Printer Friendly

Email to A Friend

Friday April 27, 2007

Letters

‘Terrifying episode’

The March 9 j. article regarding rising anti-Semitism in Hungary conjured up a terrifying episode I experienced on a recent trip to Budapest.

I boarded a trolley near the National Museum. At the first stop a burly skinhead in civilian clothes boarded, singled me out and demanded to see my ticket. Noting that it was not punched (I was unaware of the need to punch it upon boarding), he literally dragged me off the trolley and thrust me up against a stone wall.

He was joined by two skinhead accomplices, who called me a (expletive) American and a (double expletive) Israeli, and threatened me with a painful death (or worse).

They demanded $20 Hungarian as penalty. I hollered for a policeman to no avail. Ultimately realizing my life was worth more than $20, I quelled my anger, swallowed my pride and paid my ransom.

The concierge at my hotel laughed at my story, saying “That’s how we treat you Jews and Israelis.”

A call to the police proved to be a waste of time. Apparently the rule of law and the lessons of recent history have yet to be fully realized in Hungary and the former Soviet bloc countries.

Dan Kaplan, M.D. | Oakland

‘Significant decision’

In my zeal to celebrate the decision of the Jewish Theological Seminary to admit gay and lesbian students to its rabbinical and cantorial schools (in my April 6 j. view), I neglected to mention that the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the University of Judaism had already made this historic move in December 2006, the first Conservative seminary to do so.

As previously announced, the Ziegler School began considering applications from gay and lesbian candidates as soon as the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards ruled on Dec. 7 to permit doing so. In my article, I was focused on JTS, whose decision could not have been predicted in advance.

The Ziegler School’s decision, from a faculty long dedicated to equality for students of all sexual orientations, was no surprise, but no less significant.

I regret the omission, and meant no disrespect to this wonderful institution.

Rabbi Amy Eilberg | Mendota Heights, Minn.

Exaggerated?

Regarding Gershon Evan’s letter in the April 20 j., I was somewhat sympathetic to the substance and tenor until almost the very end, when he stated that he could not “remember any influential black ever being on the side of the Jewish state.”

That statement is offensive, and the implication is obviously inaccurate.

Has the letter writer really never heard of Martin Luther King, Bayard Rustin, Walter Williams or Alan Keyes, just to name a few from across the political spectrum?

Should there be more? Yes, I agree, but to recklessly exaggerate is unproductive and unfair.

Rod Parker | San Francisco

Small-minded?

Joanne Catz Hartman’s April 20 column about gossip was great. I especially like the thought with which she ended it.

Wasn’t it Eleanor Roosevelt who said: “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

Stephen Weinstein | Milwaukee

Advice: Don’t listen

Maybe it’s just me, but I just finished reading Rachel Sarah’s April 13 column, and this grandpa just does not get it. I am attempting to take this column seriously, but I cannot get past the first paragraph. This Israeli chap has known her for a mere six months and he wants a baby.

A woman of steel would tell this guy to get lost, or go get a lollypop. I beg her not to listen to either her mom (“he’s crazy about the both of you. Just have the baby” — is she out of her mind?) or that “rabbi” (I’d ask for a refund from Beth Am.)

Please tell me that she was just kidding. It hurts too much to think that she is speaking the truth.

Ron Slayen | San Francisco

No promises

I’ve read in recent issues of j. criticism regarding the recent Lantos/Pelosi visit to the Middle East. I, for one, believe that we need to speak with anyone and everyone in our efforts to secure peace in the region.

They did not come to any secret agreement. They did not promise goods or money in return for peace. They furthered the conversation.

This does not undermine the president. It simply keeps the paths of communication open.

Tracy Salkowitz | San Francisco

Did you find this article interesting? Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and you'll be notified each week when "J." goes online. We'll tell you about the most important stories of the week and give you a link to each one.

This page contains a BETA version of Amazon contextual links. They are marked by the dashed underline.  Your purchases support our site. At times they point to items which are not related to the actual link. Please alert us by email if you discover objectionable links.