Unmatched Inspiration
I started reading Sarah Lavane’s serial installments of Unmatched as someone who was well familiar with the older single world. (I only recently got married, for the first time, in my late 50s.) She gave an eloquent voice to the spiritual struggles so many have, peppered with stories that were all too familiar and characters that, while not personally identifiable, were well-known types.
Her 47th and final installment (September 20) was truly a masterpiece in style and content. Touching on nothing less than the meaning of life, she spoke to us all with gentle mussar, couched in the perfect words. As she brought her narrative to an end, she showed how to truly live a life happily ever after.
Andrew Bloom
Via-Email
Older and Wiser?
I want to give a shout out and a yasher koach to the gentleman who responded to the IYH column (September 20) about wanting to help the extroverted third sister with her dating dilemma by dating one of her more introverted older sisters. I would say it took guts, yet it’s completely anonymous. Rather, what is impressive is the fact that he actually did something for himself. He took initiative. I don’t know how old he is, but I’m guessing he may be considered an “older single” and has been doing this dating thing for a bit of time.
I understand there is a world of difference between people who have just started dating and those who have been dating for 5, 10, or 15 years. Many who are just starting are fresh-faced, eager, and excited. Some who have been doing it for longer can be a bit jaded, burnt out, and even more picky than they ever thought possible. I know that when the time is right, it’s right, and when it’s the right person, you know. Putting that aside, some older singles should try to take stock of the people who are suggested to them and seriously consider what is actually making them say no to a first date. Or if they said yes to a first date, what could have been so awful to make them decline a second date?
Scenario 1: Two people have many similarities, they match up really well “on paper,” and they consent to a date. After the date, the woman says she would go out again, while the man says, “I’m just not attracted to her, but you were right on the nose with this match! If she were a guy, we’d be best friends!” Does anyone see an issue with this? These people had everything in common. One person said they’d go out again; the other said, “Oh man, if only I were in the market for a best friend.” Go out again! How has this search for a best friend been going for you thus far?
Scenario 2: Also a very well-matched (on paper) couple who consent to a date. Both parties have a great time, but he says no because she is shorter than what he is looking for (to be clear, her height falls in the 25th percentile of normal; we are not talking about a three-foot adult). He does ask if she would remain a friend, though, because they have so much in common and he had a really nice time with her. There’s something wrong here. He is literally telling her that she is what he is looking for. What is happening? I can’t explain it.
Sometimes people are single for so long and you wonder why. Could it be that there are no good men or women out there to match up with? How? It can’t be possible. It’s not possible.
I’m not saying people should lower their standards because I wouldn’t want to. However, I think some people need to look at their standards and see if they are even attainable. Nobody is perfect. Nobody is going to check every box on your list. I think you’ll only get that if you get married when you’re very young and haven’t had a chance to have many life experiences as a single person.
I think people really need to look at their priorities. Make a list. Put effort into why you’re saying yes or no. Then think about it again. You might be pleasantly surprised. Here’s an early mazel tov to you.
Ahuva Lamm
Fair Lawn, N.J.
Trump’s Jewish Demands
Re: “A Mitzvah Like Maror” (September 27): In his recent speech to the Israeli-American Council and at a later speech at a forum, ironically, about combating antisemitism, Donald Trump stated that if he only wins 40% of the “Jewish vote” (a very optimistic number, based on recent polling), “in my opinion, the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss if I’m at 40%.”
My question is a simple one: How does any Jewish Trump supporter find this acceptable? Scapegoating the Jews is classic antisemitism. Trump’s question of Jewish loyalty is nothing new. When speaking to American Jewish groups, he consistently refers to Israel as “your country” and Benjamin Netanyahu as “your prime minister.” Where are the condemnations of such statements? And please don’t use the “but his daughter and grandchildren are Jewish” defense while claiming at the same time that Kamala Harris, who has a Jewish husband, is antisemitic.
Owen Rumelt
West Hempstead, N.Y.
Iran Policy Is Everything
Even if the long diatribe against President Trump printed in the Letters section of September 20 issue were 100% true, I still would have a one-word answer: Iran!
The Trump sanctions had brought Iran to its knees. Sadly Obama’s appeasement and enrichment of Iran, furthered by the Biden-Harris administration, has led to turmoil in the Middle East and the existential threat to our beloved Israel.
Marvin L Engel, MD
Oakland, CA
Biden-Harris On Hezbollah: Weak, Clueless, Callous
Re “Voting Our Values” (September 27): Team Biden-Harris’ approach to the Middle East isn’t just naïve – it’s devoid of any sense of right and wrong: Just look at Wednesday’s fantasy-land push from the White House, along with France, for a cease-fire between Hezbollah terrorists and Israel.
Since the day after Hamas’ October 7 terror attack, Hezbollah has launched nearly 9,000 rockets, missiles, and drones into Israel, forcing the evacuation of 60,000-plus people from the north. A week ago, commanders of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force met to advance an October 7-style invasion of Israel that would have made Hamas’ attack look like an interfaith picnic.
Israel is finally fighting back: It wiped out the Radwan commanders in an air strike and is moving to destroy Hezbollah’s rocket launchers and missile stocks.
So of course, now the White House demands a ceasefire. Has they no decency? What choice does Israel have?
And President Biden’s statement with French President Emmanuel Macron didn’t even cite Hezbollah by name as a party to the fighting. “It is time for a settlement on the Israel-Lebanon border that ensures safety and security to enable civilians to return to their homes,” the message reads. “We call for…the immediate support of the governments of Israel and Lebanon.”
Sorry: The Lebanese government has nothing to do with it: It’s Hezbollah that’s the problem – and it’s not going anywhere voluntarily. Indeed, Israel has warned Hezbollah repeatedly that if it doesn’t quit the rocket fire and retreat north of the Litani River (about 18 miles from the Israeli border), the IDF will act. The terrorists have ignored these warnings for a year, and now Israel is making good on its threat (a foreign concept for Biden-Harris) so its people can return home.
How clueless – and callous – for Biden and Kamala Harris to expect Israel to suddenly stand down now. Heck, the idea itself was such a nonstarter for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he didn’t even bother to respond; his office tweeted. Instead, Bibi vowed to “continue to hit Hezbollah with all our might.”
If Biden-Harris had any true compassion, any desire for real peace and not just a three-week joke of a ceasefire for the benefit of anti-Israel voters, they’d encourage Israel to finish off the terrorists – and maybe even help.
Instead, the Pentagon says the U.S. military won’t provide intelligence or other support for Israeli operations in Lebanon.
It’s beyond pitiful. But it goes a long way toward explaining why the entire world is aflame.
Brian Goldenfeld
Oak Park, CA
Tlaib’s Crocodile Tears
Re: “Michigan AG…Calls Tlaib’s Criticism ‘Antisemitic’” (September 27): U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) says it was “racist” for an editorial cartoonist to recently poke fun at her concerning her attitude toward the terrorist group Hezbollah, which has murdered hundreds of Americans and Israelis. Yet Rep. Tlaib condemned Israel for striking at a Hezbollah leader this summer, and she has posed for photos with the outspoken Hezbollah supporter Abbas Hamideh. Tlaib could put this controversy to rest by simply issuing an explicit public condemnation of Hezbollah. Until she does so, she can expect that many of us – not just sharp-tongued editorial cartoonists – will wonder where she stands.
Moshe Phillips
National Chairman, Americans For A Safe Israel
New York, N.Y.
The “Future” Came Very Fast
In a letter of mine titled “The IDF’s Amazing Stats” printed in the July 26 issue of The Jewish Press, I predicted that “future military historians will study this (Gaza) campaign as a model for conducting warfare against heavily armed defenders embedded in densely populated urban areas…in schools, hospitals, government offices, and inside miles of fortified tunnels.”
Little did I realize that military historians are already studying the IDF’s tactics. A recent (September 14) New York Post contains an op-ed headlined, “Military Beat: Lessons of Hamas Tunnel Warfare.” The opening sentence is: “What lessons can war planners learn from Israel’s struggle to win control of Hamas’ underground maze?” It goes on to enumerate some of the critical factors necessary.
Leave it to little embattled Israel even under intense world pressure and criticism to still lead the way in military tactics.
Max Wisotsky
Highland Park, N.J.
