February 8, 2012
Re “Rutgers brass offer assurances to Jewish leaders,”
January 25
After meeting with Rutgers University officials last December, New Jersey Jewish leaders may say they feel better about the campus being safe and welcoming for Jewish students (“Rutgers brass offer assurances to Jewish leaders,” Jan. 26). But the facts compel a different view. Rutgers has never addressed several serious incidents that have harmed Jewish students.
These incidents were detailed in a student-supported complaint that the Zionist Organization of America filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, alleging that Rutgers knew about anti-Semitic hostility on the campus but failed to address it, in violation of federal law.
The ZOA was not invited to the meeting between Rutgers and state Jewish leaders — nor, to our knowledge, were students — so Rutgers did not have to answer tough questions about the conduct alleged in the ZOA’s complaint. Fortunately, the university will have to answer to government authorities, who have decided that the ZOA’s claims warrant investigation.
The federal probe will be looking into how Rutgers responded when violent threats were made against a Jewish student who wrote pro-Israel articles for the Rutgers student paper. After one such article, another student posted a Facebook message about the student, writing that he’d “be happy to see” him “beat with a crowbar. Violence doesnt [sic] solve problems but it shuts up people who shouldnt [sic] speak.” Fearing for his physical safety, the student sought police protection. He also filed a bias report, which the university is supposed to respond to within 24 hours. Not a single university official reached out to the student. for more than a month. Eventually, he received a cursory e-mail from the Dean of Students, informing him that there were insufficient grounds to formally charge the student who had threatened him. It is difficult to conceive of what else Rutgers would have needed to charge the student beyond the Facebook message itself. Rutgers did not discipline the wrongdoer, even though the university’s own rules state that a threat of force is so serious that it can result in suspension or expulsion.
The Jewish student was also physically threatened and subjected to anti-Semitic name-calling by Shehnaz Abdeljaber, the Outreach Coordinator of Rutgers’ Middle East Studies Center. Ms. Abdeljaber confronted him after a student body meeting, and tried to provoke a physical fight, yelling at him such words as “I’m Palestinian. Do you want to take me on? Do you want to fight? I have thick blood. Try me.” Ms. Abdeljaber also posted a Facebook message about the student, calling him “that racist Zionist pig!!!!!!!!” She encouraged other Facebook users to “put his name in fb [Facebook] search...he has a fb [Facebook] hate page” — as if celebrating that people were posting hateful messages about the student and urging others to find that Facebook page so that they could read the comments and post their own.
Rutgers knows about Ms. Abdeljaber’s conduct, but as of this date, she is still identified and works in her role at MESC. In fact, when the ZOA wrote to Rutgers President Richard McCormick about her conduct before filing the complaint, President McCormick dismissed our concerns, writing that “inappropriate language does not automatically constitute a breach of law or of university policy, nor does an individual’s private conduct necessarily constitute a breach of professional responsibility.” It is difficult to conceive of how Rutgers could suggest that a university employee’s physical threats and anti-Semitic name-calling against a Jewish student would not be a breach of professional responsibility. What kind of constructive outreach could Ms. Abdeljaber possibly be doing with Jewish students who love and support Israel?
Rutgers has also never satisfactorily addressed what happened at a campus event called “Never Again for Anyone.” Its offensive content aside (the program analogized the Nazis’ treatment of Jews to Israel’s policies and practices toward the Palestinian Arabs), the admissions policy for the event discriminated against Jews and supporters of Israel. The event was advertised as free and open to the public, but when the sponsors and promoters saw how many “Zionists” (meaning Jews and Israel supporters) showed up, the admissions policy was suddenly changed and an admission fee was imposed. According to student witnesses, the policy was selectively enforced: If you were perceived to be Jewish or pro-Israel, you had to pay; otherwise, you got in for free. Afterwards, the university issued a bland statement about the event, but it never condemned the discrimination or even acknowledged that it occurred.
NJ Jewish leaders shouldn’t feel so reassured. Rutgers’ words are hollow without appropriate action that ensures a safe and welcoming environment for Jewish students.
Susan B. Tuchman, Esq.
Director, Center for Law and Justice
Zionist Organization of America
February 8, 2012
Re “Rabbi’s rounds include visits with college kids,”
December 28
It is really very nice that Rabbi Clifford Kulwin goes to visit the college kids (“Rabbi’s rounds include visits with college kids,” Dec. 29). I know that it means a lot to them.
Did you know that Rabbi Z. David Levy of Temple B’nai Or visited college kids in the late 60’s and early 70’s? It always meant a lot to our kids, too.
Deenie Schlosser
Del Ray Beach, Fla.
February 8, 2012
I realize that the box on page 15 of the latest NJ Jewish News couldn’t detail all of Bob Kraft’s Jewish philanthropies (“‘Super’ Jews, Giant Jews,” Feb. 2). But there are a lot of Columbia University Jews in this area, and the Kraft Center for Jewish Student Life at Columbia has been an important addition to the Columbia campus since 2000. Wish it had been there back in my days on campus, long, long ago.
Stu Kaback
Columbia College ‘55
Cranford
February 1, 2012
The issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions is back in the headlines. Iran is feeling the pressure from the effects of increased world-wide sanctions and this is causing its leaders to consider all options. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to the West’s new sanctions.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran is far advanced on the path to making nuclear weapons and underground factories that enrich uranium have been exposed to the world.
As Jews and as Americans, we are naturally disturbed and troubled by these developments. Will Iran become a nuclear power? Will the United States and its allies be forced to act militarily to counter Iran’s threat to strangle our economy? How will this confrontation affect our families, communities, and our greater families in Israel? How will this impact on you personally? Will your safety be threatened? Will your pocketbook feel the impact of rising oil prices?
The CRC Stop Iran Now Campaign has been working tirelessly to mobilize the community to take every possible action to help stop Iran’s nuclear capability. We have been educating our community and our public officials about the threats presented by Iran’s nuclear program not just to Israel, but to our allies around the world and our way of life at home.
Is there anything more we can do through economic and political pressure?
We are at an historic moment and have only a very short window of opportunity to change the course of history.
The CRC is organizing a not-to-be-missed briefing on Wednesday, Feb. 8, at 7 p.m. at the Alex Aidekman Jewish Family Campus, Whippany. “The Last 10 Yards: Will Iran Get A Bomb?” will feature Patrick Clawson, who runs the Iran Security Initiative at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and David Ibsen from United Against Nuclear Iran who will guide us on community action ideas.
We are writing to urge you to attend this program and bring your friends and colleagues from both the Jewish and non-Jewish world. This is a community issue and we need you to help spread the message.
For more information and to RSVP for the program, visit http://www.ujcnj.org/page.aspx?id=250899.
Jim Daniels
Chair
CRC Stop Iran Now Task Force
January 30, 2012
Re “Inspired by tradition, bat mitzva goes vegan,”
January 17
As president of Jewish Vegetarians of North America, I commend Kira Horowitz for her compassionate decision and thoughtful analysis (“Inspired by tradition, bat mitzvah goes vegan,” Jan. 17). The production and consumption of meat and other animal products violates basic Jewish mandates to preserve human health, treat animals with compassion, protect the environment, conserve natural resources, and help hungry people. Animal-based diets and agriculture are causing an epidemic of diseases in the Jewish and other communities and contributing significantly to climate change and other environmental problems that threaten all of humanity. It is essential that the Jewish community address these issues and consider shifts to plant-based diets to help shift our imperiled planet to a sustainable path.
For further information about Jewish teachings on vegetarianism, see our documentary, A Sacred Duty: Applying Jewish Values to Help Heal the World at ASacredDuty.com.
Richard Schwartz
President
Jewish Vegetarians of North America
Newport News, VA
January 25, 2012
Re “Firefighter: Is Israel ready for next one?,”
January 17
Johanna Ginsberg’s recent article about Israel’s preparedness in the event of another catastrophic forest fire offered important information and insight to those who were impacted by the fire’s devastation (“Firefighter: Is Israel ready for next one?” Jan. 19). In particular, it mentioned that Yemin Orde Youth Village, “destroyed in the fire, is slowly being rebuilt, through government dollars.”
Yemin Orde Youth Village is about to launch a new comprehensive master plan to rebuild the Village to reflect its original beauty and splendor prior to the fire. It should be noted, however, that funds for rebuilding the Village stem from our global community of donors, not only through Israeli “government dollars.” Yemin Orde did, indeed, receive Israeli government assistance immediately following the fire for emergency infrastructure repairs, temporary housing and removal of debris.
The Village received $7.6 million from generous U.S. supporters during the months immediately following the fire. In fact, just in New Jersey alone, synagogues, foundations, and individuals came together to raise an incredible $1 million for the Village’s fire emergency recovery fund. Also, thanks to the support of the Jewish National Fund, the Village will see new trees and replace much of the landscaping that was ravaged by the fire, too.
We are grateful for the Israeli government’s quick response to address the immediate needs of the Village and its children in the days and weeks after the fire. But please credit our dedicated and generous supporters for helping Yemin Orde plan for the future and rebuild the Village to reflect the splendor and beauty of Mount Carmel.
Barbara Sherbill
Marketing & Communications
Friends of Yemin Orde
Rockville, MD
January 25, 2012
Re “Hands down, 60 rabbis criticize tefillin photo,”
January 17
I was dismayed by the response of 60 rabbis to the cover photograph of Kolot that showed two tefillin-clad women holding hands (“Hands down, 60 rabbis criticize tefillin photo,” Jan 19). I am a gay man, and it never occurred to me to see sexual overtones in that cover. Have none of these rabbis ever attended a service during which congregants hold hands or link arms, perhaps while swaying to “Shalom Aleichem” or dancing on Simhat Torah, or chanting Hallel on Rosh Hodesh, when tefillin might be worn? I grew up Orthodox, where same-sex hand-holding while dancing was the norm and was never considered sexual.
I wonder what the reaction of these rabbis would have been had the photograph shown a woman holding hands with a hairy, masculine hand, both wearing tefillin? Would any of them have expected an article about heterosexuality and Conservative Judaism? Would any have imputed any sexuality to the photograph? Perhaps some introspection could lead these rabbis to sort out their subconscious attitudes toward homosexuality that are brought out by a picture of two Jewish women holding hands.
Jack Greenberg
West Orange
January 25, 2012
Re “Rethinking gun control in out-of-control times,”
January 17
I’m all in favor of unarmed self-defense training and firearms training (“Rethinking gun control in out-of-control-times,” Jan. 19). I don’t believe there is a monolithic progressive position, but I suspect that most progressives believe training is always good.
Keeping a loaded firearm ready at hand in the home is another matter. It does not simply make you safer; it trades one set of risks for another. Depending on the neighborhood, the likelihood of a deadly intruder may be negligible in the first place. So the net increase in safety from intruders could be very small. Meanwhile, there is a nontrivial risk that someone in the home will be hurt or killed by accident. And, of course, pointing a gun at a police officer — especially one who has barged into your home — is an excellent way to get shot.
Harvey S. Cohen
Middletown
January 25, 2012
Re “‘Genocide’ in Armenia is not for Israel to decide,”
January 11
This letter is in response to the commendable and well thought-out article written by Mark Meirowitz (“’Genocide’ in Armenia is not for Israel to decide,” Jan. 12) on the possibility of Israeli Knesset’s recognition of the alleged genocide of Armenians in Turkey in 1915.
It is fashionable to label some tragedies where civilians were massacred as genocide. If that were the case, the bombings of Dresden and Japan would also fall in the same category. The Turks should not be cherry-picked and burdened with a horrible crime without proving any intent on their part to destroy an ethnic or religious group.
Furthermore, the Germans were found to be guilty of war crimes at the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials. The Turks were never declared guilty in an international court of law. The war-crimes tribunal arranged by the British crown on the island of Malta between 1920 -1922 tried 144 Ottoman officials for war crimes against minority groups. After searching through various archives (even consulting the U.S. State Department), the British could not find the Turks guilty, and they were sent back home.
Mr. Meirowitz is also right where he states that there ought to be a commission to study the Turkish-Armenian conflict of World War I, with historians and legal experts studying the archives in Turkey, Armenia, Beirut, Washington, DC, and Boston (where most of the Armenian archives are kept).
Let us hope that common sense will prevail, and the current estrangement between Israel and Turkey will be resolved by some compromise being shown by the leaders of both countries. Both Israel and Turkey have more to lose than to gain by offending each other.
Erkin Baker
Alton, IL
January 17, 2012
Re “Tolerating differences, defending democracy,”
January 4
Tehila Nachalon writes, “Now, more than ever, an unyielding commitment to unity and Jewish peoplehood is essential. This is not a battle against haredim, as many media outlets would have you believe. It is a battle to sustain the very democratic character of the Jewish state.” (“Tolerating differences, defending democracy,” Jan. 5).
Tensions between Orthodox Jews and the Israeli government have reached a flash point. My anger, as a Jew, comes from the fact that this minority has gotten away with far too much, in Israel and among the Jewish community worldwide.
The reasons for their power in Israel are understandable, since they vote in blocs, dictated by their rabbinic leaders. That gives such groups political power to be courted by electoral hopefuls. In the case of Israel’s parliamentary system, two very tiny religious parties helped cement the coalition that brought Netanyahu to power.
While it would be encouraging to see a countermovement against extremist elements, much of the problem rests with the refusal of Israel to impose a separation of synagogue and state. The actions of the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel are outrageous. Extremists are extremists whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or any other religion. People should have the right to practice their religious beliefs; however, when such beliefs entail forcing others to abide by their fundamentalism, they cross a dangerous line.
Phyllis Bernstein
Westfield
Back to top
Follow NJJN
E-Newsletter Signup