The Beauty of Parenting

The anti-immigration philosophy is, they don't look like me and I don't like them so don't let them in here. Because so many Americans have such a negative attitude to immigration, the government made a ‘slow down' and the quotas which have been filled since 1965 have not been filled this year. Not only is this bigotry, but should the attitude of our citizens cause us to tighten our immigration laws even more, we would be hurting ourselves. It is estimated that there are ten million illegal immigrants in the work force. They do jobs that no American would do for the minimal wage the immigrant gets. Theoretically, should we track down all illegal immigrants and expel them, the price of all goods would skyrocket and we would ruin our own economy. In fact, in certain areas because the illegal immigrants work, many pay their taxes and keep our costs down, Immigration Authorities have an unspoken agreement to leave them alone. Let us think about how unjust our policy is. We want the immigrant population to work for us for very little money, and we're willing to look the other way when they do when it serves our needs, but we don't want to give them legal status. We would be a lot more honorable if we allowed those who are giving us their labor and taxes - and certainly those who have joined our armed forces - to get something in return. We also hurt ourselves by keeping out those who productively contribute to our society. Many immigrants, like Mr. Murphy from PS 58, help our country with their money and talents. We would be smart to make them feel wanted. There is a shortage of competent workers in some professions such as nursing and other parts of medical industry. We need the talent. Why not allow more people in? We have to increase our opportunities for immigration. It will be to our benefit if all immigrants will be documented as citizens and pay taxes. Perhaps one idea that will help ease the burden of embracing entire families, overwhelming our social service system, would be for immigrants to enter the USA on temporary visas. Such a law might encourage immigrants to leave their families in their native country until they have the means to support them, since an immigrant would be able to re-enter the country unhindered after a visit to their family back home. The United States has a problem with immigration that won't be solved by keeping all immigrants out or by indiscriminately allowing everyone in. What we can do is try to deal with some of the anger against foreigners and maybe take a look at some of our laws and see if we aren't hurting ourselves in the long run.

Crying Wolf

You know the well-known fairy tale about a shepherd boy who cried wolf because he was bored while watching the sheep? What's the lesson behind the story and its not-so- happy ending? Someone who makes it a habit to lie is not believed. The consequence for those who ‘cry wolf' is that even when there's a real 'wolf' they are not believed. The latest political shepherd-crying-wolf story comes from the al Qaeda camp. While searching an al Qaeda cell in England, the British police found a handbook with instructions to operatives what to do if they get caught by the police. One of the instructions in the handbook is that every commander must train his recruits that no matter what the circumstances, when an operative is caught and stands before the judge he should say he was abused in prison.

This little tidbit sheds a new light on all the stories of al Qaeda prisoner abuse in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan. The stories of alleged abuse of Muslim prisoners and their religious artifacts are many and varied. The most notable accusation of prison abuse, with the worst consequences, was that of the Koran being flushed down the toilet by guards at the Guantanamo base prison. That charge, which was told to a Newsweek reporter by a detainee who did not see the event, cost lives in Afghanistan, when a riot was sparked by the news report. According to Guy Taylor of the Washington Times, it was true, there was an attempt to flush a Koran down the toilet - by a Muslim detainee.

The Newsweek story sparked off an intensive investigation of abuse within the Muslim prison population being detained on charges of terrorism. And yes, they found 20 acts of abuse involving the Koran in the Guantanamo Bay prison - of which 15 were perpetrated by the detainees themselves. According to Larry Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, some detainees are expert at riling up the whole prison population, by making allegations about abuse - particularly of religious objects. Fascinated and a tad concerned by all these allegations of abuse of religious objects - particularly the Koran - I wondered how all these Korans are getting into the prison system altogether. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the American army gives them out - in fact they issued more than 1,600 Korans in 13 different languages! Do you think a nation that respects religion and makes sure that their prisoners religious needs are met, can seriously be accused of such gross misconduct with religious articles? The detainees have hurt themselves with their false accusations. Their accusations have caused the world spotlight to be focused on our treatment of detainees to find the minutest abuse - real or imagined. This prompted Amnesty International to compare Guantanamo Bay to the Russian Gulag. No prison system - including that of the USA itself - is perfect, but these unwarranted and false accusations had nothing to do with the prison system; they were intended to manipulate world opinion against the USA which has the best record in history on humanitarian issues. Ultimately, I don't think the terrorists were smart in instructing their operatives to cry wolf over prison abuses. After hearing this story, each and every one of us has to ask themselves a question: if the terrorists are lying about something as serious as prison abuse to achieve their aims, what else are they lying about?

Is Marriage Made in Heaven?

At one of my recent seminars on marriage, a group of young couples had a discussion based on the following thought. As religious people we believe that a marriage is predestined. Forty days before conception, the soul is prepared for a journey down to this world, and a proclamation is made in heaven regarding the beauty, intelligence and talents of the child. Likewise, it is announced who this soul is destined to marry. The participants in the class had a question. If marriage is in fact as explained above and elaborated upon in Kabbalah that it's two halves of the same soul reuniting under the marriage canopy, why is it that creating and maintaining peace and harmony, love and friendship in the home take so much effort? Why must we exert so much energy to achieve these things and have a healthy marriage? My answer to them was that marriage is not a reward nor a prize. When people marry they haven't passed a finish line - if anything that's just when the race is starting. Marriage is a task. It's a job and a full time job at that. Marriage is a labor of love, yet it's still a labor. It's true that we can find some couples that were childhood sweethearts and the excitement, glamour, infatuation and love last a life time without much effort. For some reason those couples are very visible, and though it seems like 10% of the married population is in this situation, it's more likely it's as little as 2%. Most people have to work on their marriage. One of the biggest misconceptions about marriage is that the job of cultivating a happy marriage is split 50% - 50%. Actually, marriage takes 100% - 100%. Both sides have to commit their energy to a healthy marriage. Not only that, people have to realize that regardless of what image married couples show the world, most are in the 98% category mentioned above. The best news is that the way marriage works, sometimes the challenge and innovative thinking necessary to keep marriage going, is the most fun. A while ago I came across a news article about a couple that was married a while and felt that their marriage was stale. They were not getting along well with each other, so both of them clandestinely started to look for someone else.

Eventually both the husband and wife found someone else on internet. Each found that the internet ˜friend' shared their passion, sense of fun and their goals. In the excitement of a new secret relationship they gave the relationship their-all with no stops or inhibitions. One day after communicating with his internet ˜friend' long enough, the husband arranged a rendezvous to see her and plan their future. They arranged a quiet place to meet and gave signs so they can recognize each other. Imagine his surprise - imagine their surprise - when his internet friend turned out to be his wife! What a fascinating story! How often is it that we see such an open sign that says ˜take your energy and effort and use it for your spouse with whom you have common goals, common needs, and once shared the same energy'? Each part of this couple was still looking for and was attracted to the very same things that attracted them when they first met. How sad that they didn't put that same energy into fixing up their own relationship - and adding spice to it - instead of looking for alternatives outside of their marriage. A marriage can definitely be made in heaven, but we need to safeguard it to make sure that it stays healthy and happy. Those same things that attracted us to our spouse originally are still there if we just look for them and keep them alive.

Lessons in Empathy

Shortly after my marriage, my in-laws sent us to visit with one of their friends for a Sunday Barbeque. When we got to the home we saw men hauling away the last remnants of an old tree. The couple was standing in front of their home with tears in their eyes as they watched the last of pieces of the tree dragged off their property. I was 22 years old and having spent much of my life within the four walls of educational institutions, I was just becoming aware of the scope of global pain - wars, disease, death etc. This knowledge made it hard for me deal with grown ups crying over a tree, but regardless of my personal feelings, this friendship was important to my in-laws and I also didn't want to appear callous. The problem was, how could I sound empathetic over a lost tree if I never lost a tree nor did I feel the magnitude of the loss of the tree relative to the many other problems in this world? I then realized that all I have to do is listen. The couple told me that the tree was there when they moved into the house 25 years previously. Their children climbed this tree, they built tree houses on it, they swung on it and sat and talked under this tree. The tree represented a great part of their life together, and it was very much a part of their home and their history. Just listening to them express their loss, I was able to understand it from their perspective and express empathy.

One afternoon I was walking through the streets of Manhattan, with my brother Rabbi Shimon, on the way to an appointment. While I waited at a corner for a red light to change to green, a familiar looking man waiting with me for the light turned around and said, "Hi!" I asked him how he's doing. He answered, "I lost my mother 71/2 months ago." I took a moment and then expressed my sympathy and my good wishes. The light changed and we continued to walk. My brother asked me, "Who was that?" I said, "I don't know." He said, "But you sounded like you really felt for his loss and he looked comforted by your words." I told my brother that I didn't have to know who the man was to feel for his loss. I later realized who he was, but that didn't make a difference in my empathy. I learned that to show empathy for someone's loss, I could draw on a loss in my own life. The parents of a mentally disabled child sat in my office and spoke to me. The challenge of dealing with this child affected the mother's belief in G-d and the couple was seeking to help the woman strengthen her belief in religion. Since I never went through this specific test in life, I was somewhat at a loss of what to tell them. I wanted to give them empathy, but I couldn't. I therefore gave what I could - sympathy and some advice. I got them in touch with a support group of parents with the same challenges so they can get the empathy they needed. I advised them to deal with the physical problem of how to care for the child before dealing with the religious aspect. I connected them with programs directed to their child's disability. Before they left my office I once again expressed my sympathy. After the physical and moral support was set up and they had a better handle on their personal difficulties, the couple came back to my office and we revisited the issue from a spiritual perspective. They found that the spiritual complemented and uplifted the physical. Even though I never "walked a mile in their shoes" they felt my sympathy, and perhaps even empathy, from my tone of voice and actions. I realized that not always can one put themselves in another's shoes. Sometimes all you can do is express sympathy and give advice. While thinking these three stories through I realized that they don't just teach clergy a lesson, but every one else, too. Our lives today bring us in contact with a broad spectrum of people - family, friends, neighbors and co-workers - many of whom go through difficult times. What a challenge it is for us to show proper empathy. Empathy should not be intrusive - a listening ear should be offered, but not forced on anyone. Some people have a support system. Some people would rather talk to a stranger and some would rather not talk at all. Empathy can be broken down into three parts. We have to listen whole heartedly, then identify with the feeling of the person we're talking to - even if it's a different magnitude or the issue is on a different level. You don't have to fly on an airplane to understand turbulence - riding a roller coaster or a jumpy elevator can help you understand the feeling. When we can't identify with someone else's feeling we should express sympathy and give practical advice. Ultimately, whether its sympathy or empathy expressing an honest feeling is the most important thing.

Discriminative Bigotry

We are all aware that false accusations of racism are wrong, yet every time a white on black incident makes the headlines, even before the smoke clears the race card rears its ugly head. For some reason though, the race issue is not raised when the crime is black on white - even when the perpetrator of the crime expressly says the crime is one of racial hatred. Let's take a look at the three recent incidents. The first occurred when three black men went to Howard Beach, a predominantly white neighborhood, looking to steal a car. Some Howard Beach residents saw the men, from their actions understood their intention to commit a theft and beat them up. This incident caused an uproar. Since the attackers were white and the would-be thieves were black the media and some black leaders began accusing the attackers of ‘racial attack'. A black leader set up protests and demonstrations focusing on the issue of white-on-black crime. If it was necessary to demonstrate on this incident at all the focus should have been on the moral impropriety of casing an area to commit a crime. The color of the attackers and the victims shouldn't have been the issue highlighted here. Were the media and black leaders implying through their ‘outrage' that the would-be thieves were within their rights to steal because they are black? Or that the defenders of their neighborhood were wrong because they are white? The second recent incident was in White Plains. A racist ex-con confessed that he fatally stabbed a mother of two at a White Plains mall because he wanted "to kill a white person." He said that the woman deserved to die because she had blond hair and blue eyes.

Having blonde hair and blue eyes is a reason to kill a mother of two children? Come to think of it, if crime because of race and color is something that is protest worthy, why haven't we seen demonstrations when a mother of two was killed because of her color? Is the silence of the black leaders and the media in this case an implication that because the victim is white the murder is somehow warranted? When Westchester County counts their murders of this year, will this murder count differently because the racist murderer was black and the victim white? The third incident happened earlier this month in Marine Park. Four young white girls from St. Edmund's were playing basketball during dismissal from nearby Marine Park Junior High School. Several Marine Park students demanded to use the court. After adults intervened and asked them to wait their turn, the teens left - but returned with a pack of 30 boys and girls and stormed into the park. Witnesses say the attackers were all black and called their victims "white crackers," invoked the name of "Martin Luther King" and were screaming "Black Power!" during the bloody scrimmage, which lasted almost 20 minutes.
Incredibly, the Marine Park police say that this is not a bias crime, but they got it wrong. Let's think about the outrage and protests that would have occurred if the perpetrators were white and the victims black. Where was the outrage for this obviously racial incident? Why didn't we hear the black leaders or the media then?
If we want to heal the racial divide, then we must focus on what's right and wrong more than on the issue of race. It seems that the media and the current black leadership don't understand this. Though there are times that crimes are racially motivated, we must be careful before we label a crime as such. To choose only the white on black crime as racist can only be a tactic of those trying to create controversy.

Gezuntheit!

Today the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in a courtroom as a religious symbol. According to a recent study, 83% of the US population believes in G-d. Incredibly, 76% of doctors believe in G-d, a surprising degree of spirituality in a science-based field. According to these numbers a majority of Americans believe in G-d, yet public acknowledgment of G-d comes under debate in American courts of law all the time. Surprisingly enough, though the cases are brought by small groups of citizens - many times they win the cases and take G-d out of the public view. n the past few years there were many legal challenges against the right of displaying religious symbols in public places draining our court system of time, energy and money that would be better spent on issues that are truly important. The question of the legality of the words ‘Under G-d' in the Pledge of Allegiance was recently brought before our courts by, Michael Newdow, an irate atheist father. He was upset that his young atheist daughter was forced to say the words ‘Under G-d' in school, even though she doesn't believe in G-d. The words ‘Under G-d' were added to the pledge in 1954 during the cold war as a way to differentiate between the USA and the atheists' communist regimes. Those two words were added to show the difference between a country that respects individual rights and the sanctity of human life and those that don't. How can people find a problem with words that distinguish our country so positively? Actually, Mr. Newdow's story began, not in school - but in a store - when he noticed the words ‘In G-d we trust' on money. He was angry! He doesn't trust in G-d, yet he's forced to use money that says that he does. I guess he felt the dollar bill belongs to him alone - and not the 83% of people that do trust in G-d. More recently on June 22, 2005 a federal district court in Maryland ruled that a Ten-commandment display in a park in Frederick is constitutional. The Maryland ruling came just a few days before today's Supreme court declared that the Ten Commandments display is unconstitutional inside a courtroom as a religious symbol. All of these court cases, all of this money spent, because some people are allergic to having G-d mentioned in public. And what are they scared of? Some of these monuments, such as the one in Frederick, Maryland, are on display for more than 50 years with no negative effect. Most likely, noone's more religious because of the display and no one left religion because of it, in fact most people probably passed it by and didn't even notice it there! This is what the Supreme Court is spending its time on!

As a religious leader, I advocate leaving the words ‘Under G-d' in the Pledge of Allegiance that children recite every morning, as well as ‘In G-d we trust' on our dollar bill and any other public reference to G-d. There are a number of facts that would support mentioning G-d in public places. One is that the founders of this country created this country to grant religious freedom. In fact, it specifically says that everyone is guaranteed freedom of religion - not freedom from religion. The founding fathers recognized that it was the Creator who endowed us with the ability to declare independence and form a nation. The same founding fathers that established separation of church and state mention G-d in the Declaration of Independence. They obviously didn't plan on erasing G-d from public life. Secondly, studies show that children who take a moment in the morning to think about G-d, behave differently all day. Children should have a moment of silence in school, so that they can think about concepts such as an Eye that sees and an Ear that hears, and that we are responsible for all our actions. Doing so will help, many children focus on behaving properly. A friend of mine taught 4th grade in an inner city public school. He had a difficult time with discipline and decided to try a different tactic. He explained to his class about an Eye that sees and an Ear that hears. He then would start his class with a moment of silent prayer. This one moment of introspection made a tremendous difference in the behavior of the class. Thirdly, a society that is void of G-d is a society that is self-destructive. People deny that there's a G-d because they don't want accountability or consequences. A society based on non-accountability will eventually destruct itself.

In light of the of all the frivolous lawsuits, I strongly recommend that our politicians consider drafting a new amendment to the constitution defining what is meant by separation of church and state. The amendment should specify that -d and religious symbols are allowed in our society as the vast majority of citizens want it. I recently read a story, about a class that could not pray at its graduation, because of a recent court ruling prohibiting it. The principal and several students were careful to stay within the guidelines allowed by the ruling. They gave inspirational and challenging speeches, but no one mentioned divine guidance and no one asked for blessings for the graduates or their families. The speeches were nice, but they were routine . . . until the final speech received a standing ovation. A solitary student walked proudly to the microphone. He stood still and silent for just a moment, and then, it happened. All 92 students, every single one of them, suddenly SNEEZED! The student on stage simply looked at the audience and said, "GOD BLESS YOU, each and every one of you!" And he walked off stage . . . The audience exploded into applause. The graduating class had found a unique way to invoke God's blessing on their future with or without the court's approval!

Another Supreme Blunder

On Monday, June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the Town of Weare, New Hampshire. He was seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road - the site of a private home. What raw Chutzpah! How can someone request a permit to build a hotel on private property? Though I think such an act is an absolute abomination, I have mixed feelings for the residents of 34 Cilley Hill Road. On the one hand the request for a permit is a horrible breach of private property, on the other hand the home belongs to Judge David Souter - one of the Supreme Court judges that voted that precisely such an act is legal. The recent supreme court ruling on the topic of eminent domain is extremely harmful to our freedom and democracy; actually, it's hard to believe that it could be considered legal. Last week's Supreme Court decision in Kelo Vs. City of New London created new eminent domain powers to allow local governments to take private property from its owner and give the property to private developers who promise to generate greater tax revenue with the land. The new powers of eminent domain - which were always reserved for taking property only for public use - could be used to build developments such as privately owned strip malls or motels. Of course, the government would pay for the property, but the owners of the homes - some that own their homes for generations - certainly wouldn't get a fair value for it. They have no bargaining power. Does the home have sentimental value, location value? That's just too bad. They'll receive what the government deems to be the true value.

This question of the government mixing into private property rights is just the beginning of the erosion of the basic rights which our courts are sworn to protect. If people can be forced to give up their property for reasons other than public necessity, where will the line be drawn on other basic rights? In fact, I recently came across another issue which I feel denies our right of self determination over our personal property - our bodies. The American Medical Association has been throwing around an idea called presumed consent, which says that anyone who wouldn't opt out of a national organ donor plan is automatically in and their organs can be donated after their death. Currently, a person is considered an organ donor only if they have expressly indicated a willingness to donate. They can opt-in when they apply for a driver's license. If there is no consent, next of kin generally have the authority to donate. It would be easy and efficient for the government if they alter the law so that people have to opt-out instead. However, I know a lot of adults who don't have licenses and don't drive. What happens to them? What will happen to those who are unaware of the law? What will befall illegal immigrants who are afraid to register for anything, and unlucky enough to die in this country? What will happen when children die? To the mentally incapacitated that are under the auspices of the government? Those who live in shelters or homes? Would this take the decision out of the hands of the surviving kin? If this were to become the law, will these people be defenseless in death as most of them were in life? Two more questions that are heatedly debated in religious communities everywhere, are whether one is allowed to donate organs at all, as well as what is considered ‘after death' according to religious law. Did the authors of presumed consent take into account that this would be a problem with religious communities everywhere? Though, supporters say presumed consent could free up more organs for those desperately in need of them, and that many people support organ donation but fail to register, such a law would nonetheless be a tragic invasion of our basic right to choose. Unfortunately, after the Supreme Court legalized the expanded eminent domain law, I'm not sure it's such a big jump to legalizing presumed consent on transplantable body parts. House Majority Leader Tom Delay said it well, "No court that denies property rights will long respect and recognize other basic human rights . . . " The Hotel they want to build at 34 Cilley Hill Road would be called very appropriately "The Lost Liberty Hotel." Let's hope that justice Souter gets a wake up call from this application and realizes that private property is just that. Because when we start redefining what private property and self-determination are we can end up with disastrous results.

Touched by Life

Immediately after the London bombings, I called my family there. I couldn't get through because the phone lines were overloaded, however I finally reached my brother-in-law, Rabbi Aryeh Sufrin. I was shocked to find out that he was on one of the London trains that were bombed - between Liverpool and Aldgate. I was fascinated by the story he told and how this incident affected him. This is a story where we can actually see Divine Providence directing a man's footsteps as well as how even in a big city in times of crisis people are there for each other. He said, "I very rarely use the train. If I do, it's usually later in the day, but I had an appointment with a correspondent of the Times Newspaper in London; an appointment I waited three months for." There was an initial question of whether I should go to this appointment at all, since I was not feeling well the day before. Once I decided to go to the appointment I had to make a decision how to travel - by train or car. Since I'm not used to the confusing underground system, I was tempted to go by car. However, I didn't know the Times correspondent very well, and I wanted to use the time on the train to read over some of her work - which I never did end up doing anyway." "It happened as I was afraid it would; I got on the wrong train. When I was told which train to switch to, I wasn't aware that there was more than one train on that track - so I once again ended up on the wrong train and going in the wrong direction. I got off at the Liverpool station and finally found the platform I needed." "By that time the rush hour traffic was at its peak, but I squeezed my way down to the platform to wait for the proper train. When the train came I was standing in between two cars with a choice of entering car two or car three on the very packed train. The Hand of G-d led me and I entered the third car." "We were traveling for quite a while when we heard an almighty explosion from the car in front of us - car 2 - the one I chose not to travel on. It was a very loud noise and the train stopped abruptly leading us to think it was a crash - at that moment no one was thinking ‘bomb'." "We looked out the window to try to figure out what happened and saw the railroad cables on fire and a fireball rolling toward us. It was a frightening sight; we thought that was our last moment, but by some miracle the fire went out." "The carriage went dark and we were left with a thick, acrid smoke. The darkness was almost tangible. The only light was the dim emergency light in the train. We were fighting for air. Though the majority of underground is built with single tunnels and very enclosed space, our train was running on a wide tunnel for two trains so, thank G-d, we had more space and air." "It was quiet and dark and all we could hear was the screaming from the other carriage. We realized that people are badly hurt. We opened the connecting doors and wanted to bring others into our car." One lady said, "Don't bring them in, there won't be air for all of us." " But that was the only such comment and everyone made room for the walking wounded." "For the next hour, we waited to evacuate, while they took the wounded off the train. The train was very quiet. I suppose everyone was lost in their own thoughts. When it was our turn to evacuate, we were taken out the back door. Generally, they wouldn't take victims past an accident scene, but because we were in a tunnel and the closest way to a station was past the bomb site we all walked past." "We realized this was no crash since there was no other train in sight, and the whole side of the train was blown off. We could see a gaping hole and all the dead and injured inside; it was an ugly site." "We walked to the station outside. The emergency services were incredible. I don't know how they did it so fast, but they set up stations with water and tea for the people coming out of the bombing site. They commandeered two double decker buses to ferry the mildly injured and three helicopters to transport the seriously injured to the hospital." "The bombing was at 8:45 and by 10:30 I was upstairs on the street level looking for a ride. For me this whole ordeal took less than two hours from start to finish." "My first thoughts when the bomb exploded and I saw the ball of fire rolling toward me were, what will become of his family when I die? And will they find a body to bury?" Then I started thinking, "I'm in the middle of so many good projects and I won't be able to finish them, but who can question G-d's ways" "When the fire went out, I calmed down and began to think clearly, and I saw the Hand of G-d clearly guiding me on this train ride. All the facts showed me that - for reasons I don't understand and may never understand - I was supposed to be on that train at that time. From the fact that I kept the appointment even though I wasn't feeling well, that I took a train and not a car, that I mixed up and missed the trains (had I made my original train I would have made my appointment) to the fact that we were in a wider two-lane tunnel. I felt that though G-d was sending a greater worldwide message, the fact that I was on the train, meant that there was a personal message for me. I saw clearly that we can make any plans we want, but at the end of the day it's G-d who leads us in our path." "Ultimately," my brother-in-law concluded, "I was touched by life. Everyone was caring and concerned about everyone else which had a profound impact on me. There were approximately 130 people on one of the previous (wrong) trains that I took, and not one person communicated with the next. Some passengers read, some slept, some stared out the window and some listened to their ipod's. I was wondering then - what would it take to get people to talk to one another. One hour later I got the answer."

Disengagement from Reality

Over recent years a major part of Israel's economy collapsed, causing Israeli citizens great financial hardship. Tourism which used to be the number one money maker for Israel was killed off by the latest Intifada. This made the financial situation so difficult that for a time Jewish organizations found it necessary to advertise a "Go Israel" campaign to encourage people to visit the country - making use of Israeli airlines, hotels, car rentals, etc. These organizations also wanted tourists to spend their money in the local shops. Additionally, Israeli vendors traveled around the USA advertising "Buy Israel." Americans wouldn't travel to Israel so the Israeli vendors, on the verge of bankruptcy, were forced to come to the USA to sell their wares.

Israel's second money making proposition has always been export - mainly of fruits and vegetables - particularly citrus fruits. I'm not a military expert or even a financial expert, but to me it seems that under the guise of peace the Israeli government is looking to give up a chunk the country's second biggest source of income. The residents of Gush Katif, one of the settlements that Israel plans to give to the Palestinian Arabs, sell millions of dollars of its produce inside the country and export more than $6o million in produce to other countries. The Israeli economy is still reeling from the suicide attacks, and now the Israeli government plans to give those that sent the bombers, a part of their major money making interest. I certainly don't think we should be giving the land away, not from a religious perspective or a spiritual perspective or safety perspective, and I am not minimizing the issue of the government giving away homes or the farms that were cultivated or the businesses that were built up over the years. Some of those factors against giving away land can be disputed, but how can we ignore the financial aspect of this issue? Numbers don't lie. Many years ago Israel made a similar mistake. For political reasons, Israel gave Egypt the Sinai desert with oil fields that they developed - in fact gave it back earlier than actual agreed upon date. Oil is something Israel needs. Why didn't Israel keep one pipe line flowing into their county? Why didn't they lock in a low price for oil to Israelis or a guarantee of supplies? Even if there is merit to giving land away for peace, why must they lump the businesses in with the land deal? Maybe we shouldn't be negotiating on this developed land or maybe we should get money for the businesses. Why are we giving away a $60 million business, which also means so many people lose their jobs? The Israeli government hurt their own economy then and they seem to be doing the same now. Another issue is, where will Israel get the money to replace all the lost business that is to be given away? If they cripple themselves financially, they'll need financial aid from outside countries. That help would most likely come from the USA who will no doubt use this as an opportunity to dictate what Israel should do. If Israel is reliant on the USA financially, they'll be bound to listen to their advice. If the plan goes through, Israel will end up losing much more than money. They are giving away their economic empowerment. I can't say often enough that without money Israel lacks standing at the world round table. Without money, Israel has no negotiating power. In fact I can't remember a time that the USA or the UN, or any country for that matter, sat and negotiated with a nation that didn't have money or resources. Shortly after Ariel Sharon was elected and appointed Benjamin Netanyahu finance minister, Netanyhu lectured in a Manhattan hotel about the financial future of Israel. Netanyahu said that there was a time that Israelis were admired for their brain and not their brawn. Jews were viewed as smart, but unable to defend themselves. From 1948 Israel proved to the world that they can defend themselves. Somehow with that change in attitude people forgot that Jews have good brains and business acumen. These days Israel has areas of booming agriculture, business growth and advanced technology. Each of us should take a moment to understand what harm the Israeli government is doing by giving away the land, and try to influence world opinion. More importantly, let us challenge the Israeli government and ask them to keep the land, keep the business, and keep the Israeli economy alive.

School Rules II

Time Magazine printed an interesting story this week. A little girl, Stephanie, told everyone in school that her uncle has tigers and elephants. As far as the school was concerned, Stephanie was a child with a vivid imagination who knew how to make up a good story. Certainly what Stephanie said couldn't be believed, so she was sent home with a note stating that she has ‘a very good imagination' and must be taught to tell the truth. Ultimately though, the school was left red faced, because Stephanie was telling the truth. Her uncle lives in Texas and owns and exhibits wild animals. Generally when children say outrageous things adults don't believe them - unless it's THEIR child. As I wrote last week, many parents immediately believe the stories their child comes home from school with and they jump to say ‘how dumb the school is'. Yet, how should a parent handle a child's complaint? Over the years I have developed a formula for how to deal with children's complaints successfully - allowing the child to feel heard and the parent to show respect for authority. Firstly, a parent must be emotionally supportive to their child and allow them to air out their feelings, while consciously acknowledging that there is probably a piece of the puzzle missing. Children can consciously or subconsciously misunderstand, fill in missing pieces with their own thoughts, omit crucial details or explain innuendo with their own novel interpretation. Nonetheless, a child that hears their parent say, "I hear you and that needs to be looked into" is a child that will feel their parent cares. Secondly, after a parent listens to their child, they can have an intellectual conversation. A child can think of a logical reason why the school would make the rule they did. A parent can even ask the child to role play the school's side to make sense of the rule. If a child cannot do it, the parent can help.

"Did they cancel outdoor activities because it's too hot?" "Do you have to eat your snack in the classroom because when you eat outside the children leave too much garbage on the floor?" "Could it be that you have to play in the gate for your own safety?" A parent can then explain to their child that sometimes rules are made for the safety of the child and sometimes for the benefit of the camp (and sometimes because of perversions within our legal system), but no matter if they understand the rules or not they must be followed at all times. I recently visited a summer camp and saw an ‘in' and ‘out' sign over the doors in the room where the campers washed for bread. Seems petty doesn't it? Doesn't the camp administration have anything better to do other than micro-manage which doors the children go in and out of when they wash their hands? However, there are many reasons why a camp would create such a rule and none of them have anything to do with micro-managing. It might keep the flow of the campers moving, cutting down on the washing time, or maybe it stops the pushing, dripping, slipping and water fights. A smart parent would discuss the why's of rules before they declare the camp "crazy." Lastly, a child should know that the parent will be calling school to clarify the rule and discuss it with the proper authorities. This phone call will have a two-fold purpose. If the child has made a mistake the phone call will elucidate that and teach the child to verify facts before they come running home with a complaint. However, if the rule should be challenged, they can see their parent do so in a respectful manner. Principals and teachers are human beings. They can make mistakes and a polite phone call to the proper authority can sometimes get things changed.

A number of years ago I was witness to a fascinating story. An eighth grade student that was still not placed in the high school of his choice approached his principal and said, "My father is worried that I haven't been accepted into the high school and he wants to know when he can call to discuss it with you." The principal answered, "Tell your father not to worry because I'm taking care of it. He shouldn't bother himself to call me. I'll have an answer for him in a day or two." The next day I bumped into the father - the very outraged father - who said, "What nerve! My son is not placed in high school yet and the principal said I shouldn't call him and bother him!" Imagine how the story would have played itself out if the parents had listened to the child, worked out a reasonable explanation for the comment, and then called the school for clarification. It would have saved both the parents and the child anger and pain. Listening to your child - passively and actively, showing understanding for authority, and discussing the issue with the responsible party politely will tell your child you care about them, but that you put your trust in the adults who take care of them when you are not around.

Politically Correct Anti-Semitism

The articles were in the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times. They were titled, "Churches Raise Pressure on Firms in Israel" and "Threat to Divest is Church Tool in Israeli Fight." They tell a story of main line Protestant denominations with close ties to Israel taking steps to try and influence the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by divesting funds from companies that do business with Israel. The church committee named four companies that they claim contribute to the constant struggle in the Middle East through support for the Israeli settlements, construction of the protective barrier on the West Bank or facilitation of violent acts against civilians. These companies include ITT industries and United Technologies, which supply communication equipment and helicopters to the Israeli military; Caterpillar, whose equipment is used in the building of the settlements; Motorola, which provides military wireless communications and invests in Israeli cell phone firms. In an attempt to be even handed the committee also named Citigroup, for providing money transfer services to charities that were accused of being fronts for terrorist groups. Citigroup, of course, calls the charge against their company ‘an outrage'.

The Presbyterian Church seems to be using politically correct economic empowerment to cover its non politically correct anti-Semitism . There are other nominations of the Protestant church that are toying with divestment as a means to control the politics in the Middle East, but the language the Presbyterian church uses to discuss divestment is especially ugly. They place the blame for all the violence in the Middle East on Israel because of their presence in the land that the Palestinians demand. This stand is immoral. It makes Israel's self defense an evil surpassing terrorism and will ultimately bring an end to the Jewish State. The timing is questionable, too. At a time when Israel is pulling out of Gaza, why would the Presbyterian church put sanctions on Israel? If they are simply concerned that all should be well for the Palestinians, the Presbyterians should be applauding Israel's effort for moving in the ‘right direction.' According to the articles the Presbyterians can feel for the Palestinian suffering because many Palestinians can't get help in the church run hospitals in Israel. What an absurd accusation! Israeli hospitals treat anyone that comes to them for help. Perhaps the Presbyterians should consider the fact that the Palestinians can't go to the Presbyterian hospitals in the Muslim countries surrounding Israel because there are none. The Muslim countries of the Middle East don't allow people to practice any other religion - including Christianity - and they don't allow their good Samaritans in to do their ‘good work' either. Maybe the ‘divestment of funds tactic' should be used with the Muslim countries that deny their people access to the help the church offers around the world. The Church believes that the Bible, which says very clearly that the Holy Land was given to the Jewish people, is a living document. Over the years when the support came from the church they used the Bible as a reason for supporting Israel's survival - what happened now? Are the Presbyterians ready to say that part of the Bible is G-d given and the rest is up to human interpretation? The Presbyterian church is using its success of diversity of funds to change the political climate in South Africa where the white minority ruled over the black majority, as a blue print for their actions in the Middle East. Is there a comparison between the South African apartheid and the situation in Israel? The Jews have biblical ownership of the land of Israel and have lived in the land for thousands of years. How can that be equated to the white man's claim of ownership of Africa? Even if the members of the Presbyterian Church feel that regardless of historical ownership of the land there is injustice that must be addressed, why is the church silent when these same ‘injustices' occur in other countries?

The Presbyterians say they have a problem with the Israelis building a security fence to protect themselves from attack. There is a long list of countries that built a security barrier between their own country and an enemy. Most notable is the USA which has a wall on the border it shares with Mexico to keep out illegal aliens - not suicide bombers; India is building a fence along the majority of its 1,800 mile border it shares with Pakistan to keep terrorists from crossing the border; Saudi Arabia has begun building a separation barrier along its border with Yemen to stop terrorists and smugglers from flowing into the border region; a land dispute led to the construction of a barbed wire fence by Uzbekistan on the border it shares with Kyrgyztan; there's an electric fence between Botswana and Zimbabwe and the list goes on and on. The church is notably quiet about the construction of barriers in these countries. Is it because there is a double standard when an issue concerns Jews? Or is it because they jumped on the band wagon of those against the security fence in Israel?

Bulldozers are a problem? Cell phones? Should we go back to the Middle Ages? Dig by hand? Use land lines? Maybe the church wants to penalize the companies that make refrigerators for Israel? How about the companies that sell Israeli's mattresses? The Presbyterian divestment scheme smacks of anti-Semitism. The church should simply stay out of the fray and out of Middle Eastern politics altogether and do its charity work with the poor Muslims in their own countries - if they will let the Christians in. By using politically correct economic empowerment to cover politically incorrect anti-Semitism directed against Israel which has hosted the church for so many years, the Church is practicing nothing less than "throwing stones into the well that they drink from."

SEPTEMBER 2005

An UNfulfilled Charter

On June 26, 1945 the United Nations charter was signed by a US representative. According to the charter the UN was set up to "...save succeeding generations from war... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights...in the equal rights...of nations large and small...to practice tolerance...to maintain international peace and security..." When the UN was set up the peoples of the world must have been duly moved. What an impressive charter! What incredible goals! What hope everyone must have had for a peaceful future. Imagine! An international organization meant to keep the peace, one which learned from the mistakes of the League of Nations - its predecessor. Though it had great potential, the UN has proven to be a disappointing, bureaucratic, conglomeration of nations driven by hatred and politicking. It is hard to remember when the UN last took a leadership position in global politics that resulted in peaceful co-existence among nations. It's true that the UN does sponsor worthwhile programs that have positive impact in many parts of the world, such as UNICEF and the UNAIDS programs, however any nation or private organization can accomplish the same, probably for a lot less money. Why spend money funding a whole bureaucracy to do that?

Just in regard to tiny beleaguered Israel, it is clear that the UN has strayed far from its original intent. In October 2000, three Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and killed at the Lebanese border right under the noses of the UN "peace keepers." There were signs that the UN peace keepers were not just witnesses but actual participants in this heinous crime. There was video footage that would have helped the Israelis identify the Lebanese kidnappers which the UN said they can't release because they are ‘an international body and they can't play a role in transferring intelligence information to either party'. Interestingly enough in the partial video footage Israel did get, the car that was used for the kidnapping had UN license plates - which (of course) the UN said were forged. The UN also sponsors schools and textbooks in the PA. These teach hatred and violence towards Israel to the children who learn in those schools - making them ready fodder for the extremists who seek to turn them into human bombs. The UN knows what these schools teach and choose to ignore it. Recent reports say that the UN has paid for the production of thousands of banners, bumper stickers, mugs and T-shirts bearing the slogan ‘Today Gaza and Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem.' In addition to the explosive slogan many of these items, which have been distributed to the Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip, displayed the logo of the United Nations Development Program. The UN support of the Palestinian Authority's propaganda has provoked outrage from many, who are blaming the UN for dispersing the inflammatory message they say encourages Palestinian Arab violence. The Arabic slogan, which refers to disputed territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, has served as the Palestinian Arab effort to spin the withdrawal as victory.

I have a problem with the fact that the UN seems to be an independent world government without any overseer. They do things that affect many different countries and they do whatever they please just because they are the "UN" - which according to its charter should remain neutral in global disputes. The Middle Eastern conflict has lasted too many years and will not be solved by some biased and unchecked world body. The United State's new ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, has labeled the actions of the UN "inappropriate and unacceptable." Mr. Bolton said that the UN has failed to explain why it gave money to the PA for the production of these items with the provocative slogans. Mr. Bolton told the UN that the most serious problem for his office was not the fact that the logo was printed on the material, but the fact that the agency used their money to support this divisive message. I applaud President Bush for having the courage to appoint a man with these moral credentials to represent our country at the UN. The actions of the UN over the years show us that this is not an isolated case, but rather demonstrates what the UN is all about. Though the UN has agreed to stop paying for the anti-Israel propaganda, their track record for biased actions make me wonder what else they have up their sleeve that we just don't know about yet. Actually, the USA would do everybody a favor, especially the people who live in NYC, if they get rid of the entire UN complex and put up affordable housing instead.

Shea Hecht is a Rabbi and activist in the Jewish community. More than a decade ago, he rose to national prominence as a community leader during the Crown Heights riots in New York. As a result, he received numerous awards by both government and private organizations for his work in fostering racial harmony. Shea was a member of Mayor Giuliani's task force on police/community relations. He received the Community Relations Award from the American Jewish Committee for his leadership of the Crown Heights Coalition, seen as a model for healing a polarized community. For seven years, Shea Hecht was a Commissioner of Human Rights for the city of New York. Shea serves as chairman of the Board at the National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education where he has continued the tradition of social services management and outreach that began with his father, the late Rabbi Jacob J. Hecht. Shea is Dean of Hadar Hatorah School for College Youth and a lecturer at the Ivy League Torah Study Program. He is a co-founder of the Ari Program, an innovative school for at-risk kids. As a life strategist, Shea's expertise centers on family crisis intervention- guiding and advising troubled youths and their families, marriage counseling, and as a drugs and cults consultant. As an activist, he serves as a liaison between the government/law enforcement, fostering racial harmony and diversity in his community Shea's articles and commentaries on various topics are printed in many prominent newspapers and periodicals worldwide.

A Loss of More Than Just Possessions

They saw each other at the airport and sat next to each other on the airplane. Their destination was California. Being that they were seat mates, they started to talk.
"Which city are you traveling to?" he asked.
"To Los Angeles" she replied. "To join my family. They went on an earlier flight and now I'm joining them. What's your destination?" she questioned.
"Los Angeles, too" he answered. "Our home was destroyed, and we don't have anywhere to go right now. I'm trying to make arrangements for a temporary place to live."
"Our home was also destroyed," she said, visibly upset. "I didn't want to abandon my home. I lived in it all my life. Our business had to be abandoned, too. I was told I had no choice; I was forced to leave."
"I understand what the loss of a home means," he said quietly. "It makes no difference if the cause is monetary, political or because of natural disaster, it's very painful to lose a home. When I saw the images of the destruction in the news I identified so strongly with the loss of personal possessions, memorabilia, and family heirlooms, I was overcome with pain and hurt."
He stopped for a moment to compose himself, and then continued, "We lived in the same town and the same house for almost 30 years. We built the community ourselves. My family feels displaced without the loving environment that was familiar to them all these years. Our children were born into a warm and established community; it's where their memories were formed. It wasn't just our house which was destroyed, it was our home. It wasn't just bricks and mortar. It was brotherhood and unity. Yet they forced us to leave. Our homes, our businesses, our houses of worship and our cemeteries were all destroyed. We tried to protect them but we couldn't."
"I know what you mean," she said. "The people of our town were trying to be supportive of each other knowing that everyone was struggling to prevent the same loss. The clergy told us to have faith and things would work out, and so we prayed. We tried to save ourselves, by moving from place to place and eventually by climbing on the rooftops. We were ready to do anything to push off the inevitable. We were sure that help would arrive and prevent evacuation. We were so disappointed to be forced out."
"Yes, we sat on the rooftops too" he murmured. "We, too, were hoping and praying for salvation, and tried not to despair."
"Aside from each family's personal loss the national monetary casualty is staggering" she said. "Though I'm sure we'll recover, I can't see it happening in the near future."
"It is quite terrible" he said. "The economic future does look bleak - on a personal and national level - but recovery is sure to come, even if it's slow. Not only that, I heard it said that .0016 percent of the population was displaced."
" .0016? I heard that number, too. Almost everyone I know was affected" she said.
"What town are you from?" she asked. "We all live in the Southern coastal regions. Your town might not have been too far from mine."
"It did live in a Southern Coastal region. It was called Gush Katif" he answered.
"Katif!" she exclaimed, sounding quite surprised. "You're from Israel? What you described sounded so familiar, I thought you lived somewhere near me. I'm from New Orleans and we were hit by Hurricane Katrina."
"New Orleans? The home of the Mardi Gras?" he asked. "From what I've read, for many people the Mardi Gras meant promiscuity, lawlessness and lack of morals."
"Yes," she said. "To our great shame that is exactly how some acted. Maybe that basic lack of concern for others was the cause of the rioting and looting after the storm. Even many rescuers didn't feel safe. A helicopter bringing food and help was shot at, endangering the pilot and almost preventing the copter from going to help others. The looting and pillaging were horrible. The price gouging incredible!"
"There are those in the religious circles that say that the destruction of Katrina was a message connected to the destruction of Katif" she stated.
"I saw the coverage of the evacuation of Katif," she continued. "I knew the residents disagreed with the disengagement and were brokenhearted from the destruction of the lives they knew, yet you could feel a sense of love and brotherhood between the evacuating soldiers and the evacuees. When the soldiers came the residents gave up their guns. There were unforgettable pictures as the soldiers and the town residents cried together, sang together, and prayed together" she finished.
"I can agree with you on that" , he said. "When you equate the pictures of the aftermath of each tragedy, I can only say that I am proud that I was part of the tragedy of Katif and not Katrina. "
"Actually, if you compare the tragedies, they do seem quite similar" he said as they got ready to part their separate ways. "Both places suffered tragic and irreparable destruction. Perhaps by viewing the pictures and reading of the loss of both tragedies, many will realize that the tragedy of the Gaza and the destruction of towns was a loss of more than just possessions."