Home

An open letter to the new administration

Dear White House: About two months ago, through this newspaper, I proposed a unique political/military solution for the Middle East, encompassing the building of a strategic fort along the border of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.

A fort (called SAIK for Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Kuwait) is necessary for the stabilization of the Middle East region for the next 25-30 years. Just for repetition's sake, following are the basic concepts of the fort buildup:

1) Survey two existing neutral zones between the 46th and 48th meridians and estimate pertinent available size, with an outlet to the Arabian Gulf.

2) Negotiate with intervening parties for the sale, lease, or exchange of the territory for military protection for a specific length of time.

3) Stabilize the region and flow of oil back to the U.S. at reduced price.

4) Allow U.S. government to revitalize industry and commerce, and develop new renewable energy sources. 5) Stabilize the whole region from any further terrorist attempt.

Since the publication of my proposal, President Barack Obama declared to withdraw most of the troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010, but no mention was made of any attempt that should be made to stabilize the region permanently.

In the meantime, oil prices have started going up again, other guerrilla warfare has flared up along the Israeli border, literally thousands of terrorists have been caught in Saudi Arabia waiting for trial, and of course we still have our economic problems every day.

We believe that in conjunction with top economic measures taken by President Obama, American citizens should be kept informed or at least being alerted by our new administration that they are working to stabilize -- militarily and politically -- the Middle East region with help of our allies over there. Once we stabilize that region, we can focus much more easily with our domestic problems, with no surprise from the outside.

Dominick Larotonda
Ocean County

Meet legitimate parking needs at Edison station

I want to thank you for writing the article in the March 13 issue regarding the parking situation around the Edison train station and presenting a good deal of information about it ("Edison suspends controversial parking restrictions").

I have been an Edison resident for 30 years, and I do not commute to New York on a daily basis. However, I do have customers in NYC that I go to see around once or twice per week on a fairly regular basis and I really have only one reasonable place to park. I park on Barlow Road out of necessity, since that is the first legal street to park on. I have a 10-minute walk to the station from there, which is not ideal, but acceptable most of the time.

I always park legally, and never block anybody's driveway. I am also not an outsider, as some residents on the street seemed to imply. My tax dollars go to pay for the costs of all Edison residents and streets, and yet I am being denied the opportunity to park on Edison streets closer to the train station.

While I hear the complaints from the folks on Barlow, I never see more than a half-dozen cars parked there when I go to the station, and some of those cars probably belong to people who live on that block. I was there twice this week, and on both days I counted six or seven cars on that block, so I believe that the problem is being exaggerated.

I fail to see what problems my car creates for the people who live there. This is part of living in a community and is something that happens around schools, churches, temples, or any other building where activity takes place. Certainly the train station did not materialize out of nowhere. As I told the committeeman for that area, Steve Nagel, and Mayor Choi, I have no problem creating greater restrictions if you first solve the parking problem for people like me, who have a legitimate need to park to use the train station.

By the way, unless we solve this problem, the desirability of Edison as a place to live for people who might move here from New York is reduced. If people can't park at the train station they won't consider moving here, and this affects all of our home values. I would be happy to discuss this further with either the residents on Barlow or the mayor's office. Let's solve the problem first before we take additional action.

Abe Schwartzbard
Edison

Hebrew language charter school in E. Brunswick?

As a parent of a student at the Solomon Schechter Day School of Raritan Valley, I received an unsolicited email from a person who is spearheading a proposal to create a Hebrew language charter school in East Brunswick. I was very disturbed by this, as I believe many people are and should be. The creation of a Hebrew language charter school will only damage the already financially strapped Jewish day schools that already exist.

The focus of many people on both sides of the issue is SSDSRV, as it is a small school that has had some difficulties in the recent past. The email suggests that "we should all work to support all community resources including SSDS and the proposed charter school." However it also states that "SSDS itself only services approximately 90 families and that number shrinks every year" and, "If and only if, the charter school has any negative effect on SSDS, we hope to absorb as many affected kids as possible...." It seems pretty clear to me that they not only don't care about the future of SSDS, they would be happy if the school were to close.

It is feared that some families who have difficulties with the tuition at SSDS would choose to send their children to the public charter school to save money while still giving their children some kind of Jewish education. Some is better than none, right? Perhaps not, because these people seem to want a school devoid of teaching Judaism. So maybe it is not some Jewish education they will get, but none.

To me, though, the question isn't whether to send children to a Hebrew language school that does not teach Judaism, but whether it is even possible for such a school to exist! In the email a number of examples are given about teaching Hebrew and Hebrew culture (whatever that is). For example they mention teaching the song and dance "Mayim" in gym class, they could learn the words in Hebrew class, learn the song in music, and do art projects about the central theme of the song.

The words of this song come from the book of Isaiah (12:3) and in context is talking about the messianic era (and the phrase is also found in our tefillah, most well known in Havdalah). How can you teach a song without teaching what it means? And to top it off, the song, albeit taken out of context, has a connection to Sukkot and the Simhat Beit Hashoevah. And what is the central theme of this song if not something straight out of Judaism and religious theology?

Israeli history will be taught. Well, what is Israeli history if not part of the history of the Jewish people? Without Judaism and the Jewish religion, there would be no Israel.

They also discuss non-religious holidays. Are there such things as non-religious holidays? Yom Ha'shoa and Yom Ha'atzmaut, albeit very modern celebrations, have become religious holidays. There are tefillot for these days and I would love to find any modern rabbi who would not consider these days holy on some level. The 600-student Hebrew charter school in Florida has clearly hurt the surrounding Jewish day schools. Last year when the school was at 400 students, at least 100 of them came from other Jewish day schools. That is a quarter of the population. This is a major impact on the other schools and some of them will have to consider very drastic changes.

If there are people (and I am sure there are) who send their children to SSDS or other day schools because they want them to learn Hebrew language, but they really do not want them getting a religious Jewish education, then by all means, take them out of SSDS and teach them Hebrew. In a perfect world, it might be possible for this charter school to co-exist with SSDS and other day schools. But, unfortunately, with the financial burdens of our times, I just do not see how that is possible. I for one would prefer to see children get a foundation of Jewish education as well as Hebrew language.

Philip Goldwasser
Highland Park