As previously posted, R' Moshe Grylk, editor of Mishpacha Magazine, had written an editorial blasting the 3 boys in Japan, calling the rodfim, asking where are the Rabbonim who seem to allow case after case of young men getting caught carrying suitcases for people while busy banning everything else, etc. saying how he does not forgive them for the position they have put every other travelling frum Jew in.

It seems that Grylk touched a raw nerve with that editorial. he got a lot of mail from readers rebuking him for it. they wrote that he should not have published such a commentary, even if he is right, at this time. Right now is that time to help them, and such an editorial can only hurt. People will say why should I help them, considering the editorial. The Rabbonim have come out calling for people to donate to a fund for them, to do what people can, etc. and this can only harm people's resolve to help.

This past week's edition, Grylk wrote a follow up editorial.

Grylk says he understands the concern, but he doubts it to be true. he says people know how to differentiate. He says it is clear that the criticism should in no way disturb the assistance offered to these young men, and it is so obvious that there is no need to declare it publicly.

These boys are in trouble, they are in a very difficult system, the Rabbonim have called for assistance, and despite the criticism, people should help and people should daven for them.

Grylk says he does not retract any of the criticism, despite clarifying the fact that people should help the young men. Grylk explained why he felt it necessary to discuss this now. he said that he has encountered an attitude that people feel very forgiving towards people who take these suitcases when they are in essence smuggling drugs (unwittingly). People say, "Big deal, so some goy is going to use some drugs. they would have anyway." "Soa few more goyim would die from drugs, big deal." or "chillul hashem? It is not a chillul hashem just because some goy in some corner of the world gets upset at the Jews. Anyway he would have gotten upset about something. Esau hates Yaakov is a rule set in stone."

Of course nobody is saying to smuggle drugs, but when they do and get caught, peopl eare forgiving and quick to write it off as being not important.

With this atmosphere, it is no wonder that these naive young men keep falling in this trap and take suitcases for people and end up getting arrested. They see nothign wrong with taking a chance, because nobody considers what they are doing to be so bad anyway.

Grylk lays the blame for the situation on the forgiving community, and that attitude needs to be changed.

Overall, I agree with Grylk about the attitude.

But I am not sure why he thinks people will differentiate. I know I did not. I might be considered simple minded, and not the average person, so maybe that explains me.
In general, when you take someone to task for their actions, when you call them a rodeif, when you discuss how bad the action they did really was, why should I then say, Oh but I should really donate $100 to their cause to get them out of jail? If they are rodfim, why should I help them? Maybe some people need to pay the price in order to effect the change in the community's attitude that Grylk insists is the cause of the problem.

One cannot speak up the way Grylk did, and then differentiate between the issue and the response.