By: Eli Verschleiser
According to the 2012 New York Jewish Population study, 32 percent of the New York area’s 1.54 million Jews—or some 492,800 people—identify as Orthodox.
That means that in tens of thousands of homes, perhaps more than 100,000 in the New York area alone, observance of Shabbat and major holidays means candles-burning and likely some kind of cooking or heating device in use for a prolonged period of time.
In response to the horrifying deaths of seven children in a cooking-related Friday-night fire in Brooklyn, a former Fire Department of New York lieutenant tells the Wall Street Journal he saw “four or five” hot-plate-related fires leading to death (not necessarily in Jewish homes) in the course of a 42-year career.
“A deadly plague of Shabbat fires,” blares a headline in The Forward, which mentions four fires in 15 years, which killed 11 people, tied to such cooking devices.
The New York Times warns that the “Sabbath routine [of extended food warming is] a risky practice,” according to officials.
Make no mistake: There is absolutely no acceptable number of fire deaths, no percentage of collateral damage to justify any risky behavior. Every possible aggressive effort should be made to reduce accidental deaths of all kinds to zero.
The Sassoon family devastated by the Brooklyn fire came from Israel, where smoke alarms are not as widely encouraged or used. That may be why they didn’t think to install them in their home.
A campaign to maximize home safety is welcome and necessary.
But for some, the tragedy offers an opportunity to reinforce a narrative that Orthodox Jews are somewhat backward and reckless, placing too much faith in G‑d to protect them from themselves, obsessing too much over Torah study at the expense of real-world lessons.
This is a patently offensive takeaway.
Between 2007 and 2011, cooking equipment was the number-one cause of home fires in the U.S., amounting to 43 percent of blazes, according to the National Fire Prevention Association. Those figures will surely include people who left the oven unattended, left food on the stove, kept flammable material too close, or used defective equipment. Given this volume, and the small Jewish population, observant Jews cannot be considered any more prone to such accidents than others, and statistically are very likely responsible for far fewer per capita. Any truly observant Jew knows that preserving life and limb trumps any other day-to-day religious practice.
Would critics consider the practices of Sabbath-observant Jews acceptable only with a zero incident rate? That’s a standard not applied to any other group, including skiers, subway riders, airline passengers, or motorists, all of whom, sadly, encounter fatal mishaps regularly.
An electric hot plate is generally intended to be used for extended periods, and each one sold must be approved for safety. Other devices routinely approved and sold, but known to cause fires, include TVs, toasters, dryers, dehumidifiers, and, lately, electronic-cigarette chargers.
It is the responsibility of every person who uses these devices to use them responsibly, in accordance with user manuals, and to make sure they are maintained in safe operating condition. But mishaps are a sad part of life.
It compounds these tragedies when people heartlessly suggest, even before all the facts are out, that victims are somehow to blame for their fate. People with too much time on their hands reveal their true agenda when they try to stigmatize religious people who perish under these circumstances.
Would they blame Christmas for a blaze that started from faulty wiring on a tree? Or patriotism for a fireworks display or barbecue gone awry on July Fourth?
It’s natural for human beings to want to attach a greater meaning to a tragedy so that it seems less likely to happen to them. It’s also natural for journalists to seek out the “trend story” to take the coverage beyond the initial reportage.
But what if this incident instead allowed for a deeper understanding of what Shabbat actually brings to the world? Thousands fewer cars on the road, reducing pollution and accidents. Less crowding in stores and on public transportation. And stronger, more functional families.
For those who accept this blessing in their lives, it’s a time of refocusing. In a universe where we are always connected, reachable, and on the move, Shabbat offers relief from it all, a day to share and be with family. It’s a day that we have long, sit-down meals together, where we are at peace with all that is around us.
Even in the darkest of tragedies, some light can be found. Better education about fire safety to preserve life can be one source. So could an opportunity for better understanding, rather than a rush to quick and often ugly judgments.
By: Eli Verschleiser
It’s surprising that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in trying to undermine the credibility of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would bring up the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush,” Kerry said at a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing late last month. “We all know what happened with that decision.”
Wait. Wasn’t his proclamation in 2004 that “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [for war in Iraq and Afghanistan] before I voted against it," the flip-flop that heavily damaged his presidential bid that year? “Did he really want to bring that up?
But no-holds are barred in the current tussle between the U.S. and Israel over nuclear talks with Iran, as Netanyahu’s address to Congress was unwelcome by the White House.
Netanyahu has many reasons to be suspicious, not the least of which is apparent weakening of resolve by the U.S. on this matter. In June, 2013, United Nations envoy Samantha Power told a gathering of U.S. Jewish leaders that when it comes to thwarting Iran’s nuclear program “No deal is better than a bad deal. We will not accept a bad deal.”
Just days later the negotiating parties emerged from meetings in Geneva with the framework of an understanding, and a month later Iran agreed to roll back parts of its program, limiting its uranium production to below weapons grade (for now), in exchange for relief from sanctions. The latest version of the deal would kick the can down the road for 10 years, allowing the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism to ramp up its nuclear production over time.
At that point, of course, it will be too late to get tough. For Netanyahu and a large share of his electorate, it’s a zero sum game. No amount of nuclear power can be entrusted to a country led by fanatics who support global terror and regularly telegraph their hatred of Israel. Who would make sure Iran behaves? Why, international monitors, of course.
A group of former Israeli generals said Sunday they fear the dust-up over the address to Congress, tinted as it is with U.S. and Israeli politics, will signal so much disarray in the process that it will embolden the Iranians to take a hard line in the talks.
But the U.S. and Israel have faced bumps in the road before. Remember when Secretary of State James Baker in 1990, frustrated by lack of peace-talks progress, read the number of the White House and told then-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to call when he is serious about peace?
The current mess seems worse because President Barack Obama on the face of it does not like Netanyahu, and the feeling is may be mutual, not so much because of personalities or politics but because Obama has consistently fallen into the trap of equating apartments built by Israelis with rockets launched by Hamas. That’s no way to show that you fully understand the existential threat felt by Israelis, which got Netanyahu elected. Obama likely worries that Netanyahu’s address will only bolster the right wing in Israel and make it more difficult to pursue any progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks before he leaves office in 2017.
It is a legitimate worry that the spectacle of Netanyahu speech to Congress at the invitation of Obama arch-rival John Boehner, the Republican House speaker, will eclipse the more appropriate and pressing issue of whether opposition to a deal that might one day allow Iran to hand over a nuke to Hezbollah should be blocked by Congress, in its role as a check against the power of the executive branch.
“Congress has every right to invite, even over the president’s strong objection, any world leader or international expert who can assist its members in formulating appropriate responses to the current deal being considered with Iran regarding its nuclear-weapons program,” former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote in The Jerusalem Post.
But as a result of the White House face-off with both Netanyahu and the Republicans, the address will be seen as the kind of partisan fracas that leads to perennial gridlock on The Hill, rather than a key matter of international security.
This should not have become an international political spectacle; it should have been an important speech (to those who thought it was) by the one democratic country in the world that has been threatened to be annihilated by Iran its neighbor dozens of times. It is an embarrassment that U.S. and Israel politics – the president says he must keep arms’ distance from a foreign leader in the weeks before an election -- have not only crept into the process but dominated the issue.
Of course, Netanyahu is a savvy politician who will use the spotlight he gains here to score points in his bid to stay in power. But keep in mind that, perhaps more than any other country, Israel has the most to lose by picking the wrong leader.
That includes one who places too much faith in the protection of allies and international monitors, who have far less to lose.
In the end we can all at least agree on one thing, Bibi is a powerful and brilliant speaker.
