 and against its expansion in 2008. She has called this program “a continuous slam at the public school system” that “drain(s) money from the public school system.” Her opponent, Jeff Atwater, has been one of the program’s strongest supporters in the legislature.

Finally, we have the more nuanced opposition of Alex Sink, the Democratic candidate for governor. In an education plan that spans 12,500 words, she mentioned not a single word about school choice. This is not an oversight but an intentional omission as she recently said, “I would not advocate for further expansion of those existing (scholarship programs) until we are assured that we are adequately funding public education.”

Sink claims she wants a level playing field, but that field has been so tilted toward traditional public schools that any claim to the contrary is laughable. But it’s also frightening. As governor, Sink would have considerable power to harm this program. In contrast, Rick Scott has pledged to support and expand this program, even if he is successful in phasing out the corporate income tax that mostly sustains it.

Sink, Gelber and Ausley represent a serious threat to the continued access to parochial education for all families in our community. Their opposition is inconsistent with the position of many Democrats, including the Black and Hispanic caucuses. It’s time they recognize what makes an education truly public today.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(Rabbi Lehrfield is the Vice President of Toras Emes Academy of Miami and practices law in the Miami area.)

Now, 10 years after the outbreak of the intifada, I look back at that period in time and still find it difficult to believe. That was when I and my fellow ZAKA volunteers would go to bed, fully dressed, with our shoes on and our emergency medical kits by our side. And, of course, that was when we hardly slept. 

We were constantly listening to our beepers, waiting for the next call. We would run from suicide bombings to bus attacks, from shooting incidents to road accidents. This was the atmosphere that defined those times and fixed the daily agenda. That was our life. 

I understood that Israel is in such trouble and that, in this situation, anyone who wants to help and contribute should do so. I understood that if we, as men of faith, have the strength to deal with such difficult scenes, then this is our place. At the scene of terror attacks, doing work that has to be done, work that can only be done by those who are fortified by their faith.

On several occasions, we would return home after working at a scene where entire families were wiped out and we would see that the sun still shines on high and people still go about their daily business. We would rely on black humor, sometimes even bordering on cynicism, to get us through those dark times. We relied on our families to help us return to some degree of normality.

We would also find ourselves dealing with difficult questions related to our faith. People would confront us and ask: “Why did it happen to this family? What did they do?” And I would reply: “You can ask me, but I have no answers.”

And then there were times when we really did break down. I can still remember the suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizza restaurant in the heart of Jerusalem in August 2001. We worked feverishly, trying to save those who were still alive and only then did we deal with the horrific carnage of death. With painstaking care, we cleared the scene, ensuring that every body part was collected, allowing a proper Jewish burial for all the victims.

It was then – and only then – that the full horror washed over me and my fellow ZAKA volunteers. We looked around and realized that we were literally standing in pools of blood, some 3-4 centimeters high. Here I was, in the centre of Jerusalem, the beating heart of the State of Israel, at the iconic junction of King George and Jaffa Road, and I was standing in Jewish blood. Slowly, carefully, we collected the blood into four large barrels for burial with the fifteen victims, seven of whom were children. That image, of four barrels of Jewish blood in the centre of Jerusalem, will never leave me.

With time came bitter experience. We were about 600 volunteers in ZAKA at that time and we quickly began to organize ourselves into an ever more professional operation. In the early days of the intifada, it took us 12-14 hours to complete our work at the site of a suicide bombing. We managed to get that down to three hours. We also learned forensics and identification techniques during those painful years – even the smallest parts can be the ones that result in a positive identification and therefore a burial.

At the time, I thought we were dealing with kavod hamet – honoring the dead. By the end, I realized that we were actually honoring the living, because a family whose loved one cannot receive a full Jewish burial has no rest. It is for them that we toiled.

(Yehuda Meshi-Zahav – YWN)

The Jewish people are particularly sensitive to the long struggle for religious freedom and the ability for people of all faiths to celebrate their rich heritage.

While our Constitution and many laws extend these critical principles to the workplace, unfortunately, it is clear that the more outwardly religious among us are more likely to suffer discrimination, even today in America. This is especially true of discrimination in its more subtle forms: when employers and public entities fail to reasonably accommodate religious practices, such as wearing certain types of clothes, not working during the Sabbath, and dietary restrictions.

Often private employers and government entities neglect to recognize that failing to reasonably accommodate the religious is a form of illegal discrimination. “Hide your faith or don’t come to work” is not an acceptable policy.

As Attorney General, I will be the chief protector of civil rights in New York, emphasizing a special obligation to fight discrimination wherever and whenever it exists, and in whatever form. And New York State’s increasingly large population of the devout religious adherents needs more protection and aggressive law enforcement.

Accordingly, I have called for a special Religious Rights Unit to be established in the Civil Rights Bureau of the Attorney General’s office. The unit will be trained to partner with religious leaders and community leaders to identify and address religious civil rights issues throughout the state. Hopefully, many disputes can be settled through education and mediation efforts. Where necessary the unit will initiate enforcement actions.

The revival and expansion of religion and religious piety among many groups in New York State require an expansion of efforts to handle discrimination.

When I’m Attorney General, the religious will never have to hide their faith to be treated equally.

(Eric Schneiderman – YWN)

By Rav Aryeh Z. Ginzberg
Chofetz Chaim Torah Center

My favorite yom tov story is the one about Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, z’l, on the night of Yom Kippur.

The story goes as follows: It was the holy night of Yom Kippur and all the Jews in the town of Berditchev gathered together at the “old shul” to join in the wonderful experience of hearing their beloved Rebbe lead the davening. Each year the Rebbe’s heart-rendering rendition of the ancient niggun of Kol Nidrei is not to be missed. Each year the Rebbe steps up to the amud to begin the Yom Kippur tefillah at the earliest moment possible.

That year instead of going to take his place at the amud, he stood by his seat, head bowed, eyes shut tight, and deep in thought. It began to get dark and still Reb Levi Yitzchak didn’t move. As people moved close to him, they couldn’t help but notice a disturbed and troubled look on his face and everyone began to worry; what terrible fate awaited Klal Yisrael this year that has the Rebbe so troubled.

Finally, after what seemed like an eternity, Reb Levi Yitzchak opened up his eyes and let out a huge smile, and with a spirit of joy he said “now we can begin to daven.” With that he strode to the amud and began the age old niggun of Kol Nidrei. The Chassidim could not understand this strange behavior of their beloved Rebbe but had to wait until after yom tov for an explanation. He finally explained to them what caused his odd behavior. “In Shamayim, I saw a great kitrug (indictment) against Klal Yisrael and I tried everything in my power to stop it, but I was unable to.” “Whatever I tried was not working, until a simple woman quietly said a little tefillah and it was removed and then we could daven.”

He continued, I’ll tell you the special tefillah that she said that created so much turmoil in Shamayim; she said “Hakadosh Baruch Hu only you, Hashem, know that for ten years I did not have children and came every year to Kol Nidrei to daven for a child. Finally last year I had a son and therefore this year I am unable to join together with you in shul. However, as I sit and hold my dear son in my arms, I want to say to you that just as my heart is filled with so much pride and nachas from my young child, I wish for you that your heart be so filled as well, with such pride for your children.”

This Rav Levi Yitzchak said to his followers was that special tefillah from this woman which broke the kitrug in Shamayim and allowed our tefillos to rise up to Hashem.

I often think about this story before the yamim noraim. Today’s world is filled with tzaros and with difficulties and painful situations that we face on so many fronts and to so many in our community. We as a community are so hard pressed to carry the burden of shidduchim, parnasah, kids at risk, etc. all on our shoulders. It seems from the Rebbe of Berditchev, that the only way to remove the kitrug from us is to make Hashem indeed proud of his children.

While we have so much to be proud of, we have much to be concerned about as well. Despite today’s economic hardships, parents still struggle and send their children to yeshivos. Yet, over 40 percent of public school children in our community come from Yiddishe homes (from a recent survey of local schools). And unfortunately several yeshivos and Bais Yaakovs were forced to close this year due to lack of funds.

Shuls are expanding and our communities are growing; but so are divisions in our midst. From the extreme right, we recently witnessed a video being sent, via internet, throughout the Jewish world of young Chassidic boys celebrating at a wedding of a friend in Yerushalayim fervently dancing to the music wrapped in a Palestinian flag; and to the left when previously aligned Orthodox shuls have allowed woman to lead the services in a variety of roles breaking with our treasured mesorah. And while our nights are Baruch Hashem filled with attending multi chasunahs in one night; during the day our battei dinim cannot keep up with the demand for gittin, many from young families with small children.

And so while this writer cannot possibly claim to know what’s doing in Shamayim at any point, unlike the Rebbe from Berditchev; I would like to share three brief personal stories that happened in the last few weeks in our wonderful community, that without doubt, will fill Hakadosh Baruch Hu with great pride for his children; and will bless all of them with a year of berachos and refuos.

Story number one is about two wonderful and special people who happen to be next door neighbors. Around five years ago after witnessing two terrible disputes in the Five Towns community, one between ex-partners in a business dispute, and the other between two brothers over an inheritance, and observing the terrible damage inflicted on both sides with law suits and mesirah to the IRS, we began a service to the community by offering the opportunity to come to a beis din of peshara (compromise) led by community rabbanim to resolve quickly and painlessly family and neighborly disputes. Baruch Hashem, we have successfully resolved more than 20 such cases and only failed to do so once.

A few weeks ago, two neighbors called me to resolve their most unusual dispute. A dispute that without doubt gave much nachas ruach and pride to the Borei Olam.

The issue began a few weeks earlier when a heavy rainstorm knocked down an old tree in Reuvein’s backyard. The next day he hired a company to come and cut the large and heavy branches and to remove them. After the company completed their work and was paid and left, Reuvein noticed that inadvertently the workers broke the large bay window in Shimon’s house next door. When Shimon returned home later that evening, Reuvain went over to apologize and said that he will pay for the repair. Shimon said, definitely not; it was not your fault and I will take care of it. Reuvain insisted on paying and Shimon continued to refuse to accept. The next day Reuvain called me to take Shimon to a din Torah for not letting him pay for the damage.

As these two wonderful and special Yidden sat in front of me, each holding onto their opinion, I kept on thinking to myself, how true are the words of the pasuk that is inscribed on the parchment in Hashem’s tefillin. “Mi k’amcha Yisrael, goy echad ba’aretz”—Who is like you Klal Yisrael, A Singular Nation in the Land.”

I suggested that they wait until the next day for a decision. Later that night, I received a call from a wonderful young woman from Woodmere with the following request. There is an elderly woman, who lives all alone across the street and whose house has about 10 steps leading to the front door. This young special woman watches her elderly neighbor struggle climbing those stairs each and every day and she feels terrible for her. She asked me if there is an organization in the community that could maybe help pay to install a ramp alongside the stairs to make it easier for her to come and go. She even offered to help pay for part of the cost involved in building the ramp.

The next morning, I called both Reuvain and Shimon and suggested that while the halacha does not require Reuvain to pay nor Shimon to accept, maybe Shimon would pay for his own window repair and Reuvain could take the money that he insisted on giving Shimon and instead chip in to help defray the cost to help this elderly almanah, who lives alone, build a ramp for her front stairs.

They loved the idea. They called this young woman who had called me with her request and within three weeks, this elderly almanah had a beautiful new ramp alongside her steps and it was paid for by this young woman neighbor, Reuvain and also Shimon who chipped in as well.

I can only suggest that as this elderly almanah walks down her newly built ramp on the way to shul for Kol Nidrei, the celestial angels will be dancing in front of the Kisai Hakovod singing Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s favorite song, “Mi kiamcha Yisrael, goy echad ba’aretz.”

The second story is of a young wife and mother of three beautiful children, who works hard at her job teaching in a local preschool and juggling her many different responsibilities. She is a much loved morah, and the head of the school sent her a letter this summer saying how valued she is at the school and informing her that despite the difficult financial times we live in, she will be receiving an increase in salary this coming year.

She called the head of the school and asked for a meeting before school begins. The head of the school readily agreed, but was a little annoyed, assuming that she was going to request an additional increase in salary; something that he is just unable to do. The next day, she came for the meeting and said the following. “I truly appreciate the raise and believe me that I can make good use of it, but I have a personal request. Last year, I, Baruch Hashem, was able to get by on last year’s salary and I’m sure I can do it again this year; however, there is another teacher who is an almanah with a very large family and I know how hard things are for her. Please don’t give me a raise this year and instead give my increase to this other teacher without telling her where it’s coming from.

What a special and wonderful person, whose thoughts for another’s needs takes precedence even over her own. Again, I can only guess that when this special neshamah will say the words of “Avinu Malkeinu, kosveinu besefer parnasah v’ chalkalah,” her tefillos will soar to the heavens and present itself directly to the Almighty himself; who without doubt is shepping much pride and nachas from his wonderful daughter from the Five Towns kehillah.

The third and final story comes from two individuals from the shul that I belong to, that has me kvelling with pride. Several years ago, we started a Shabbos chaburah on the long summer Shabbos days when I am away for my summer vacation; that is led by our own rosh chaburah, Reb Yoni Schwartz. We began with Masechta Rosh Hashanah, and the chaburah would learn together the daf and then Reb Yoni would share some wonderful insights on the daf.

While we did a significant part of the Masechta, we were unable to complete it. However there was one pair of chavrusos who were determined to finish the whole Masechta and continued learning by themselves on Shabbos afternoons until they completed the whole Masechta. This past Shabbos, the last Shabbos of the year, they celebrated along with the rest of us, a siyum and Kiddush in honor of the simchah.

Now you are probably wondering, what is so special about this event? After all, Baruch Hashem, we have much learning in our community, and no doubt many siyumim were made this past year. What is so special about this one?

The answer is, that one of the mesaymim is the elder statesman of our shul, the much loved and respected Dr. Jacob Mosak, who recently celebrated his 97th birthday (ad meah v’esrim shanah). His (slightly younger) chavrusa saw a few years ago the wisdom and opportunity of learning together with a man of great wisdom and a talmid chacham of renown and began learning together with Dr. Mosak every Shabbos. With the persistence and energy of youth, these two chavrusos, Dr. Jacob Mosak and Shlomo Sokel, kept at it until they, Baruch Hashem, completed the learning of the Masechta Rosh Hashanah, in time to great Rosh Hashanah itself.

While most of us always become sidetracked, and are unable to see through our learning commitments that we make to ourselves each year during the Yimai Hadin; here a young father and busy attorney with his 97-year-old chavursa persevered and continued to see their commitment through until they reached their goal. How proud we are of them, and how proud Hakadosh Baruch Hu is as well. Making a siyum is a tremendous “eis ratzon” (time of good will) and that is befitting these days as we enter yimai hadin. We wish them continued hatzlachah and may they continue to make siyumim together until 120 years.

If only we were zocheh to have Rebbe Levi Yitzchok, the Berditchever Rebbe, here with us for the yimai hadin. He would surely know how to take these stories of pride of Hashem’s children straight to the heavenly throne and insure for us a wonderful year full of berachos, yeshuos, and refuos for all of Klal Yisrael. However, though we do not have him amongst us, we nevertheless turn to Hakadosh Baruch Hu with great emotion and feeling and say to him, “may you continue to have much nachas from all your children in the coming year.”

Wishing you and yours a kesivah vachasimah tovah.

Have you checked out http://www.ywnradio.com/ yet?

(Rav Aryeh Z. Ginzberg – YWN)