I am writing this letter with respect to a complaint filed against me by Rich Siegel and returnable before the Teaneck Municipal Court. The purpose of this letter is to publicly apologize to Mr. Siegel for my conduct. I have asked Mr. Siegel to drop all criminal charges against me, as well as the right to file a civil complaint against me, and he has graciously agreed to recommend to the prosecutor that all charges be dropped.

In spring 2011, while walking my dog, I noticed pro-Palestine bumper stickers on a car parked at a private home. These bumper stickers upset me. On one occasion, I came in contact with Rich Siegel, owner of the car and home. I accused him of being an anti-Semite.

Early on Saturday morning, Nov. 5, 2011, I stopped in front of Mr. Siegel’s home and shouted an obscenity. I was later advised that not only was Mr. Siegel at home but that his wife and daughter were, too, and that my behavior caused them alarm and distress. When Mr. Siegel called the police and sent them after me, I told them that shouting this obscenity was my right as free speech, and compared it to Mr. Siegel’s right to place bumper stickers on his car.

My behavior was wrong on many levels. Obviously it is wrong for a rabbi, or for anyone, to shout obscenities at a private home for any reason. It was wrong to assert that this activity qualifies as free speech. And it was wrong for me to call Mr. Siegel an anti-Semite.

While I am a dedicated Zionist, I recognize that during the entire history of Zionism there have been many Jews opposed to Zionism. Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing. Opposing Zionism or supporting the Palestinian people does not necessarily make a person an anti-Semite.

It has come to my attention that this incident is just the most recent that Mr. Siegel has been made to suffer, including harassment by others and vandalism to his car. I feel this is very wrong. I appeal to the local Jewish community to realize what I have come to understand: that although Mr. Siegel’s views are very different from most of ours, he has the right to them, and the right to express them, while living in our community unmolested and without fear of harm to his family.

WASHINGTON – A Palestinian mufti has called for violence against Jews, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is demanding Palestinian leaders disavow him, and America’s presidential race could be affected.

That could be the lead sentence of a news report from last week.

Or it could be the lead from 1946.

Sixty-five years ago, another Palestinian mufti, another Netanyahu, and another presidential race in the United States likewise intersected in an unexpected round of high-stakes Middle East politics and diplomacy.

My column this week is adapted from an earlier version. Sometimes, what you have already written about a subject or issue is worth repeating rather than rewriting.

This Wednesday, Feb. 8, is Tu Bi-Sh’vat, aka the New Year for Trees, Judaism’s millennia-old “Earth Day.” Less than a week later comes Feb. 14, aka Valentine’s Day; Saint Valentine’s Day, to be precise.

It is a safe — and sad — bet that more Jews will celebrate the former than the latter. As one person pointedly explained to me, Valentine’s Day “is an American holiday that celebrates love.” The inference, of course, is that Judaism has no such glorious day on its calendar.

“For not as a human sees [does the Lord see]; humans see only what is visible, but the Lord sees into the heart.”
— I Samuel 16:7

It is not hard to mistake the outside for the inside. We do it all the time. Shine and sparkle often distract us from inner shallowness.

This distinction is particularly important in the arena of leadership, where a sleek head of hair sometimes hides the fact that there is not much underneath. The Tanach, the Bible, communicates this very message in the book of I Samuel. The people agitated for a king, but Samuel warned them that the king would tax them and make their lives difficult. No matter. They insisted. God gave them a weak, but good-looking king: Saul. He had the advantage of height, creating the image of a towering personality.

In fact, Saul was not a person of great courage. He was riddled with insecurities and melancholy.

Saul’s successor came in the guise of an unlikely fellow. He was the “runt” of his family’s litter. When Samuel traveled to David’s father’s house, God said to him: “Pay not attention to his appearance or stature.” God knew that even a prophet could fall for external appearances. That is when God interjected the words quoted above. At the end of the day, human beings can see only that which is visible. That which is concealed, however, can be far more potent.

When David went out to his brothers at war to deliver food, he heard Goliath, a man of superhuman proportions, challenge — taunt, belittle — the Israelite army. Only little David had the courage of conviction to fight him. Saul dressed David in his war gear, but it was far too big so David marched into an encounter with an enemy multiple times his size in civilian clothing, armed only with a few rocks.

David commanded respect because he was an unlikely candidate for leadership who earned the high regard of others. No one expected greatness. He delivered beyond any expectations. Saul, on the other hand, betrayed God’s expectations even though he looked the part. When Saul rose to a position of power, he lorded it over others only to lose any shred of respect that he otherwise might have merited

The restaurateur Danny Meyers wrote “Setting the Table,” a book about hospitality, service and leadership. Kitchens can be brutal places to work, and I am only talking about the kitchen in my home. Restaurant kitchens are often embattled places, torn by hierarchies and egos. Meyers challenges that culture: “When certain people gain more authority and power, they tend to demand respect from those who work for them. But what got them their promotion in the first place was their natural ability to command respect. Demanding respect creates tension that can make it very tough to lead, and very uncomfortable to follow.”

Meyers claims that the higher you climb the ladder of power, the less it matters what technical skills you possess; the more emotional skills become key. In the words of a great book title, what got you here won’t get you there. Respect is a currency in human interactions that you earn. You can demand it, but the more you demand it the farther it runs from you. Ethics of the Fathers asks: “Who deserves honor?” and answers, “The one who honors others.”

In this time of political vitriol, commanding respect rather than demanding it is particularly challenging. Honor is not skin deep; it surfaces from the goodness of untrumpeted deeds.

JointMedia News Service

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.

The Jewish community is sick. We, all of us, have been attacked on the basis of one thing — our religion. They, the attackers, the anti-Semites, do not distinguish between charedim, chassidim, datim, Satmar, Orthodox, traditional, conservadox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, Renewal, or even secular Jews. To them, we are all one.

But here we are, with modern schools of Shammai and Hillel pitted against one another, growling like dogs over who gets the rotten piece left over by the scavengers. Of course, today, Jews follow the traditions of our blessed sage Hillel, who elucidated the Golden Rule, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” This rule emanates from Parashah Kedoshim, which states, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). What would Hillel tell us today? Would that we could all follow his rule today. It has served us well for 2,000 years. Perhaps we need another lesson to re-learn it.

To my Orthodox brethren, I commiserate with you over desecrations perpetuated in Paramus, Highland Park, and now Rutherford. I invite you to demonstrate solidarity with all branches of Judaism. We are Klal Yisrael. We cannot afford to be divided.

While reading last week’s Bar/Bat Mitzvah Supplement, I was sadly struck by the “checklist for advance preparation,” which began with the following: “Three Years in Advance: Join a congregation/book the date for the sanctuary; put your child on the learning and mitzvah track.”

Actually, a Jewish child should be “put on the learning and mitzvah track” from the moment he or she is born. A couple that wants to create a Jewish home should join a congregation at the very beginning of their marriage. The beauty of our Jewish heritage should be a part of our daily life always, and not just because we need to book a room and get a child interested in the Jewish part of his life.

If we are truly invested in a viable future for our people, we would be foolish to miss the opportunity of teaching our children the beauty of our traditions during those impressionable young years of their lives.