August 13: Farewell, Marc

Michael Freund is right in bemoaning Marc Mezvinsky’s marriage to Chelsea Clinton.

By JERUSALEM POST READERS
Farewell, Marc Sir, – Michael Freund is right in bemoaning Marc Mezvinsky’s marriage to Chelsea Clinton (“Will Bill Clinton’s grandchildren be Jewish?,” Fundamentally Freund, August 12).
Those who cheer this intermarriage as some sort of Jewish we’ve-finally- arrived are clearly missing the boat. Who needs another high-profile intermarriage with a stupefying 50 percent intermarriage rate already? Despite the rabbi, kippa, tallit, chupah and ketuba, this was not a Jewish wedding.
It was lox-and-bagel tokenism to appease the ever-fading Jewish recollections of half the guests, hardly a confirmation of Jewish values. I doubt that anyone at the ceremony, except maybe the officiating rabbi, could read the Aramaic text of the ketuba or understand its significance. (“What’s a zuz?”) For many American Jews, being Jewish is more about being a Democrat, a liberal, rather than being a Jew according to the Torah.
Perhaps, instead of reading the ketuba, the rabbi should have read the Democratic Party platform or, better yet, a few pages from the Obamacare Bill.
Crash! What was that? It was a glass, commemorating the destruction of the Temple. No, not a Reform temple, but the Holy Temple, 2,600 and again 2,000 years ago. I wonder: Did Marc or any guest really shed a tear for the Temple? Undoubtedly, he stepped all over his heritage, knowingly or not.
No, there’s no need to shout “mazal tov” for this farewell party.
GABE HARPAZ
Jerusalem
Sir, – The answer to Michael Freund’s question is no – Chelsea Clinton is not Jewish, so her children will not be Jewish. But they will be Democratic and liberal, which is much more important to most Jews anyway.
Freund says we can’t “simply write off” the intermarried.
Yes we can, and we should. They made their choice – let’s make them live with it.
PHIL GOODMAN
Edison, New Jersey
Revisionist history
Sir, – I read with no small amount of bemusement an opinion piece that seemed to be about world politics (“Baseball and the Middle East,” August 11), but was in fact yet another attempt by a Red Sox fan to rewrite history.
Saying baseball has been dominated by the Yankees and the Red Sox is like the story of the mosquito on the back of the elephant galloping through the jungle, exulting “Look at all the dust we’re raising!” Who can blame the writer? On my wall I have a poster. That poster lists the 24 – now 27 – World Series won by the Yankees (And Boston? Just seven), 19 of the many World Series records held by the Yankees, 40 pennants they won (The Sox? Just 12), and some of the monikers that are synonymous with greatness in baseball, be it the Yankee Clipper, the Sultan of Swat, the Mick, the Perfect Game, Mariano, and of course Derek.
True, Boston had the last .400 hitter. Then again, there is Bill Buckner; this can make a grown man cry in his beans.
RUTH KURSS
New York
Insensitive editorial
Sir, – I agree with the Post and disagree with a lot of what Tony Judt wrote about Israel. But after the agonies he suffered from ALS and having left dependent family behind, why did your editorial (“So farewell then, Tony Judt,” August 9), by its many sins of conspicuous omission of even one word of kindness, so conspicuously personalize it? The result is that your editorial sounded dehumanizing.
Visceral. Hateful.
Do the particular Post writers and editors responsible for this editorial have some humanity in them? I’m sure that they do – abundantly.
Why, then, did they go to so much trouble to completely conceal this critically important fact about themselves? You couldn’t control what Judt said during his life, but you are quite able to control what you yourselves say at his death. And you so signally failed.
JAMES ADLER
Cambridge, Massachusetts