JAHG-USA Newsletter: Week of 11 MarCheshvan, 5766 / November 13, 2005

"Should garbage recycling be established in all cities?" Even the city of New York seems of split opinions on this issue, having ended its recycling program in 2002 and then having reinstituted it in 2004, so it should be no surprise we saw a similar variety of opinions in last week's survey. About 40% opted for having recycling programs everywhere; about 30% recommended abolishing recycling programs from all cities; and the balance were divided between (a) saying each city should decide separately, versus (b) having recycling without requiring residents to do the garbage separation. The main comments were recommended modifications for existing recycling programs:

Factual Background:
Garbage separation and recycling has been pushed by environmentalist radicals for decades, and is now operating in many cities. The theory sounds simple: Many waste materials, such as glass and paper products, need not occupy landfills, for they can be re-processed and used again. Superficially, this appears to be a thrifty way to avoid having to cut down more trees and produce more glass, etc. — in other words, a way to save resources from being wasted.

But waste is exactly the main problem with recycling. The reason Mayor Michael Bloomberg ended the New York City recycling program in 2002 was its enormous cost: more than $30 million per year!

If recycling were actually thrifty, it would make more money economically than it brings in; in other words, it would be profitable. But it is not. To our knowledge, every recycling program in existence must be subsidized, often heavily. Translated into practical terms, this means that more resources are used up in re-processing waste materials than can be recovered. So more fossil fuels must be burned to generate electricity for recycling plants, more trees must be chopped down for wood and paper to support the recycling facility's activities, more fuel must be burned to drive recycling trucks and transport the waste, etc., etc.

Mayor Bloomberg was willing to reinstate the recycling program once he could bring the cost down to $16 million per year. Yet this still represents enormous waste of natural resources: $16 million per year of wasted fuel consumption, wasted paper production, wasted energy used, wasted human labor, wasted construction of a recycling plant and barges to transport the waste, and so forth.

This is undoubtedly the real reason environmental radicals keep pushing recycling. They don't care the least about the environment or natural resources; their objective is the Marxist goal of burdening and crushing capitalist economies. And one of the most efficient methods for economic destruction is through waste — justified, ironically, by the idea of thrift.

Relevant Torah Principles:
1) The basis of the Noahide Laws is the mission of developing the world, filling it with human population and making all of it inhabitable (based on the rabbinical interpretation of Isaiah 45:18). This means using all resources, natural and otherwise, in the most effective way possible in support of building civilization.

2) One commandment of the Torah forbids needless, wanton destruction, which includes unnecessary wastefulness. The Lubavitcher Rebbe has insisted this mitzvah is obligatory upon gentiles as well, particularly as it is fundamental to developing the world.

Analysis:
Since recycling is intrinsically wasteful of resources, it is automatically forbidden by Torah. This means that no city has the right to institute such a program, and citizens are responsible to see to it that all recycling programs are abolished as quickly as possible. Moreover, it is positively unethical — an outright violation of Torah — for a citizen to separate his garbage and contribute to the resource-wasting process of recycling. If one can avoid participating without legal penalty, one is morally obligated to do so.

If new technology should ever make recycling efficient enough to generate more resources than it consumes, it will, by definition, become profitable, and no government subsidy would be required.

And in any case, recycling couldn't help much anyway. Only a very tiny fraction of garbage is even theoretically recyclable, so no amount of recycling would noticeably reduce landfill volume. And its products are also not in short supply; trees can be planted and grown (akin to farming), creating an endless supply of paper products, and the raw silica materials for glass are in virtually infinite supply.

Only one answer per e-mail address will be accepted; only e-mail addresses on our subscription list are eligible. Please send your input by Tuesday, November 21, 2005, 12pm PST.

This week's example:
Rabbi Eliyahu Cohen, Chabad of NYU (New York University), Manhattan, NY

Rabbi Cohen was presented our Proclamation (declaring the Torah duty for everyone to help defund the PLO) by a JAHG-USA volunteer on March 30th. He took the time to read it very carefully, but then became strangely evasive. Not having been in much of a hurry before, now he suddenly was "too busy," saying he had to think about it, etc. It quickly became clear he had no intention of signing, but that he also realized he had no answer to its content and did not wish to be recorded as not signing. Of course, one can't have it both ways; by not signing, he refuses to sign, and we list him accordingly.

His response is typical of those who think it's best to play the "safe" middle ground, avoiding any possibility of controversy or of alienating anyone on any side of such an issue. Rabbi Cohen knows that by refusing to sign, many Jews will be rightly indignant at his cowardice; yet he is apparently also afraid that by signing, he might draw wrath from some other quarters. Presumably he fears damaging his fundraising efforts to support his Chabad house. But the Torah obligation to save lives does not allow an exception for protecting fundraising programs (as if calling for PLO defunding would hurt his finances!).

Terrorism Update:
During this last week, several more PLO attacks came close to killing their targets, but failed in the nick of time:

A terrorist bomb destroyed an Israeli army jeep; the soldier driving it was injured.
Terrorists fired guns at Israeli soldiers but missed; an Israeli citizen was also shot at while driving, but likewise was not hit.
An Israeli Arab's bag detonated, but fortunately hurt no one.
A riot was instigated in Jerusalem, presumably by PLO organizers, during which cars were burned and one terrorist tried to run over an Israeli police officer with his van.
Israeli soldiers and police officers were attacked by a Hamas terrorist using a Russian military assault rifle; he missed, and was killed when the soldiers shot back.
Israeli soldiers intercepted two PLO terrorists preparing for an attack, killing one of the terrorists instead.
One terrorist was killed while in the process of planting a bomb, and another while trying to fire a mortar round; PLO units fired other mortar shells into Israel.
Three terrorists were caught smuggling a bomb into Israel.

Many of the terrorists carrying out these attacks are paid employees of the PLO's "Palestinian Authority" as members of its "security forces," meaning that their salaries are paid by US taxpayers — thus freeing them to plan and conduct terrorist assaults all day long. The US government is also paying for large amounts of (Soviet Russian) ammunition to be supplied by Communist Egypt to these forces — meaning that you, the American taxpayer, are also sponsoring many of the attacks mentioned above. And now that Israel has fled the Gaza Strip, Egypt is pouring tons of weapons, both light and heavy, into PLO-controlled territory.

As long as US funding to the PLO continues, the terrorist war will only escalate. Millions of lives are in imminent danger, all paid for by the US government — out of your wallet. Isn't it about time for "refusenik" rabbis to repent and endorse the PLO-defunding campaign?

(Source: Arutz-7 News)

…AND THE HALL OF FAME
Some Chabad Shluchim Are Helping the JAHG-USA Campaign

Rabbi Tiefenbrun was also presented the Proclamation in person, on June 3rd, and signed it without hesitation. To be fair, Rabbi Tiefenbrun doesn't have to worry about fundraising issues like Rabbi Cohen does. But still, the bottom line is that Rabbi Tiefenbrun acknowledged his responsibility and endorsed defunding terrorism.

What do you think about Jewish leadership on PLO defunding? Send us your comments at newsletter@noahide.com.

For a complete listing of all rabbis who have received our proclamation, the up-to-date status of their responses, and how you can get help the campaign, visit ATTAC Report at http://www.attacreport.com/plo/.

• (A response to holiday information on our web site):
"Can you give me guidance for the observance of Shabbat by Hasidic Gentiles?… [According to your information,] we should not observe Shabbat, i.e., in the manner of the Jews. So what can we do?…" — DJ.

Our response: The "Ten Commandments" are mentioned twice, once in Exodus 20 and the other in Deuteronomy 5, each mentioning the mitzvah of Shabbos in a different way. According to the "Kli Yakar" (a commentary by Rabbi Ephraim Luntchitz, a revered 16th-century sage in Prague), the first time (in Exodus) refers to the positive commandment to commemorate the Shabbos, while the second passage is the negative commandment to refrain from certain activities during the Shabbos (that is, to "guard" the day).

The Kli Yakar then goes on to point out (in commenting on Exodus 20:8) that the second passage, the source of the negative commandment, is addressed specifically to Jews (since gentiles are not even allowed to "rest" on Shabbos) — but that the first passage, the positive commandment, speaks to gentiles as well as Jews. In other words, says the Kli Yakar, gentiles are actually required to commemorate Shabbos according to the positive commandment! These are his words (our translation):

But a gentile is also not allowed to recite certain blessings — the ones that bless the performance of a commandment, and which include the words "asher kidshanu b'mitzvosav" ("Who has sanctified us with His commandments"). One of those blessings is said by Jews over the candle lighting, the other during the Friday evening kiddush over wine. So while a gentile should avoid saying those two blessings, the remainder of the activities would be kosher for him — and possibly even required, according to the Kli Yakar.