The targeted telephone call pulled no punches. “As governor of Massachusetts,” a voice told Jewish voters in Florida, many of whom are survivors of the Shoah, “Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher.”

The robocall, as the communications technique is known, then went on to urge Jewish voters to cast their votes for former Rep. Newt Gingrich. “Tuesday,” it said, “you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich.”

Here are the facts:

In 2003, the Massachuesetts legislature passed a bill that would have restored cuts in state and federal funding to nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Among other things, those cuts would have resulted in the closing of kosher kitchens in some facilities.

Romney vetoed the bill, not because he wanted to end kosher meals for Shoah survivors, but because he objected to restoring any of the cuts.

As things turned out, the elder care facilities came up with an alternative plan to continue supplying the kosher food, if an alternative was needed. It was not; the commonwealth’s legislators overrode Romney’s veto.

More important, according to JTA, “There is no evidence that anyone who wanted a kosher meal went without, or that Holocaust survivors would necessarily have been targeted by the measure.”

We have cautioned before against exaggerated or misleading political rhetoric, but this little snippet is too egregious for words: Holocaust survivors being told that other Holocaust survivors were denied kosher food. Although, as CNN reported, the former House speaker correctly disavowed the robocall, his campaign acknowledged being responsible for it.

It is not the first time that something emanating from Gingrich or his campaign has given us pause. Throughout the South Carolina primary, he talked about how the “centerpiece” of his campaign “is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.” In an interview with CNN, Gingrich said, “Saul Alinsky radicalism is at the heart of Obama.”

We understand what Gingrich may have meant. The Chicago-born son of Russian Jewish immigrant parents who died in 1972 perfected the art of community organizing. As some political scientists have noted, however, his current “heirs” are the Tea Party activists who have used his techniques to great advantage.

Most South Carolinians who turned out for Gingrich’s rallies probably never heard of Saul Alinsky, much less understood what Gingrich was trying to say, and Gingrich’s speeches did not come with annotated handouts explaining his references. All people heard was that the president’s spiritual mentor was some Jewish radical.

We are not suggesting that Gingrich is anti-Semitic, or that he intended to stir anti-Semitic feelings when he made his remarks. We are saying, however, that candidates need to be very careful with their words, because those words can be easily misused or misconstrued.

False charges have no place in a political campaign. Neither do false impressions.

The Jews of Bergen County can breathe a sigh of relief, now that a suspect in the synagogue firebombings has been arrested. Still at large, however, are those responsible for the December graffitti attacks against synagogues in Maywood and Hackensack.

There are still people around who hate Jews enough to act on it. We hope they have learned the lesson deliberately sent by the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office: Hate has no place in Bergen County, and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

We, too, have learned a lesson: Hate does not resonate among our non-Jewish neighbors.

We have seen it in the determined and clever detective work that led to the arrest.

We have seen it in the statements from our area’s elected officials — not all of whom are Jewish — condemning the attacks on synagogues.

Most important, we have seen it in the non-Jews — community leaders, Christian and Muslim clergy, ordinary lay people — who turned out for the interfaith events held in response to the violence. This, our non-Jewish neighbors insisted by word and deed, is not the American way. They felt embarrassed that this could happen in their community.

We applaud the law enforcement community for a job very well done. We applaud our political leadership for being united in reacting to these horrific events. We especially applaud our non-Jewish neighbors for showing us that whatever our differences may be, when hate rears its head, we will stand as one to defeat it.

This past week, we had a reminder of what can happen when truth is bent way out of shape, and the resulting lie then repeated over and again until it gains an unchallengeable veneer of veracity. The just (and justly) resigned publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times, in an opinion column, clearly and unambiguously suggested that Israel should assassinate the president of the United States.

In his column, the unthinking publisher wrote that assassinating President Barack Obama was an option that had to be considered. It would put Vice President Joe Biden into the Oval Office. Unlike Obama, he said, Biden is a true friend of Israel who cares for its security. In addition, he wrote, Obama is the sole reason why the United States has not acted decisively against Tehran’s nuclear program. Biden would shut down the Iranian threat with all deliberate speed.

The suggestion is despicable in every respect. What lurks beneath it, however, is even more insidious: The publisher is convinced that Obama is Israel’s enemy and cannot be trusted to help prevent its annihilation. It is a belief held by many in and out of the Jewish world.

What the president believes in his heart about Israel is probably known only to the president. None of us is God; none of us can know what is in anyone’s heart but our own.

We can, however, look at the record to see what clues it offers. That record, like it or not, puts this president firmly in the “friend of Israel” column; the myths regarding Obama notwithstanding, Israel itself acknowledges that.

The unprecedented security cooperation between the two countries puts the president firmly in another column — “cares for Israel’s security.” Obama referred to this in his State of the Union message Tuesday evening. “Our ironclad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest cooperation between our countries in history,” he said.

That is not a lie. Its truth was demonstrated yet again last Friday, Jan. 20, when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, visited Israel. “We have many interests in common in the region in this very dynamic time,” Dempsey said, “and the more we can continue to engage each other, the better off we’ll all be.” Translated, that means the United States and Israel need to get even closer as the Middle East becomes ever more unsettled.

Earlier this month, The Jewish Standard devoted a considerable amount of space to exploding the myths that dominate the discussion of where Obama stands regarding Israel. Some readers saw this coverage as a pro-Obama piece of propaganda. It was what it was advertised to be — an honest, unbiased comparison of myths to facts. If printing the truth is seen as taking sides, our democracy is in serious peril.

Jews, especially, know the evil that is the Big Lie. It was the most powerful weapon the Nazis wielded in their effort to make ordinary Germans and others complicit in our extermination.

The Standard’s motive was not to help re-elect the president but to begin an effort to “dial down” the rhetoric that depicts him as Israel’s greatest enemy of all time. We began to discuss this coverage in late November, coincidentally around the anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Obama today is being demonized as Rabin was demonized. The demonization cost Rabin his life. On the evening of Nov. 4, 1995, he was cut down by a man who allowed myths to obscure his judgment. Now, a seemingly rational and responsible man has suggested that Obama deserves the same fate.

In a democratic society, votes should be cast based on facts coupled with gut instinct. “Whenever people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson said. Ignorance is not an acceptable substitute for informed opinion. We must not allow ourselves to be swayed by fantasies merely because we are too busy or too lazy to search out the facts.

It is okay to look at those facts and say that, nevertheless, we cannot vote for someone because we do not trust his or her sincerity.

It is not okay — not now, not in 1995, not ever — to so distort the truth that a target is painted on the forehead of another.

Next Saturday evening, Feb. 4, the North Jersey Board of Rabbis will present “Sweet Tastes of Torah III.” On this night, people from all across northern New Jersey will come together to study topics of Jewish interest as taught by our community’s talented and knowledgeable rabbis. Among the offerings this year are: “Do you believe in magic: What happens when the demons all go away?”; “Anti-Semitism: The sound of silence”; “Let me behold your presence: How do we relate to God?”; “Lost in translation: Issues in translating the Bible”; and “Made by hand: the concept of personal touch in Jewish religious and social life.”

If you attended either or both of the two previous “Sweet Tastes” evenings, you surely know what an amazing experience it is and why it is you should attend again this year. If you have never attended, let this be the year you give it a try.

“Sweet Tastes of Torah” proves that Jewish learning can be fun, as well as informative. For more information, go to http://www.jfnnj.org/page.aspx?id=210525.

With Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz — practically guaranteeing a rise in world oil prices — we must remember that oil, as precious as that commodity is, actually is a side issue in this deadly serious stand-off.

Our major concern should not be what we pay for gas at our local station, but what Iran is doing, and intends to do, with its nuclear capability.

By all accounts, the “Islamic republic” (an absurd designation for what actually is an autocratic theocracy) has not yet developed a nuclear weapons program. To argue that we should not be in any hurry to worry, however, as some have done, is misguided at best. The United States and Israel especially have cause to be concerned, because the rhetoric of the Iran leadership targets each equally.

Cold War wisdom — the notion that having a bomb will actually force its owners to be more responsible — is irrelevant in this age of extremism. The radicals who lead the Iranian government have not shown restraint thus far, and there is no reason to believe they will change their tune once they get the bomb (with a nod to satirist/songwriter Tom Lehrer, who, in a more innocent time, wrote a funny song about nuclear weapons, that included the verse, “Egypt wants to get one, too, just to use on You-Know-Who.” Substitute Iran for Egypt and there is nothing funny here at all).

Still, it is not clear what to do, or even what is being done.

Here at home, the administration claims to be committed to the gradual imposition of sanctions, yet it may have secretly approached Iran seeking to resolve differences via direct talks, something the White House vehemently denies and Iran ecstatically proclaims. In Israel, the prime minister offers hope that upgraded sanctions can succeed if the West is serious about following through, while a deputy expresses disappointment in the sanctions program outlined by Washington.

It is not surprising that the United States and Israel disagree on tactics. Not only does Israel live in the neighborhood, and therefore has greater reason to fear attack from Iran, but the Jewish state has a large stake in re-establishing deterrence in the Arab world (especially in view of recent “failures,” such as the 2006 war with Hezbollah).

Israel has taken preemptive action before — the country’s 2007 attack on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear facility being a case in point. Interestingly, Israel did not brag about the attack, nor did Syria retaliate, or call for international condemnation. This suggests, of course, that Israel had good reason to take the action it did.

What about now? Should we assume that Israel has information we lack? Should we support the “take it slow” position best illustrated by President John F. Kennedy’s response to the Cuban missile crisis?

Clearly, the issues are complex and the stakes are high. Let us hope that our leaders — putting aside all political considerations — can find a solution before our options become even more limited.

During Chanukah, we asked readers whether they kept a fire extinguisher nearby when they lit their candles. Fully 80 percent of those who responded said no.

Even allowing for the fact that the survey question was not “scientific” and that the “survey sample” was probably quite small, 80 percent is an amazingly high number and, in this case, a frightening one.

Fire extinguishers are ugly-looking devices, to be sure. They do not fit with most people’s ideas of home décor. They make people uncomfortable just to see them around.

They do save lives, however, and that is all that matters.

The recent firebomb attack on Congregation Beth El in Rutherford proves the point (although we would have preferred a different kind of proof). Rabbi Nosson Schuman and his family thankfully avoided serious injury in part because there was a fire extinguisher handy. “The carpet was on fire… [but] I was able to get to the fire extinguisher and put it out,” he told The Jewish Standard in an interview.

Could you say the same? Do you even know where the fire extinguishers are in your home?

We urge you all to have fire extinguishers handy throughout your homes, and to make certain that (a) you know how to use the devices and (b) that the devices actually are working properly.

We erred.

In an editorial last week, we noted that no “official representatives of the Orthodox community were present at” what amounted to a rally at Temple Beth El in Hackensack on the last night of Chanukah, called to protest a Dec. 20 hate attack — the second such attack to an area synagogue in 10 days.

While that is true, it implied two things: The first is that the RCBC and its membership knew the event was taking place. The second is that their absence also meant that they were silent about the vandalism against another segment of the community.

We also wrote that it “is hard to escape the conclusion that the absence of Orthodox leaders from the Hackensack event had everything to do with the fact that neither synagogue [that had been vandalized] is Orthodox.”

This last statement suggests to some, at least, that the Orthodox leadership in northern New Jersey has no problem with someone painting swastikas and other hateful symbols on the walls of non-Orthodox institutions.

Nothing can be further from the truth and we regret that anyone read it that way.

As to the other two implications, we erred because we made an assumption. The notice of the event was originally sent out by the JCRC within a day of the vandalism against Temple Beth El. The JCRC uses an e-mail list compiled by it and the Synagogue Leadership Initiative, and that list includes the RCBC and its members.

On the previous Thursday, The Jewish Standard website published an editorial urging everyone in the community, regardless of affiliation, to show up at the rally. We also sent the text of that editorial to our e-mail list. The next day, Friday, the eve of Shabbat, Jason Shames, the chief executive officer and executive vice president of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey, referred to the editorial and provided a link to it in his weekly e-mail that went out to the entire JFNNJ list.

In addition, an Orthodox rabbi, Tzvee Zahavy, published both the JCRC announcement of the event and our editorial on his “Tzvee’s talmudic blog” site.

With all of these references, we assumed that the RCBC and its member rabbis were aware of the event. That is where we erred. We assumed it, but did not know it for certain. We have now been assured by both the current and two past presidents of the RCBC that, in fact, they were not aware of the event. We also did not consider the busy schedules many Orthodox rabbis maintain and how many e-mails all of us, regardless of affiliation, are subjected to in a given day. Merely because e-mails were sent does not mean they are read in a timely manner.

The RCBC representatives who contacted us said that they and their members should not be held accountable for missing an event that they did not know was taking place. As the current president, Rabbi Shalom Baum, wrote in an e-mail to us, “I clearly would have responded and attended if I was called about this event. I and many of my colleagues have a long history of working with all members of the clergy, both here and in Israel.”

When reporting a news story, we insist that the facts be checked and double-checked. We should have done the same in preparing this editorial.

We also want to note that on Dec. 29 the RCBC did send a letter of support to Temple Beth El, and also discussed that attack and the Dec. 11 attack on the Maywood Reconstructionist synagogue at an RCBC meeting. “I am sure that this has been a difficult time for your synagogue community…,” Baum wrote on the RCBC’s behalf to Beth El’s Rabbi Robert Schumeister. “I wanted to express our solidarity with your community. Please let me know if there is anything specific that we could do.”

Because the RCBC did not make any public statement, we assumed that it had not made any private one. Again, we assumed something when we should have checked.

Another statement we made was that “there are rabbis in the Orthodox community who follow the opinion of some Orthodox decisors that it is forbidden even to walk into a non-Orthodox synagogue.” While no one denies this is the case, we are assured that it is not the case with members of the RCBC. Again, our error was assuming a fact not in evidence.

We also stated in our editorial that ours is the only Jewish community in the United States that has two boards of rabbis. This, too, was an error. What we meant to say is not what we did say, and we regret that. What we meant to say is that ours is the only community that we know of where the Orthodox and non-Orthodox rabbis do not sit together as colleagues to discuss areas of common concern, such as occurs regularly, say, in the New York Board of Rabbis.

We continue to bemoan the fact that ours is a Jewish community with a divided religious leadership that finds it difficult to sit together to work on the problems that the Jews of northern New Jersey face. We have been assured that the RCBC in the last few years has worked to change that. We hope that the North Jersey Board of Rabbis extends its hand in collegiality to the RCBC for the benefit of the entire community.We should have checked first

We erred.

In an editorial last week, we noted that no “official representatives of the Orthodox community were present at” what amounted to a rally at Temple Beth El in Hackensack on the last night of Chanukah, called to protest a Dec. 20 hate attack — the second such attack to an area synagogue in 10 days.

While that is true, it implied two things: The first is that the RCBC and its membership knew the event was taking place. The second is that their absence also meant that they were silent about the vandalism against another segment of the community.

We also wrote that it “is hard to escape the conclusion that the absence of Orthodox leaders from the Hackensack event had everything to do with the fact that neither synagogue [that had been vandalized] is Orthodox.”

This last statement suggests to some, at least, that the Orthodox leadership in northern New Jersey has no problem with someone painting swastikas and other hateful symbols on the walls of non-Orthodox institutions.

Nothing can be further from the truth and we regret that anyone read it that way.

As to the other two implications, we erred because we made an assumption. The notice of the event was originally sent out by the JCRC within a day of the vandalism against Temple Beth El. The JCRC uses an e-mail list compiled by it and the Synagogue Leadership Initiative, and that list includes the RCBC and its members.

On the previous Thursday, The Jewish Standard website published an editorial urging everyone in the community, regardless of affiliation, to show up at the rally. We also sent the text of that editorial to our e-mail list. The next day, Friday, the eve of Shabbat, Jason Shames, the chief executive officer and executive vice president of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey, referred to the editorial and provided a link to it in his weekly e-mail that went out to the entire JFNNJ list.

In addition, an Orthodox rabbi, Tzvee Zahavy, published both the JCRC announcement of the event and our editorial on his “Tzvee’s talmudic blog” site.

With all of these references, we assumed that the RCBC and its member rabbis were aware of the event. That is where we erred. We assumed it, but did not know it for certain. We have now been assured by both the current and two past presidents of the RCBC that, in fact, they were not aware of the event. We also did not consider the busy schedules many Orthodox rabbis maintain and how many e-mails all of us, regardless of affiliation, are subjected to in a given day. Merely because e-mails were sent does not mean they are read in a timely manner.

The RCBC representatives who contacted us said that they and their members should not be held accountable for missing an event that they did not know was taking place. As the current president, Rabbi Shalom Baum, wrote in an e-mail to us, “I clearly would have responded and attended if I was called about this event. I and many of my colleagues have a long history of working with all members of the clergy, both here and in Israel.”

When reporting a news story, we insist that the facts be checked and double-checked. We should have done the same in preparing this editorial.

We also want to note that on Dec. 29 the RCBC did send a letter of support to Temple Beth El, and also discussed that attack and the Dec. 11 attack on the Maywood Reconstructionist synagogue at an RCBC meeting. “I am sure that this has been a difficult time for your synagogue community…,” Baum wrote on the RCBC’s behalf to Beth El’s Rabbi Robert Schumeister. “I wanted to express our solidarity with your community. Please let me know if there is anything specific that we could do.”

Because the RCBC did not make any public statement, we assumed that it had not made any private one. Again, we assumed something when we should have checked.

Another statement we made was that “there are rabbis in the Orthodox community who follow the opinion of some Orthodox decisors that it is forbidden even to walk into a non-Orthodox synagogue.” While no one denies this is the case, we are assured that it is not the case with members of the RCBC. Again, our error was assuming a fact not in evidence.

We also stated in our editorial that ours is the only Jewish community in the United States that has two boards of rabbis. This, too, was an error. What we meant to say is not what we did say, and we regret that. What we meant to say is that ours is the only community that we know of where the Orthodox and non-Orthodox rabbis do not sit together as colleagues to discuss areas of common concern, such as occurs regularly, say, in the New York Board of Rabbis.

We continue to bemoan the fact that ours is a Jewish community with a divided religious leadership that finds it difficult to sit together to work on the problems that the Jews of northern New Jersey face. We have been assured that the RCBC in the last few years has worked to change that. We hope that the North Jersey Board of Rabbis extends its hand in collegiality to the RCBC for the benefit of the entire community.

We erred.

In our editorial in this week’s printed edition, we noted that no “official representatives of the Orthodox community were present at” what amounted to a rally at Temple Beth El in Hackensack on the last night of Chanukah, called to protest the second act of vandalism to an area synagogue in 10 days.

While that is true, it implied two things: The first is that the RCBC and its membership were aware of that event. The second is that their absence also meant that they were silent about the vandalism against another segment of the community.

This last implication was compounded by our statement that it “is hard to escape the conclusion that the absence of Orthodox leaders from the Hackensack event had everything to do with the fact that neither synagogue [that had been vandalized] is Orthodox.”

This suggests to some, at least, that the Orthodox leadership in northern New Jersey has no problem with someone painting swastikas and other hateful symbols on the walls of non-Orthodox institutions.

Nothing can be further from the truth. There are rabbis in the Orthodox community who follow the opinion of some Orthodox decisors that it is forbidden even to walk in to a non-Orthodox synagogue. The offensive sentence only meant to wonder whether that ruling was behind the absence. To be clear about this, however, there also are Orthdox rabbis in our community who do not follow those decisors on this matter. Nevertheless, that is all that was meant by the particular sentence.

As to the two implications cited above, we erred by making an assumption. The notice of the event was originally sent out by the JCRC within a day of the vandalism against Temple Beth El. The JCRC uses an e-mail list compiled by it and the Synagogue Leadership Initiative, and that list includes the RCBC and its members.

On the previous Thursday, The Jewish Standard website published an editorial urging everyone in the community, regardless of affiliation, to show up at the rally. We also sent the text of that editorial to our e-mail list. The next day, Friday, the eve of Shabbat, Jason Shames, the chief executive officer and executive vice president of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey, referred to the editorial and provided a link to it in his weekly e-mail that went out to the entire JFNNJ list.

In addition, an Orthodox rabbi, Tzvee Zahavy, published both the JCRC announcement of the event and our editorial on his “Tzvee’s talmudic blog” site.

With all of these references, we assumed that the RCBC and its member rabbis were aware of the event. That is where we erred. We assumed it, but did not know it for certain. We have now been assured by both the current and past presidents of the RCBC that, in fact, they did not. They and their members should not be held accountable for missing an event that they did not know was taking place. As the current president, Rabbi Shalom Baum, wrote in an e-mail to us, “I clearly would have responded and attended if I was called about this event. I and many of my colleagues have a long history of working with all members of the clergy, both here and in Israel.”

We apologize for having made an assumption, rather than checking the facts.

We also want to note that on Dec. 29 the RCBC did send a letter of support to Temple Beth El, and also discussed the series of attacks on synagogues at a meeting of its members. “I am sure that this has been a difficult time for your synagogue community…,” Baum wrote on the RCBC’s behalf to Beth El’s Rabbi Robert Schumeister. “I wanted to express our solidarity with your community. Please let me know if there is anything specific that we could do.”

Because the RCBC did not make any public statement, we assumed that it had not made any private one. Again, we assumed something when we should have checked.

We continue to bemoan the fact that ours is a Jewish community with a divided religious leadership that finds it difficult to sit together to work on the problems that the Jews of northern New Jersey face. This is not an assumption; it is a fact. While there have been cracks in the wall separating the two boards of rabbis, these cracks were minor ones and little has changed because of them. We hope the RCBC and the NJBR will find ways to work together in the future, and that communication between different segments of the community improves.