Jewish Religious Cult Breeds Ignorance and Superstition; Haredi Middle Age Men Have An 8th Grade Education – Or Less


Almost 50% Of Israeli Haredi Middle Age Men Have An 8th Grade Education – Or Less

Haredi men walking

Haredi men have very poor educations, as the new State of the Nation report by the prestigious Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel shows. And that low educational level cripples haredim and makes it very hard for them to enter the workforce.

 

 

 

Haredi men education level Taub 2013

Screen Shot 2013-11-28 at 6.25.14 AM

In the chart immediately below, “great yeshiva” means yeshiva gedolah – a yeshiva with classes starting in 9th grade:

Screen Shot 2013-11-28 at 6.25.47 AM

Screen Shot 2013-11-28 at 6.27.29 AM

Screen Shot 2013-11-28 at 6.27.51 AM

The entire haredi section of the Taub Center’s report as a PDF file:

Download Taub EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE HAREDI SECTOR section of national report 2013

Jewish Sex Abuse Victim From New Square Speaks Out


Jewish Sex Abuse Victim From New Square Speaks Out

 

 

Jewish religious community defends a paedophile.

Says that ‘he is the best’ and ‘a nice guy’.

Still working with the kids.

Yossi, who prefers to use only his first name, says he wants to speak out about his ordeal in the hope that other victims of abuse will come forward. (8/29/13)

NEW SQUARE – A shroud of secrecy surrounds the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community of New Square. Many of the residents shun the outside world and keep to themselves.

However, a sex abuse victim from the community has spoken exclusively to News 12.

Yossi, who prefers to use only his first name, says he wants to speak out about his ordeal in the hope that other victims of abuse will come forward.

Yossi claims that Herschel Taubenfeld, a teacher in his community, inappropriately touched him three times a week for four months.

The teen asked for help from the head rabbis of New Square who had just set up their own sex crimes unit called the VAAD. The agency told him to see a therapist.

Two months later, Yossi reported the abuse to the Ramapo police. He says that his friends stopped talking to him and treated him like he didn’t exist.

Yossi says his attacker admitted to the crimes, but religious leaders in the community sent Taubenfeld to Israel to obtain his rabbinical ordination. He also says he was offered  $100,000 to keep quiet about the situation, which he refused.

In December 2011, one month after Yossi reported the abuse, Taubenfeld turned himself in. He was charged with 30 misdemeanor counts of forcible touching, endangering the welfare of a child and third-degree sex abuse. However, the rabbi avoided jail time in exchange for six years probation.

According to students, Taubenfeld is still teaching at one of New Square’s largest religious schools.

FAITH: Not Wanting To Know What Is True


Sunday Thoughts: Faithless
by Fiona


faith [feɪθ] n 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence 2. a specific system of religious beliefs the Jewish faith 3. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises 4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason 5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc. 6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs  – Free online dictionary

Another way of thinking about faith …

atheism faith

But faith is nice, it feels good, or so people tell me. What’s the problem?

Atheism faith1

The thing most likely to get in the way of open-ended collaboration, is faith. The resistance to considering new information, or willingness to relinquish our beliefs in the face of new evidence.  Faith makes us inflexible.

atheism faith8

Not only does faith make your brain stiff and inflexible, it also impacts on other people! When people are not permitted to question, or to pursue their search for evidence, something is terribly wrong!

atheism faith2

Sometimes people are told their whole lives that it’s important to “just believe”and that there is something wrong with them if they have doubts,  People who are taught to rely on faith may struggle when they are not able to maintain their beliefs.

atheism faith10

atheism faith7

The ability to question, to think, to reason is an essential part of human-kind’s intelligence …

atheism faith4

So go on, doubt.  Question. Seek evidence. Develop your capacity for critical thought, for reflection. Make friends with reason and logic. Doubt away.  After all …

atheism faith9

80% Of Jewish Israelis Want Haredim Out Of Government


80% Of Jewish Israelis Want Haredim Out Of Government
Israeli Flag

“[The haredi political parties] United Torah Judaism and Shas have made the wide public hate them after many years of aggression and extortion.”

Ynet reports:

…[A] new survey reveals that 80% of Israeli Jews are in favor of a civil government [i.e., no haredi political parties in the governing coalition] with an agenda focusing on freedom of religion and an equal share of the burden.

The survey, commissioned by the Hiddush association for religious freedom and equality, was conducted by the Smith Institute among 500 respondents – a representative sample of the adult Jewish population in Israel. The maximum sampling error was 4.5%.

Sixty-eight percent of Habayit Hayehudi voters were also in favor of such a government (26% said they were very supportive and 42% said they were pretty supportive of the idea).

In addition, even 39% of Shas voters voiced their support for a civil government.

In parties affiliated with the centrist-leftist camp, the support level was close to 100%. All Labor, Hatnua and Meretz voters and 99% of Yesh Atid voters said they were in favor of such a government.

According to Hiddush CEO Rabbi Uri Regev, the fact that an overwhelming majority among Likud Beiteinu voters supports a government that will advance freedom of religion and an equal share of the burden shows that “the era in which haredi parties were perceived as natural coalition partners is over.”…

In previous Knessets, the chairman of the Finance Committee was mostly a representative of the United Torah Judaism faction. The survey’s last question tried to find out whether the Jewish public is in favor or against continuing this tradition.

About two-thirds of the Jewish public (67%) were against giving the job to a UTJ lawmaker, and one-third were in favor. Eighty-eight percent of seculars were against the idea, while 97% of haredim were in favor.…

“United Torah Judaism and Shas have made the wide public hate them after many years of aggression and extortion,” Rabbi Regev added.…

It’s Irrational To Be Religious


Jared Diamond: It’s irrational to be religious

Supernatural beliefs might not make sense, but they endure because they’re so emotionally satisfying

BY JARED DIAMOND

Jared Diamond: It's irrational to be religious
(Credit: Reuters/Enny Nuraheni)

Virtually all religions hold some supernatural beliefs specific to that religion. That is, a religion’s adherents firmly hold beliefs that conflict with and cannot be confirmed by our experience of the natural world, and that appear implausible to people other than the adherents of that particular religion. For example, Hindus believe there is a monkey god who travels thousands of kilometers at a single somersault. Catholics believe a woman who had not yet been fertilized by a man became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy, whose body eventually after his death was carried up to a place called heaven, often represented as being located in the sky. The Jewish faith believes that a supernatural being gave a chunk of desert in the Middle East to the being’s favorite people, as their home forever.

No other feature of religion creates a bigger divide between religious believers and modern secular people, to whom it staggers the imagination that anyone could entertain such beliefs. No other feature creates a bigger divide between believers in two different religions, each of whom firmly believes its own beliefs but considers it absurd that the other religion’s believers believe those other beliefs. Why, nevertheless, are supernatural beliefs such universal features of religions?

One suggested answer is that supernatural religious beliefs are just ignorant superstitions similar to supernatural non-religious beliefs, illustrating only that the human brain is capable of deceiving itself into believing anything. We can all think of supernatural non-religious beliefs whose implausibility should be obvious. Many Europeans believe that the sight of a black cat heralds misfortune, but black cats are actually rather common. By repeatedly tallying whether or not a one-hour period following or not following your observation of a black cat in an area with high cat density did or did not bring you some specified level of misfortune, and by applying the statistician’s chi-square test, you can quickly convince yourself that the black-cat hypothesis has a probability of less than 1 out of 1,000 of being true. Some groups of New Guinea lowlanders believe that hearing the beautiful whistled song of the little bird known as the Lowland Mouse-Babbler warns us that someone has recently died, but this bird is among the most common species and most frequent singers in New Guinea lowland forests. If the belief about it were true, the local human population would be dead within a few days, yet my New Guinea friends are as convinced of the babbler’s ill omens as Europeans are afraid of black cats.

A more striking non-religious superstition, because people today still invest money in their mistaken belief, is water-witching, also variously known as dowsing, divining, or rhabdomancy. Already established in Europe over 400 years ago and possibly also reported before the time of Christ, this belief maintains that rotation of a forked twig carried by a practitioner called a dowser, walking over terrain whose owner wants to know where to dig a well, indicates the location and sometimes the depth of an invisible underground water supply. Control tests show that dowsers’ success at locating underground water is no better than random, but many land-owners in areas where geologists also have difficulty at predicting the location of underground water nevertheless pay dowsers for their search, then spend even more money to dig a well unlikely to yield water. The psychology behind such beliefs is that we remember the hits and forget the misses, so that whatever superstitious beliefs we hold become confirmed by even the flimsiest of evidence through the remembered hits. Such anecdotal thinking comes naturally; controlled experiments and scientific methods to distinguish between random and non-random phenomena are counterintuitive and unnatural, and thus not found in traditional societies.

Perhaps, then, religious superstitions are just further evidence of human fallibility, like belief in black cats and other non-religious superstitions. But it’s suspicious that costly commitments to belief in implausible-to-others religious superstitions are such a consistent feature of religions. The investments that many religious adherents make to their beliefs are far more burdensome, time-consuming, and heavy in consequences to them than are the actions of black-cat-phobics in occasionally avoiding black cats. This suggests that religious superstitions aren’t just an accidental by-product of human reasoning powers but possess some deeper meaning. What might that be?

A recent interpretation among some scholars of religion is that belief in religious superstitions serves to display one’s commitment to one’s religion. All long-lasting human groups — Boston Red Sox fans (like me), devoted Catholics, patriotic Japanese, and others — face the same basic problem of identifying who can be trusted to remain as a group member. The more of one’s life is wrapped up with one’s group, the more crucial it is to be able to identify group members correctly and not to be deceived by someone who seeks temporary advantage by claiming to share your ideals but who really doesn’t. If that man carrying a Boston Red Sox banner, whom you had accepted as a fellow Red Sox fan, suddenly cheers when the New York Yankees hit a home run, you’ll find it humiliating but not life-threatening. But if he’s a soldier next to you in the front line and he drops his gun (or turns it on you) when the enemy attacks, your misreading of him may cost you your life.

That’s why religious affiliation involves so many overt displays to demonstrate the sincerity of your commitment: sacrifices of time and resources, enduring of hardships, and other costly displays that I’ll discuss later. One such display might be to espouse some irrational belief that contradicts the evidence of our senses, and that people outside our religion would never believe. If you claim that the founder of your church had been conceived by normal sexual intercourse between his mother and father, anyone else would believe that too, and you’ve done nothing to demonstrate your commitment to your church. But if you insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he was born of a virgin birth, and nobody has been able to shake you of that irrational belief after many decades of your life, then your fellow believers will feel much more confident that you’ll persist in your belief and can be trusted not to abandon your group.

Nevertheless, it’s not the case that there are no limits to what can be accepted as a religious supernatural belief. Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer have independently pointed out that actual religious superstitions over the whole world constitute a narrow subset of all the arbitrary random superstitions that one could theoretically invent. To quote Pascal Boyer, there is no religion proclaiming anything like the following tenet: “There is only one God! He is omnipotent. But he exists only on Wednesdays.” Instead, the religious supernatural beings in which we believe are surprisingly similar to humans, animals, or other natural objects, except for having superior powers. They are more far-sighted, longer-lived, and stronger, travel faster, can predict the future, can change shape, can pass through walls, and so on. In other respects, gods and ghosts behave like people. The god of the Old Testament got angry, while Greek gods and goddesses became jealous, ate, drank, and had sex. Their powers surpassing human powers are projections of our own personal power fantasies; they can do what we wish we could do ourselves. I do have fantasies of hurling thunderbolts that destroy evil people, and probably many other people share those fantasies of mine, but I have never fantasized about existing only on Wednesdays. Hence it doesn’t surprise me that gods in many religions are pictured as smiting evil-doers, but that no religion holds out the dream of existing just on Wednesdays. Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying. That’s why they’re so believable, despite at the same time being rationally implausible.

Printed by arrangement with Viking Penguin, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. from “The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?”by Jared Diamond. Copyright © Jared Diamond, 2012.

Religious slaughter: Halal, Kosher; Only Deference to Religions Makes These Inhumane Practises Legal


Religious slaughter: Halal, Kosher; only deference to religions makes these inhumane practises legal.

Under EU law animals must be stunned before they can be slaughtered. This is one part of a noble humane effort to reduce animal suffering even when they are our food source. However there is a loophole to this empathetic law.

The EU allows “derogation from stunning in case of religious slaughter taking place in slaughterhouses”

So if you believe a cosmic deity wills it, rules on preventing animal cruelty do not apply to you. The notably irreligious Sweden is the only country in the EU with an outright ban on religious slaughter.

Halal slaughter poster

Halal slaughter poster
If not for religion, would this be allowed?

There is no other exemption, not for a moral belief or political beliefs; only religious faith. Only a belief system that you believe to be supported by divine will is a good enough reason to inflict animal cruelty.

The human race has a remarkable ability for empathy and compassion; extending past other human beings to members of different species. Even to our food sources. We may have to kill and eat them to survive but we do not wish to see unnecessary suffering in the process.

As humanity has advanced, our sympathy and empathy towards animals has increased. We have found new ways to reduce suffering and introduced laws and regulations to enforce this good practice. The human race by and large has come to a consensus on this issue.

compassion

compassion

Our compassion goes beyond our own species.

Only religions, with their practices and morals from the infancy of our species, stick rigidly to backward methods that create unnecessary suffering. As ever the trouble with fundamentally sticking to practices in ancient books; they do not keep up with the moral advances of mankind. The production of Halal and Kosher meat, involving the cutting of the animal’s throat whilst it is still conscious, does not conform to the standards of the 21st century but is allowed to appease the Islamic and Jewish communities.

Only religious groups have the influence and power to exempt themselves from legislation like this, putting fear into the minds of legislators. This has to end; there must be a common law for all, for the good of mankind. As well as every other species on this planet

Silencing Judith Butler


Why Judith Butler had to be shut down

Posted by Cecilie Surasky

The announcement of a prestigious international academic prize doesn’t typically generate endless sturm und drang on the pages of major newspapers around the world, threatening to turn into an international incident. But when that prize is given by a German city, and the recipient is Judith Butler, one of the great thinkers of our time– who also happens to be a vocal critic of Israeli policies—apparently it signifies the end is near.

Within minutes of announcing that Judith Butler, who can best be described as the Mick Jagger of left academia, had won the prestigious Theodor Adorno prize for her extraordinary and wide-ranging body of critical theory work, the hapless judges of the Frankfurt prize were besieged with complaints by those who said it should be revoked immediately.

Writing in the pages of the Wall Street Journal,  Richard Landes and Ben Weinthal claimed the decision to give Butler the award would threaten Germany and Israel’s “special relationship”, and compared it to

Germany’s circumcision bans, Berlin sending submarines to a newly belligerent Egypt, and ugly revelations of German behavior in the Munich Olympics terror attack.

Elsewhere in Opposite-landia, the weird through-the-looking-glass world created by those who would defend Israel at all costs, right-wing critics claimed Judith Butler is anti-Semitic.  Judith Butler loves Hamas. Judith Butler is too political. Judith Butler isn’t political enough . Or my favorite, Judith Butler is ignorant.

But the truth is Butler became a lightning rod because one of the world’s best-known philosophers, who happens to be Jewish, is also deeply engaged in questions of Judaism, Jewish ethics and Zionism. Her lifelong investigation of these questions, in the spirit of Arendt and Buber who inspired because they walked their own paths—led her to keep one foot solidly in Jewish culture while placing the other in solidarity with precisely the people much of the Jewish world want us to forget, Palestinians.

Equally unforgivably, her intellectual and personal journey led her to support a movement that mainstream Jewish institutions are desperately trying to claim as anti-Semitic: the Palestinian-led, nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. (My use of the the word desperately is deliberate. As more and more individual Jews and Jewish organizations support some form of boycott or divestment to pressure Israel into being accountable to international law and basic Jewish ethics, the argument that doing so is essentially anti-Jewish reveals itself for the emptiness that it is.)

Butler wrote her own defense:

I am a scholar who gained an introduction to philosophy through Jewish thought, and I understand myself as defending and continuing a Jewish ethical tradition that includes figures such as Martin Buber and Hannah Arendt. I received a Jewish education in Cleveland, Ohio at The Temple under the tutelage of Rabbi Daniel Silver where I developed strong ethical views on the basis of Jewish philosophical thought. I learned, and came to accept, that we are called upon by others, and by ourselves, to respond to suffering and to call for its alleviation. But to do this, we have to hear the call, find the resources by which to respond, and sometimes suffer the consequences for speaking out as we do. I was taught at every step in my Jewish education that it is not acceptable to stay silent in the face of injustice. Such an injunction is a difficult one, since it does not tell us exactly when and how to speak, or how to speak in a way that does not produce a new injustice, or how to speak in a way that will be heard and registered in the right way. My actual position is not heard by these detractors, and perhaps that should not surprise me, since their tactic is to destroy the conditions of audibility.

WWTD? What would Theodor Do?

Back in the late 80s as an undergraduate at Brown, my world couldn’t get enough of Adorno and the Frankfurt School. And when the Matrix films came out, we were all certain the Wachowski (then) Brothers had stayed up late nights imbibing Marcuse and Adorno, and probably something a bit stronger, to come up with their too-close-to home dystopian trilogy.

Reading Adorno helped us understand the signs of fascism and our own willing imprisonment. I suppose his criticisms of mass culture helped herald the rise of the corporatocracy.

Adorno was a big Schoenberg fan. He didn’t go for treacly harmonies, for much the same reasons my mother used to refuse to let us watch the Brady Bunch, though the cynical MASH was OK. Adorno liked dissonance. It revealed the dark truth behind harmonious bourgeois culture. I suppose it was the only thing that made sense to someone who witnessed, and escaped, the Nazi Holocaust. (Real differences aside, it could be said that it took the war to help Adorno and others like him see the underlying brutality and dehumanization that colonized peoples of all kinds have always known firsthand at the hands of “the civilized”. Just ask the Congolese about King Leopold. Or just ask…women.)

This is the realm in which Judith Butler and her work dwells that makes her so utterly inspiring–especially to those of us who aspire to justice in Israel and Palestine while remaining firmly grounded in our Jewishness.

There is Butler’s personal willingness to try to embody the best of the Jewish texts she studies. And her willing look at the dark underbelly of “civilized” cultures (think Pamela Geller ads) which declare some people grievable and others entirely unworthy of grieving. (In that sense, the United States and Israel have more than a special relationship, they are conjoined twins, awash in self congratulatory language about democracy and civilization that obscures the foundation of structural violence that in both cases, has never really ceased.)

Adorno is often quoted for sayng that there can be no poetry after Auschwitz. But he also wrote:

“The single genuine power standing against the principle of Auschwitz is autonomy, if I might use the Kantian expression: the power of reflection, of self-determination, of not cooperating.”

Hold that thought. Let us all, like JB and so many countless others, refuse to cooperate. We must refuse to be that person laughing at a Tel Aviv café while just miles away a captive population in Gaza is bombed ceaselessly, or to simply ask someone to pass the cereal moments after reading again that the US military drone dropped a bomb on a group of civilians, this time a group of women and girls.

Let us refuse to cooperate with the mythical Jewish consensus that to be a good Jew, one must not mourn Palestinians as one mourns Jews, and one must not hold Israel up to those same standards.

This Yom Kippur, I’m going to think about the times I didn’t refuse.

I hope also that some of the people who called Judith Butler and so many like her anti-Semites, simply in order to maker them “inaudible,” will consider the gravity of their actions. But I’m not holding my breath.

(Oh, and by the way, Judith Butler did get that prize after all. And the room of 700 cheered.)

-Cecilie Surasky

Against The Herd, Minority Rebel Israelis Oppose Penile Mutilation


In Israel, Some Rebel Against Circumcision
A Jewish man holds his baby son before his circumcision in Jerusalem in this September 24, 2012 file photograph. Circumcision is one of Judaism's most important laws and for generations of faithful it has symbolised a Biblical covenant with God. But in Israel, more and more Jewish parents are saying no to the blade. REUTERS-Ronen Zvulun-Files
Rabbi Chaim Moshe Weisberg, a mohel or a Jewish ritual circumciser, holds a baby after circumcising him in Jerusalem in this September 24, 2012 file photo. REUTERS-Ronen Zvulun-Files
A baby sucks on a piece of bandage dipped in wine after his circumcision in Jerusalem in this September 24, 2012 file photograph. Circumcision is one of Judaism's most important laws and for generations of faithful it has symbolised a Biblical covenant with God. But in Israel, more and more Jewish parents are saying no to the blade. REUTERS-Ronen Zvulun-Files

By Maayan Lubell

JERUSALEM

(Reuters) – Circumcision is one of Judaism’s most important laws and for generations of faithful it has symbolized a biblical covenant with God.

But in Israel, more and more Jewish parents are saying no to the blade.

“It’s such a taboo in Israel and in Judaism,” said Gali, nursing her six-week-old son, about the decision not to have him circumcised.

“It’s like coming out of the closet,” she said, asking to be identified by her first name only because she had not told her relatives yet.

Nearly all baby boys in Israel are circumcised. Be their parents ultra-Orthodox or totally secular Jews, it is by far the most common choice. Most Israeli-Arabs also keep with a practice that is widespread in the Muslim world.

Jewish circumcisions are done when the baby is eight days old. The majority are performed by a mohel, a religious man trained in the procedure carried out in a festive religious ceremony called a “brit“, Hebrew for covenant.

But an increasing minority fear it is a form of physical abuse.

“It’s the same as if someone would tell me ‘it’s our culture to cut off a finger when he is born’,” said Rakefet Kaufman, who also did not have her son circumcised.

“People should see it as abuse because it is done to a baby without asking him,” she said.

When Gali learnt she was carrying a baby boy it was obvious to her that he would be circumcised. But she started to think again after a conversation with a friend whose son was uncircumcised.

“She asked me what my reason was for doing it, was it religious? I said no. Was it for health reasons? No. Social? No. Then it began to sink in. I began to read more about it, enter Internet forums, I began to realize that I cannot do it.”

PHENOMENON GROWING

“The phenomenon is growing, I have no doubt,” said Ronit Tamir, who founded a support group for families who have chosen not to circumcise their sons.

“When we started the group 12 years ago we had to work hard to find 40 families … They were keeping it secret and we had to promise them we’d keep it secret,” she said. “Then, we’d get one or two phone calls a month. Nowadays I get dozens of emails and phone calls a month, hundreds a year.”

Tamir believes Jews in today’s Israel find it easier to break religious taboos.

“People are asking themselves what it means to be Jewish these days,” she said, and that leads some to question rules of all kinds, including circumcision.

In societies around the world who circumcise boys for non-religious reasons, out of habit or tradition or because of the perceived health benefits, the practice can be controversial.

Rates of circumcision in Europe are well under 20 percent, while in the United States, according to 2010 statistics cited by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), more than half of newborn boys continue to be circumcised.

The American Academy of Paediatrics said in August that the health benefits of infant circumcision – potentially avoiding infection, cancer and sexually-transmitted diseases – outweighed the risks, but said parents should make the final call.

But where the decision is ultimately a matter of personal choice for many families around the world, for Jews who question the tradition, it is more complicated.

“It is the covenant between us and God – a sign that one cannot deny and that Jews have kept even in times of persecution,” said one well-known mohel who has been performing circumcisions in Israel for more than 30 years. He asked not to be named to avoid being connected to any controversy.

He pointed to the Book of Genesis, where God said to Abraham: “And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins; and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.”

It is this covenant that, the mohel said, that “keeps the people of Israel together”.

The Bible goes on: “And the uncircumcised male child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Scholars have differed over the years what this means in practice.

BEING DIFFERENT

Tamir is unswayed by the ancient verses.

“This edict is painful, irreversible and maims,” she said. The Internet was helping to spread the word, she said, allowing parents to find information about circumcision and seek advice anonymously.

Some Jewish groups in the United States which oppose circumcision offer alternative religious brit ceremonies that do not include an actual circumcision.

“There is definitely a growing number of Jewish families in the U.S. who are choosing not to circumcise,” said Florida-based Rebecca Wald. In 2010 she started a website to connect parents who are unsure about what to do.

“Since then, in phone calls, emails, and on social networking sites I have connected with hundreds of Jewish people in the U.S. who question circumcision.” she said in an email interview. “Many of them have intact (uncircumcised) sons or plan to leave future sons intact.”

Wald’s son was not circumcised.

“I have a very strong sense of Jewish identity and, believe it or not, having an intact son has only deepened it,” she said.

In Israel, where the vast majority are circumcised, the dilemma may be particularly difficult.

Although she is confident of the choice she and her husband made, Gali still has one concern.

“The main issue which still troubles me a little is the social one, that one day he may come to me and say ‘Mom, why did you do that to me? They made fun of me today’,” Gali said.

The Health Ministry does not keep records on circumcisions but estimates about 60,000 to 70,000 are held in Israel every year, which roughly corresponds to the number of boys born in 2010, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics.

The ministry said it treats about 70 cases a year of circumcisions gone wrong, mainly minor complications such as excessive bleeding.

Kaufman said “people were shocked” to learn that her son is not circumcised.

“In Israel everybody does it, like a herd,” she said. “They don’t stop and ask themselves about this specific procedure which has to do with damaging a baby.”

Watching her son rummage through a stack of toys, Kaufman said: “The way he was born is the way his body should be.”

Rupert Murdoch’s Anti-Jewish Conspiracy Theory Endorsed By Neocon, Right Wing Jews


[Were it any other voice aside from Rupert Murdoch, circumstance or situation, these same Jewish Neocon and Rightist voices would typically be howling and barfing “anti-Semitism” until they were blue in the face.]

Rupert Murdoch and the ‘Jewish Owned Press’   
Eric Alterman
 

Rupert Murdoch. Reuters/Paul Hackett

The Joseph Kennedy portrayed in The Patriarch, David Nasaw’s magisterial new biography, didn’t dislike Jews per se. In fact, he rather admired the way they stuck together, looked out for their corporate interests and ultimately, in his view, trapped (or brainwashed) Franklin Roosevelt into allowing the United States to become embroiled in the fight against Nazi aggression. But he blamed “a number of Jewish writers and publishers” for trying to “precipitate a war with Germany.” While Jewish community leaders were desperately trying (and failing) to convince Roosevelt to intervene on behalf of the victims of Hitler’s repression (soon to be genocide), and to lobby other nations to do so, Kennedy—then ambassador to the Court of St. James’s—did everything in his power to frustrate these aims, believing that Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews was unworthy of American attention.

One particularly disturbing aspect of the story Nasaw tells concerns the tendency of Jewish communal leaders—particularly the Zionist leaders—to fool themselves about Kennedy. Rabbi Stephen Wise, for instance, wrote his colleagues in New York that the new ambassador was “going to be very helpful, as he is keenly understanding” of the Jewish position on immigration and could be counted on to lobby Roosevelt in its favor.

Like Joseph Kennedy, Rupert Murdoch is a man of immense wealth and political influence, much admired in the Jewish professional community. Also like Kennedy, Murdoch sees a world in which Jews use their financial power on behalf of the Jews themselves. Or, more accurately, he thinks this is what they should do, and complains when they do not.

During the initial days of the recent Israel-Hamas conflict, Murdoch tweeted, “Why is Jewish owned press so consistently anti-Israel in every crisis?” Consistent with the Murdoch media ethos, he presented no evidence for either contention: that the US press was “Jewish owned” or that it was “consistently anti-Israel.” In fact, both contentions are ridiculous. The mainstream media are largely owned by multinational corporations. The most powerful single owner of media in the United States is Murdoch himself. Viacom, Disney, Comcast, Time Warner and Bertelsmann are not “Jewish owned.” Neither, though it may come as a surprise to Murdoch, is The New York Times. Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is neither Jewish by birth—according to traditional Jewish law—nor by choice. (He was raised Episcopalian, his mother’s faith.)

True, the percentage of Jews working in the MSM is high, as it is in the medical, legal, financial and entertainment fields. But most of the time, when someone insists that Jews use their power in these industries on behalf of so-called Jewish interests—much less bias their actions deliberately on behalf of another country—they are correctly deemed to be anti-Semites. Would Murdoch expect a Jewish president to act explicitly on the basis of what was “good for the Jews”? If so, maybe we should scotch that idea right now, since my landsmen do not represent even one-fiftieth of the country’s population.

It’s worth remembering that Murdoch’s employees at Fox News have been known to engage in some hateful Jewish stereotyping as well. Fox News host Bill O’Reilly once told a Jewish caller to “go to Israel” if he found himself offended by public Christmas displays. Glenn Beck, while a Fox employee, slandered George Soros as America’s “puppet master,” an old anti-Semitic canard, and even displayed the image of a Star of David while doing so.

Complaints about the allegedly Jewish-owned media are supposed to spur organizations like Abe Foxman’s Anti-Defamation League into action. But Murdoch is not only a powerful right-wing publisher; he is also a billionaire who funds quite a few of the right-wing Jewish publications and organizations he does not own, picking up awards (and apologists) from them like lint on a cheap suit. I didn’t make it to the ADL International Leadership Award dinner honoring Murdoch, or the Simon Wiesenthal Humanitarian dinner, the Museum of Jewish Heritage Award dinner, the American Jewish Committee National Human Relations Award dinner, etc., though I did once attend a United Jewish Appeal-Federation “Humanitarian of the Year” ceremony for the guy. (The award was presented, I kid you not, by Henry Kissinger.) Norman Podhoretz took the podium to thank Murdoch for helping keep Commentary afloat after the American Jewish Committee (belatedly) cut it loose.

Now that Commentary, like a family dry-cleaning business, has been passed down to the younger (and lesser) John Podhoretz, it is not so surprising to see its blogger, Jonathan Tobin, endorse Murdoch’s anti-Semitic formulation. Tobin, who recently worked himself up into a froth over an allegedly anti-Semitic Maureen Dowd column about Mitt Romney’s foreign policy advisers that made no mention of anyone’s religion or ethnicity, insisted that “it wasn’t unreasonable for the non-Jewish Murdoch to wonder why these [Jewish-owned] papers as well as much of the liberal media are often so reflexively hostile to Israel’s cause.” Other Jewish neocons followed suit. When Murdoch issued a narrowly worded clarification, Seth Lipsky’s New York Sun (which I did not know still existed) declared that Murdoch’s “apology was unnecessary.” Michael Goldfarb, a former Bill Kristol protégé now at a Koch brothers–sounding outfit called the Center for American Freedom, tweeted “New York Times proves @RupertMurdoch correct,” also apparently unaware that the paper is not Jewish-owned (nor, it must be said, consistently or even inconsistently critical of Israel). Foxman, too, has chimed in on Murdoch’s behalf.

When FDR died in April 1945, Joe Kennedy, while admiring the Jews’ “marvelous organizing capacity,” nevertheless celebrated the fact that “the power of certain groups to control the future life of this country [is] finished.” Rupert Murdoch is apparently betting that the old man was wrong yet again.

So who really does own the media? More and more, it’s the fewer and fewer. Read New Press head André Schiffrin on “How Mergermania Is Destroying Book Publishing.”

Christian Zionist Fraudster and Fake “Ex-Terrorist” Walid Shoebat Claims Jewish Ancestry


Walid_Shoebat

Another self-serving, thoroughly discredited con man lauded by the American Religious Right, one Walid Shoebat, is now also trying to pass himself off as of Jewish Ancestry. Seems he’s milked and bilked the dirt dumb crazies of the American Religious Right and now angling to lure and sucker the Jewish community to hand over their hard-earned dollars! 

Walid_Shoebat

See here:-

Walid Shoebat: Fake Terrorist Busted!

And see here:-

‘Ex-terrorist’ Rakes in Homeland Security Bucks

And here:-

Shoebat Watch: “Ex-Terrorist” Fraud Sucking Up Taxpayer Money

http://www.walid-shoebat.blogspot.com.au/

Walid Shoebat Claims Jewish Ancestry “On Both Sides”
Posted by Richard Bartholomew

A particularly strange exchange between self-described “ex-terrorist” Walid Shoebat and Christian Zionist radio host Sid Roth:

Sid:… you also told me that on both sides of your family there’s Jewish ancestry and you went a bit further; most of the Palestinians you tell me have Jewish ancestry. Why do you say that?

Walid: Well, because I researched the archives of my family heritage, the Shoebat clan comes from Harris Ben Cobb, a Jew who converted to Islam. Before him he knew Harris Ben Cobb comes from a Ashomel Ben Adaya, no Muslim has the name Shomoel in fact if you look at Wikipedia Shomoel Ben Adaya was a Jew who created [sic] to Islam in Yemen.

This makes little sense. First, Samaw’al ibn ‘Adiya was a pre-Islamic Arab poet in Yemen who was either a convert to Judaism or of Jewish descent, not a Jewish convert to Islam (as “Shmu’el Ben Adaya”, he has a street named after him in Jerusalem). Second, “Cobb” is an English surname, and “Harris” is an English first name. Perhaps there’s a Jewish “Ben Cobb” surname of which I am unaware, but either way, it seems unlikely that a person with such a name would be the origin of the Palestinian Shuaybat clan, or that the family of such a person could be traced back to a sixth-century Yemeni poet.

It’s also not clear how he would have Jewish ancestry on his American side. According to his own account in Why We Left Islam (blogged here), he states that (pp. 19-20):

My maternal grandfather, F.W. Georgeson… was a great friend of Winston Churchill.

Frederick W. Georgeson was the mayor of Eureka, California; according to is a 1915 biography here, he was born in Scotland, and his wife was from Iowa and named Thompson. However, elsewhere he names Georgeson as his “Great Grandfather”, and from the birth date (F.W. was born in 1858) it seems likely that there is at least one intermediate generation (Incidentally, Georgeson’s supposed association with Churchill appears to have eluded the attention of historians and biographers).

Shoebat’s more general point of a genetic link between Jews and Palestinians has some scientific validity, although it’s a strange point for him to make, and in his case his argument is based on a supposed special access to knowledge:

…in all Palestinian homes you will find the Star of David in front of every home. The Star of David you will find Palestinians who still observe many things Jewish. Eating the lamb standing up comes from Exodus.

That “in all Palestinian homes you will find the Star of David” is a new one to me.

Australia’s Disneyfied Israel


Australia’s Disneyfied Israel

by 

For two weeks this month, Hagai El-Ad, executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), visited Australia as a guest of the New Israel Fund Australia Foundation. Only 18 months old, NIF Australia has already achieved a significant aim of its creation: to begin anew a conversation about Israel and Judaism in Australia.

Hagai El-Ad standing in front of the Melbourne skyline. (Photo by Arielle Perlow via New Israel Fund Australia)
Hagai El-Ad standing in front of the Melbourne skyline. (Photo by Arielle Perlow via New Israel Fund Australia)

The Jewish community here—dominated by Holocaust survivors and their descendants, and migrants from South Africa and the former Soviet Union—is acutely aware of the importance of multiculturalism and of respecting human rights in Australia. But, paradoxically, though hardly uniquely, the communal leadership has ensured these values aren’t applied in its engagement with Israel.

Blinded by fear of anti-Semitism and the need to over-protect Israel and our conversations about it, the community has landed firmly on the Zionist Right. With a leadership composed almost exclusively of middle-aged Religious Zionist men, the community has developed a thinly veiled enmity towards left-wing Jews and Zionists. Instead of fostering a pluralist Zionist conversation, they largely promote a limited set of views. The lessons of tolerance, human rights, and equality have, over time, been lost and replaced with a myopic Zionism.

Though the establishment sets its “red lines” for inclusion as being anti-BDS and pro-two-state solution, it has embraced, or at best turned a blind eye to, groups on the right, like Ateret Cohanim, which are active campaigners against Palestinian sovereignty. Meanwhile, NIF guests like David Landau, despite firmly fitting the criteria, are demonized. Similarly, NIF’s credentials and leadership are constantly brought into question.

The math just doesn’t add up: Setting boundaries for Zionist conversation, and then ignoring those boundaries to welcome speakers with anti-Palestinian agendas and to undermine liberal Zionists is, quite simply, rank hypocrisy.

The community’s leadership also deliberately weakens public expressions of liberal Zionism. The cancellation of a visit by Naomi Chazan to Australia in early 2010 served as the precursor for a prolonged global campaign against the New Israel Fund. It was as if, to the communal leadership’s sudden surprise, NIF was full of liberals and left-wing Zionists, and was therefore unworthy of engagement. I have been a victim myself, having been terminated as a columnist at the country’s only Jewish newspaper for daring to support a boycott of settlement goods.

Fully understanding the causes of this dynamic is difficult, but the unbroken right-wing communal leadership and the impact of the Holocaust no doubt contribute to wanting to protect Israel and Diaspora Jews.

Which is why El-Ad’s visit is so crucial. Throughout, a common theme of his talks was an urge to have a “real relationship with a real Israelnot a fake relationship with a ‘Disneyfied’ version of Israel.” Each time he said that, I watched the crowd lift their heads. It was as if they paused, reflected back on his discussion of the human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, of Bedouin displacement in the Negev, of Israel’s mistreatment of asylum seekers and refugees, and realized this was the first time they were actually engaging in these real-world-Israel issues.

His visits to Jewish day schools, in particular, provoked such responses. The occupation, when it is dealt with, is not understood as something that necessarily creates terrible human rights violations and undermines the long-term viability of the Jewish-democratic Zionist project. The ‘aha’ moment with regard to the occupation and the realities facing refugees and asylum seekers, when El-Ad spoke, was that Israel faces these issues, and that bringing them to light is okay. In a small way, his visit contributed to a wider understanding of Israel.

Given everything Jews have been through, and given how close Australian Jewry has been to these catastrophes, it’s not surprising there is a desire to shelter or be sheltered. But creating an atmosphere in which views held by loving and concerned Zionists are marginalized is precisely the wrong way to go, not only as a matter of principle, but because of the way young Jews are disengaging like never before.

El-Ad’s message of human rights and his plea to challenge assumptions ingrained over the decades has further challenged the self-perceived right of the communal leadership to act as marshals of Zionist conversation, deciding who is allowed in and which opinions are kept out. Recently, because of organizations like NIF, members of the community have begun rejecting that paradigm. Being exposed to Israel’s wrongs brings an appreciation for how we can contribute to curing them. These messages don’t delegitimize Israel, they add to its strength.

To Protect a Drug Dealer Jewish Fanatics Coerce Women Into Abortions


Crown Heights: A ‘Love’ Story Complete With Coerced Abortions

Alleged victimThe son of a powerful Crown Heights man is an alleged drug dealer who has impregnated two young Chabad women out of wedlock in past few months. How this situation has been handled by Chabad rabbis will shock you.

 

The son of a powerful Crown Heights man is an alleged drug dealer who has impregnated two young Chabad women out of wedlock in past few months. How this situation has been handled by Chabad rabbis will shock you.

This man’s son is an adult, and has been described to me as Crown Height’s Jewish community’s major drug dealer.

The alleged drug dealer’s father is a senior member of a Crown Heights service group I’ll not (yet) name (Hatzolah, Shomrom, Shmira, etc.).

The alleged drug dealer impregnated a young Chabad woman in Crown Heights several months ago and another in North Miami Beach more recently. Both women come from ba’al teshuva families.

Chabad rabbis, including M.B. who is a very prominent Crown Heights rabbi, acting in conjunction with the the alleged drug dealer’s father, allegedly heavily pressured the women and their families to abort the babies.

Both women, especially the North Miami beach women, resisted. But under extreme pressure from Rabbi M. B. and other major rabbis in Chabad, the women each eventually gave in and had an abortion – the one in North Miami Beach allegedly terminated her pregnancy Thursday.

To Protect a Drug Dealer Jewish Fanatics Coerce Women Into Abortions

The Fear of the Rabbis | Jewish Ultra-Orthodox Oppression | Jewish Sexual Abuse Amongst Ultra-Orthodox


The Rabbis Are Right To Be Afraid
The Fear of the Rabbis | Jewish Ultra-Orthodox Oppression | Jewish Sexual Abuse Amongst Ultra-Orthodox

Post by Jay Michaelson
40,000 people at Citi Field? Can’t be for a Mets game—no, must be an ultra-Orthodox rally/teach-in/info session on the dangers of what you’re doing right now: browsing the Internet. And so it is: tonight, with overflow seating at the Arthur Ashe tennis center (yes, the event is sold out) and simulcast to schools in Borough Park.

I suspect most readers are, by now, chuckling to themselves—as, admittedly, I did myself. After all, the New York Times coverage of the event notes the sale of “kosher” smartphones that limit Internet use. This is funny stuff.

But on second thought, aren’t the ultra-Orthodox right? This is an insular community that has built real and virtual walls to shield itself from secular influences. Aren’t they correct to worry that if their adherents surf the Internet, the community will suffer?

I think they are. One reason I write for publications like this one is to make a difference, to share information that people may not ordinarily hear about, and offer some perspective on issues like this one. (Okay, maybe this is getting too meta-.) I hope that I’m not only preaching to the choir; I hope that there are people who read my work, feel challenged by it, and then think and rethink their positions.

And of course, no amount of ink-spilling can make as much difference as a Lady Gaga video or an episode of Glee. (In somewhat related news, Hong Kong evangelicals plastered the city-state with posters warning Christians to stay away from a planned Lady Gaga concert that would include “pornographic, homosexual and satanic elements.” Well, two out of three ain’t bad.) Or the YouTube videos of Hasidim who are glad to have left the fold. Or websites devoted to egalitarian, LGBT-inclusive, and open-minded Judaism. The rabbis are right to worry, are they not?

Maybe what’s ridiculous here is the irony: tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox men using technology, cramming into Citi Field, and learning why they should fear technology. Then again, no ultra-Orthodox authorities can really ban the Internet, and the Hasidim are not like the Amish, willing Luddites rejecting “modernity.” They’re rejecting certain aspects of modernity—cultural and moral ones, in particular.

Or maybe it’s just the futility of it all. Surely, as the proposed reality TV show “The Unchosen Ones” and Hella Winston’s similarly-titled book, Unchosen, show, ghetto walls are highly permeable these days. There’s something almost quaint about 40,000 middle-aged men thinking they can stop their teenagers from tweeting. Even if they can.

I think, though, the reason these stories strike a chord is that they remind New Yorkers like me that only a few miles from where I sit, people are living in a different century—and I don’t even mean the 20th. Here in Park Slope, there are more lesbians than coffee shops, and more coffee shops than trees. Yet a few blocks down in Crown Heights, or across the park in Flatbush, thousands of people have lifestyles and morals that wouldn’t pass the laugh test over here. They think we’re sinners, we think they’re throwbacks, and yet we ride the same subways, crowd the same streets.

Unfortunately, as secular and moderate Israelis have long known, the ultra-Orthodox minority is not content to keep its morality to itself. These people aren’t Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof: as soon as they gain enough political power, they use that power to change laws, segregate the sexes, fund their religious schools, and foist their vision onto the rest of us.

Moreover, as a handful of protesters have recognized, this anti-Internet rally is taking place in the shadow of an unprecedented probe into sexual abuse in the ultra-Orthodox community, which appears to be rampant. When ultra-Orthodox rabbis aren’t busy railing against the Internet, some of them are busy covering up hideous instances of abuse among their flock or intimidating witnesses. That’s certainly not Tevye either.

Maybe, then, we’re laughing because otherwise we might be terrified.

Jewish Zealot’s Outrageous Holocaust Lies – AGAIN!


Updated: Haredi Rabbi Lies About The Holocaust – Again

Meir Wikler

“According to some experts, between 50%-70% of those murdered by the  Nazis, were “traditionally religious Jews.” There is no reason to assume  the percentage of survivors who were religious was any less.”

Meir Wikler Rabbi Meir Wikler

Yad Vashem only honors Holocaust’s secular victims Haredim have authored their own Holocaust history books, developed their own curricula to teach it to their children and are building their own museums to memorialize the martyrs.

By Meir Wikler • Ha’aretz

When Yad Vashem in Jerusalem opened its new wing, known as The Holocaust History Museum, in 2005, it was much ballyhooed as a state of the art, multi-million dollar Holocaust museum to top all others. While praise for the new museum wing has poured forth from dignitaries and laymen, the unified opposition of so-called ultra-orthodox, or Haredi Jewry, has stuck out like a sore thumb. Why have Haredim been so upset?

While Jewish religious life before World War II is illustrated at the museum, the testimony of haredi survivors is largely missing.

According to some experts, between 50%-70% of those murdered by the Nazis, were “traditionally religious Jews.” There is no reason to assume the percentage of survivors who were religious was any less. But in the rooms of Yad Vashem only one of the 50-60 video monitors playing taped testimonies of Holocaust survivors shows a Haredi Jew. By choosing to record and display taped testimonies of mostly secular Jews, Yad Vashem is giving a distorted picture of the religious affiliations of the survivors. This gives the false impression that few ultra-orthodox Jews survived the Shoah.

The spiritual heroism of the Holocaust is almost completely overlooked. The abundant examples of incredible courage to study Torah and perform mitzvot despite unspeakable suffering and incredible hardships are relegated to footnote status and all but eliminated from the museum. The clandestine yeshivot and Torah study groups in the ghettos, the lighting of candles on Channuka, the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashana and the daily donning of tefillin in the concentration camps – all under the penalty of death – are not mentioned at all.

The massive rescue work of Haredi Jewry has effectively been purged from the historical record of the Holocaust as presented by Yad Vashem. Rabbi Michoel Ber Weissmandl, for example, and the heroic efforts of his Working Group, are impugned and dishonored. Instead of crediting them with successfully delaying the transports from Czechoslovakia by bribing and outsmarting the Nazis, the paragraph written about them makes it sound as if they were the ones who had been duped.

Yad Vashem’s responses to queries on this subject have been disappointing. At one meeting, the Yad Vashem representative requested that the discussion be kept “off the record.” The institution’s written responses to published critiques have attempted to obfuscate the issue. The spokesperson cited, for example, the online services available to the Haredi community. They also pointed to the special Orthodox division of their tour guide training school and they emphasized how many Orthodox students make use of Yad Vashem archives for research purposes.

Yad Vashem’s underlying motives for all of this are open to speculation. Some Herdim believe that Yad Vashem feels that dealing more favorably with ultra-Orthodox Jews is antithetical to their secular, Zionist agenda. Others see this as a reflection of the anti-Haredi bias of some segments of secular Israeli society. And still others suspect that Yad Vashem simply suffers from the, “We know best,” mentality, so prevalent today in Jewish establishment circles.

However, there have been a few improvements made to the new Museum wing. For example, the immodest pictures of victims which were originally on display when the museum opened have since been removed. In addition, while the new building opened with no videotaped testimonies from any Haredi survivors, now there is one.

Unfortunately, these changes fall far short of what is needed. As the premier Holocaust museum under Jewish auspices, Yad Vashem dishonors the memory of the six million by continuing to present a distorted and incomplete record of the Shoah. No, not all those who perished in or survived the Shoah were Haredim. But many more Haredim did survive than the 2% represented by the one videotaped testimony currently on display.

In spite of the extremely rare but highly publicized Haredi use of Holocaust imagery against the State, the overwhelming majority of Haredim today take Shoah remembrance seriously. Yad Vashem, however, is seen by many as irrelevant. As a result, Haredim have authored their own Holocaust history books, developed their own curricula to teach it to their children and are building their own museums to memorialize the martyrs.

If many ultra-Orthodox Jews see Yad Vashem as irrelevant, why are some so outspoken in their criticism of the new Holocaust History Museum? Millions of visitors, both Jew and non-Jew, stream through Yad Vashem each year. The vast majority of them would never visit a Holocaust museum under Haredi auspices. Yad Vashem needs, therefore, to make further corrections to the new building for those visitors. And world Jewry must insist on it.
Yom HaShoah observances are designed to memorialize the martyrs. Nothing would honor their memory more, however, than being remembered as they would have wanted. We cannot save a single life that was lost in the Holocaust. We can, however, protest the distortions at Yad Vashem that dishonor the memory of religious victims because they can no longer do that for themselves.

Dr. Meir Wikler is a Brooklyn based psychotherapist, author and lecturer.

Meir Wikler is dishonest. He’s also a fool.

As I noted in May of last year in response to an ‘interview’ of Wikler in The Jewish Week [the quotes are from that ‘interview’ but are similar to what he wrote now above]:

1. “At least half, if not more, of all survivors were haredi.” This is complete hogwash. At the dawn of WW2, 2/3 of Warsaw’s Jews were  secular. The number of secular Jews was even higher in Paris, Amsterdam  and Denmark. And most of Budapest’s Jews were secular, as well. Even  smaller cities like Munkatch had large secular populations. And all  these areas had large populations of what we would call Modern Orthodox  or Zionist Orthodox Jews, as well. The vast majority of Europe’s Jews in  1939 were secular or non-haredi Orthodox. There are to my knowledge no  studies, no academic research, and no evidence to back up Wikler’s  claim. But there is much evidence against Wikler. Satmar, Bobov,  Klausenberg, Chabad and other American hasidic groups were broken by the  Holocaust. Most of the people who today call themselves hasidim are  descended from people who were secular or non-haredi-Orthodox after the  Holocaust, but who were recruited by hasidic leaders, many of whom had  difficulty getting a quorum for prayer in 1946.

2. “The description of Harav [Rabbi] Michoel Dov Weissmandel,  of blessed memory, [who led an effort to save Jews from the Holocaust]  depicts him as having been naïve and duped by the Nazis. The truth is  just the opposite. He was a brilliant rabbinic leader who outwitted the  Nazis at every turn.” All available evidence shows Rabbi  Weissmandl – the Slovakian rabbi who was courageous and tireless as he  tried to save Jews from the Nazis – was, in fact, duped by the Nazis and  achieved little. The only way to interpret the evidence differently  (besides lying, of course) is to say that the Allies would have allowed  American and Palestinian Jews to give the Germans tens of thousands of  trucks and other war supplies in exchange for Jews in the middle of war  they were fighting against those Germans

3. “There are videotaped testimonies of only two haredi  survivors in the New  Wing of the museum. Compared with the 50 or 60  testimonies of  non-haredi survivors, it gives the mistaken impression  that hardly any  haredi Jews survived, and by extension, that haredi  Judaism did not  survive the Holocaust.” I’ve known dozens of  Holocaust survivors on three continents. They include parents of  friends, Jewish communal leaders, Holocaust educators, simple Jews, and  even a Nazi hunter. Only one or two could be honestly described as being  haredi after the war. Before the war that number would be four or five,  at best. What Wikler does is define haredi in terms so broad the word  no longer has meaning. Therefore anyone with a onetime connection to the  haredi community, no matter how tenuous it may be – even if that  ‘connection’ comes from grandparent’s affiliation only, or even if that  ‘affiliation’ comes from Wikler defining non-haredi Orthodoxy as haredi  for the purpose of his argument – is defined by Wikler as haredi. That  pumps up his numbers and allows him to  lambaste Yad Vashem for, in  effect, following the normative definition of the word and then acting  on it. On top of Wikler’s behavior, there is the overall behavior of the  haredi community that did survive the war. Their leaders generally  refused to cooperate with Yad Vashem, which means haredim are  underrepresented there – but not to the degree Wikler claims. The fault  is not Yad Vashem’s – it is Yoel Teitelbaum’s and the other haredi  leaders who refused to cooperate with it.

4. It isn’t just that haredim do not commemorate Yom HaShoah. For  years, they did things that flew in the face of it, just as for years  haredim refused to stand still and be silent for the one minute of  silence observed for Israel’s fallen soldiers.

Past all this, Wikler ignores key facts that surely influenced and continue to influence Yad Vashem:

A. Haredim propagated and continue to propagate the most base and  bizarre conspiracy theories to ‘prove’ Zionists collaborated with the  Nazis and to delegitimize Israel. The ‘facts’ these conspiracy theories  are based on are largely false, and the little that is true is taken out  of context. They do this because the existence and success of the State  of Israel is an existential threat to the validity of their theology.

B. Any fair representation of haredi behavior during the Holocaust  must include the behavior of hasidic rebbes who ordered their flocks to  stay in Europe and then fled, leaving their followers to die horrible  deaths. The Satmar Rebbe did this. So did the Belzer Rebbe and his  brother. So did the Lubavitcher Rebbe.  And then there was Rabbi Elchanon Wasserman, a non-hasidic haredi  leader who forbade his followers from fleeing Europe, even telling  students not to accept offers to study at Yeshiva University in New  York. Wasserman hated YU because it was Zionist and because it was  Modern Orthodox. On a visit to New York, Wasserman himself turned down a  teaching position there and went back to Lithuania. He and many of his  students were killed by the Nazis shortly after.

C. There were rabbis – some haredi, some hasidic, some Modern or  Zionist Orthodox – who refused to leave their followers and accompanied  them to the killing fields and death camps. Most of them who survived  came out of that hell as Zionist or Zionist leaning.

D. Scholars who study the haredi reaction to the Holocaust –  including at least one haredi academic, Esther Farbstein – note that  haredi rabbis’ strong opposition to Zionism before the war, coupled with  Israel’s subsequent success and the poor behavior of the rabbis noted  in section B above, largely account for the haredi community’s rejection  of Holocaust studies and Holocaust memorials and its ambivalent and  sometimes hostile relationship with Yad Vashem. And, as I noted in  section A above, it is this cognitive dissonance that is the foundation  for the bizarre anti-Israel and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories common  in haredi communities.

Wikler lies with appalling regularity.

The sad thing is that haredi leadership and the haredi rank and file don’t even care.

Update 12:22 pm CDT – Here’s Yad Vashem’s response to Wikler’s lies:

Yad Vashem responds: We do pay tribute to Holocaust’s ultra-Orthodox victims Meir Wikler’s op-ed that the museum is biased toward the secular Jews who perished in the Holocaust is full of misinformation, writes Yad Vashem spokeswoman. By Iris Rosenberg • Ha’aretz

Meir Wikler’s latest article on what he perceives as bias against Haredim at Yad Vashem is replete with misinformation.

For example, Wikler says there is only one testimony of a Haredi survivor in the Holocaust History Museum; this is not true. He claims that blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, donning tefillin, lighting candles on Hannukah “are not mentioned at all”. Again, this is false.

Rabbi Weissmandl and the Working Group’s efforts, under impossible circumstances, to rescue Jews are respected by Yad Vashem and all the guides trained here. It’s unfortunate that Wikler chooses to see insults and slights where none exist.

To state that “spiritual heroism of the Holocaust is almost completely overlooked” is wrong and misleading, demonstrating a perception unrelated to reality. Yad Vashem seeks to meaningfully impart the story of the Shoah in all its complexity and variety with a special emphasis on spiritual heroism. The activities of Yad Vashem – its museums, exhibitions, online material (viewed by over 12 million people last year), educational approaches, publications, and more – prove the contrary.

Wikler says that Haredim have authored their own Holocaust history books, developed curricula and teach their children. Indeed, for nearly a decade, an ultra-Orthodox department in Yad Vashem’s International School for Holocaust Studies has been working closely with Haredi educators and leaders to prepare educational material such as the multi-volume textbooks Years Wherein We Have Seen Evil in Hebrew and English and seminars – at Yad Vashem and elsewhere – serving Haredi educators and students throughout Israel.

Sincere dialogue between Yad Vashem and the leadership of Haredi Jewry and their representatives over the years has resulted in productive educational activity with the Bais Yaacov and other Haredi educational systems, and many Haredim participate in seminars at Yad Vashem, in genuine partnerships with Agudath Israel of America and the Belz community in Israel, to name just a few.

To claim, as his headline does, that “Yad Vashem honors only Holocaust’s secular victims” is outrageous and can only be a result of an unfounded bias.

I invite Haaretz readers to join the hundreds of thousands of people, including Haredim and other Jews and non-Jews of all backgrounds, who visit the Holocaust History Museum, and other sites at Yad Vashem, and experience it for themselves.

Iris Rosenberg is the Spokesperson at Yad Vashem, Jerusalem.

Gay Hating Rabbi Uses Intolerant, Hitlerian Rhetoric To Demonise LGBT People


A petition has been created calling on Monash University to sever its ties to controversial Melbourne-based rabbi, Dr Shimon Cowen, following a recent speech where he called for anti-bullying and diversity program, Safe Schools Coalition Victoria (SSCV), to be disbanded while also linking homosexuality to incest and bestiality.

Cowen’s comments have angered LGBT activists as well as colleagues at Monash University, while the peak Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) moved quickly to note that the “highly respected” rabbi’s words were not representative of the wider Jewish community.

Cowen – said to be a leading bullying expert and an Associate at Monash University’s School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies – used a speech to anti-abortion group Life Vote to claim that since the “dawn of civilization” opposition to homosexuality was “normative” and that current anti-bullying programs in schools were akin to indoctrination.

“Here, as part of its program, [SSCV] requires schools to teach the acceptability of homosexual behaviour as a norm.

“By so doing, it flies in the face of over 3000 years of religious and cultural tradition since Sinai,” Cowen said.

“In terms of the world religions and world civilization, it is teaching something which is a moral wrong and fundamentally unethical.

“The notion that every child in a school, of which a great many come from religious backgrounds which prohibit homosexual behaviour, must be taught in the school from infancy that homosexual behaviour is equally normative is coercive.”

The speech was later reprinted as a journal article for the conservative Australian Family Association, which counts the likes of former tennis champion Margaret Court and Dame Elisabeth Murdoch as patrons of the organisation.

SSCV co-ordinator Roz Ward told SX that Cowen’s views were highly inflammatory.

“It sounds like something you might have heard in the 1950s,” she said.

“The program has been widely well received and is having an impact in schools to reduce bullying and I just think these kinds of comments are unfounded.”

Last week, members of Monash University’s Faculty of Education also released a statement calling on the university to explain Cowen’s continuing association in light of his public pronouncements.

“Cowen’s views are based on neither historical record nor credible scientific literature,” faculty members wrote.

“We condemn the uninformed opinions expressed by Cowen, which are foreign to the goals, values, and standards of scholarship we proudly represent as researchers and teachers.”

A spokesperson for Monash University said that while it “encourages expert academic views” it did not endorse the comments made by Cowen (pictured), who happens to be the son of the recently deceased former Governor-General Zelman Cowen.

“Monash University reiterates its respect for the dignity of all human beings, regardless of sexual preference,” the spokesperson added.

ECAJ meanwhile gave its full backing to the anti-bullying programs.

“[Cowen’s] view that homosexuality is an illness does not represent a general view of the Jewish community,” ECAJ executive director Peter Wertheim said.

“The ECAJ reiterates its and the Australian Jewish community’s strong opposition to bullying at school on any grounds including sexual orientation, and welcomes any government program designed to counter-act bullying that has the support of victims and educators.”

Michael Barnett, convener for Aleph Melbourne, a support group for LGBT people of Jewish background, told SX that the public censure Cowen’s comments received was encouraging.

“He needs to understand that people who impose their religious beliefs on same-sex-attracted people are doing more harm than good, and that it actually adds to their suffering, misery and is completely unacceptable,” Barnett said.

Barnett, this week, has also created a petition seeking a firm commitment from Monash University Vice Chancellor Professor Ed Byrne that the university will not associate with academics holding blatantly homophobic views.

“If you cannot uphold this, especially in cases of academics with a known history of such intolerance of homosexuality, you must sever ties with these academics immediately,” Barnett said.

The continuing controversy over Cowen’s comments come after it was revealed to SX that the organisation of Australian Jewish Psychologists (AJP) turned away numerous requests from Jewish LGBT activists to make a public announcement in support of marriage equality.

Dr Nicky Jacobs, spokesperson for AJP, told SX that the group does not endorse or put out public statements.

“We provide psychological response and we act as a resource to the community about psychological trauma.

“I am very happy to state that as an individual, I support marriage equality, however I cannot speak on behalf of AJP members,” Jacobs said.

“Both the American and Australian peak psychologist groups have supported marriage equality on the grounds of ‘improving mental health’ and as all our members are registered psychologists, many of whom are Australian Psychological Society (APS) members, I am sure the APS support would adequately cover AJP’s relevant members.”

Roy Freeman, from Dayenu, a Sydney-based support group for LGBT people of Jewish heritage, told SX that he was “deeply disappointed” that AJP had chosen not to speak up on the topic or the high rates of suicide amongst same-sex attracted people.

“It appears that they aren’t interested in the mental health of the community,” he said.

“It saddens me that as an organisation, they are not willing to take a stand on this issue.”

Rabbi's homophobic comments provoke criticism, petition

Jewish Fist Fight | My Messiah is Bigger Than Yours


[They’re worse than fundi Muslim fanatics, imagine a world if these ultra Orthodox,  Jewish-religious crazies numbered in the 100’s of millions?!]

Video: Jewish Punch Up In 770

Fist Fight in 770 2-23-2011 Tzefatis v Americans

Students from Chabad‘s yeshiva in Tzefat, Israel – known for believing Chabad’s later rebbe, dead since 1994, is actually alive, well and living in 770 Eastern Parkway – spark more fighting in Chabad’s main synagogue in Crown Heights, Brooklyn.

PANDEMONIUM: The Inmates Run Wild in the Asylum

CROWN HEIGHTS [CHI] — No one ever believed 770 would devolve into utter chaos as it did this afternoon – not even the biggest sympathizers towards the Tzfati cause. Two members of the yeshiva’s hanholo, Rabbi Kuti Feldman and Rabbi Zalman Labkowski, were both physically and verbally attacked by the same hooligans who have been running wild and unrestrained these past few weeks.

Today’s episode began when Rabbi Labkowski was about to give his weekly Thursday Shiur at 1:30 in the downstairs of 770. About a half hour before the Shiur began, a Tzfati Bochur, Tzachi Cohen, stole the microphone that is usually used for the Shiur in retaliation for the revocation of one Tzfati’s visa.

Bochurim who wanted Rabbi Labkowski to give his shiur set up an alternative microphone – the Gabboim’s system (with their permission), and the Shiur began on time.

As the Shiur began, a Tzfati Bochur, Eliyahu Singawi – the one who had his visa revoked, ran over to the cabinet where the microphone system is kept and grabbed the wire, pulling it away in order to tear it.

[This point is where the first video begins]

Rabbi Kuti Feldman went after the Bochur to get the microphone back, and was attacked by a gaggle of Tzfatis who kicked, punched and slapped him, eliciting cries of outrage from the hundreds of people who were present in 770.

[This point is where the second video begins]

That wasn’t enough; another Bochur began yelling at Rabbi Labkowski, while spitting at him and throwing things. He shouted: ‘you should die today,’ ‘yemach shimcha,’ and ‘you menuval.’

According to witnesses, all this took place in the presence of Gabbai R. Menachem Gerelitzky and R. Yosef Braun, both of whom did not intervene.

One bochur told Crownheights.info that a Poilisher chossid happened to be present, and he asked him if this was regular occurrence in the shul, and why nobody did anything about it. The bochur couldn’t answer.

The incident concluded when Rabbi Labkowski left 770, and Shiur was canceled.

[Hat Tip: WSC.]

Fanatic Jews Attack Christian


Two Yeshiva Students Arrested For Attacking Christian In Old City

Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Morgenstern 3

The two yeshiva students apparently left from Yeshivas Toras Chochom, the yeshiva of (or went with) Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Morgenstern, a “kabbalist” who is a Breslov hasid, walked into the Old City and from there went to Mount Zion, to pray at the purported grave of King David. They encountered a religious Christian, who they insulted (and may have spit on, as well). Police were called and the students were arrested – apparently at King David’s tomb.

Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Morgenstern 3

Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Morgenstern

Sketchy details on Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew website.

Publicity Mad Egomaniacal Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Runs For Congress

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach,jpg

The man who never met a microphone he didn’t want to slobber on or a camera he didn’t want to mug for has announced that’s he’s running for US Congress. The announcement came in the wake of widespread Orthodox critism of his (bad) book on Jesus Christ that has probably nixed any chance the publicity mad egomaniacal Chabad-ordained rabbi has to be the new chief rabbi of England.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach,jpg

“America’s Rabbi” Wants To Be Your Congressman

By Shmarya Rosenberg

Now you can hate him for another reason.

Shmuley Boteach, who likes to bill himself as “America’s Rabbi,” is running for Congress.

Botech told Bergen County’s Republican Organization Wednesday night that he wants to be their congressman and submitted his name to officially enter the New Jersey 9th Congressional District race, the PolitckerNJ reported.

Boteach is the controversial self-promoting Chabad-ordained rabbi, TV and radio host best known for being Michael Jackson’s rabbi.

Boteach has also authored more than a dozen books, most of them panned by rabbis and experts in the various fields Boteach has declared himself to be an expert in.

The latest of these, “Kosher Jesus,” has drawn wide condemnation from hundreds of Chabad rabbis, along with Jewish anti-missionary organizations and scholars.

Before the book’s publication earlier this week, Boteach had been considered for the soon-to-be-vacant post of chief rabbi of England. His chance to nab that coveted position went from plausible to almost impossible when “Kosher Jesus” was published to wide criticism.
Botech lives in Englewood, New Jersey.

Ancient Jewish Text Claims Women Are Equal


541-Year-Old Jewish Prayer Book Shows Women Can Be Equal

Siddur from 1471 written by the scribe Rabbi Abraham Ben Mordechai Farissol

A siddur from 1471 has revealed an early example of egalitarian Jewish  prayer, presenting historical attempts to battle gender inequality. “This Siddur proves that the degrading attitudes towards women, which we  are seeing in certain extreme religious communities in Israel today,  are a modern distortion of Judaism,” said Rabbi Julie Schonfeld. “Ironically,  treatment of women in certain extreme sectors of the community is far  more denigrating to women today than even the attitudes of the late  Middle Ages.”

Siddur from 1471 written by the scribe Rabbi Abraham Ben Mordechai Farissol

Medieval siddur battles gender inequality via Jewish prayer Siddur from 1471 alters morning blessing to ‘Blessed Are You, God, For Creating Me a Woman and Not a Man.’ By Aimee Neistat • Ha’aretz
A siddur from 1471 has revealed an early example of egalitarian Jewish prayer, presenting historical attempts to battle gender inequality.

According to the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), the 600-year-old siddur replaces the traditional prayer recited by women, “Blessed are You, Lord our God, Master of Universe for Creating me According to your Will”, with “Blessed Are You Lord our God, Master of the Universe, For You made Me a Woman and Not a Man.”

The prayer offered by the 1471 siddur stands as a clear counterpart to the morning prayer recited daily by observant Jewish men: “Blessed are You For Not Creating Me a Woman”.

Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly, Conservative Judaism’s official rabbinical association, discussed the prayer in light of current tensions between secular and ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel.

“This Siddur proves that the degrading attitudes towards women, which we are seeing in certain extreme religious communities in Israel today, are a modern distortion of Judaism,” said Rabbi Schonfeld. “Ironically, treatment of women in certain extreme sectors of the community is far more denigrating to women today than even the attitudes of the late Middle Ages.

According to the JTS, the siddur was written by the scribe Rabbi Abraham Ben Mordechai Farissol, a well-known Northern Italian rabbi (1451-1525) who was a scholar, cantor, and physician. In addition, he wrote many interpretations of books in the Bible, and literature focused on comparing Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The rare siddur is part of a collection of the JTS library, a Manhattan based academic and spiritual center of the Conservative movement.

[Hat Tip: Shish.]

Jewish Theocrat | Dismantle Israeli Democracy, Start Jewish Theocracy


Settler Leader: Dismantle Israeli Democracy, Start Jewish Theocracy

Benny Katzover

In an interview with Beis Moshiach, the journal of the messianic faction  of the Chabad Movement with ties to settlers, West Bank settler leader Benny Katzover says that “the  main role of Israeli democracy now is to disappear. Israeli democracy  has finished its role, and it must disassemble and give way to Judaism.  All leads toward recognition that there is no other way but to place  Judaism at the center, above all else, and this is the answer to every  situation.”

Benny Katzover

Benny Katzover

Dismantle Israeli democracy, says settler leader Katzover ‘the main role of Israeli democracy now is to disappear. Israeli democracy has finished its role, and it must disassemble and give way to Judaism,’ Katzover says in interview. By Chaim Levinson • Ha’aretz
Israeli democracy must be dismantled and in its place a halakhic state, based on Jewish law, should be established, says settler leader Benny Katzover in an interview to a a messianic journal of Chabad.

In an interview with Beit Mashiach, the journal of the messianic faction of the Chabad Movement with ties to settlers, Katzover says that “the main role of Israeli democracy now is to disappear. Israeli democracy has finished its role, and it must disassemble and give way to Judaism. All leads toward recognition that there is no other way but to place Judaism at the center, above all else, and this is the answer to every situation.”

Earlier in the interview Katzover commented on the campaign against the exclusion of women, saying that his group had information of the pending campaign.
“Our activists are linked to all the networks of the left, and we knew they were planning an incitement campaign. This is just another wave of incitement, targeting the hilltop youth and the Haredi community. The leftist activists prepare well-timed campaigns against anything which smells of holiness, and their aim is twofold: political, to undermine the government and score points among the public, and to strike at all the fundamentals of Jewish faith.

“In Jewish faith, the Land of Israel is central… The media campaigns over insignificant issues in order to undermine Jewish identity. I think there can be cooperation between the Haredim and the religious [national] communities. Incitement against us stems from the same anti-Jewish root which seeks to uproot everything,” Katzover said in the interview.
Since 2008 Katzover has headed the Committee of Samaria Settlers, an NGO which has fought against the freeze of settlement construction and the razing of outposts. Katzover believes that Jews should stay in the territories even after they are evacuated. He is well respected among the hilltop youth because of his views. His ideological line has been gaining popularity among settlers since the evacuation of Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip.

Katzover was one of the first leaders of the settler movement, joining Gush Emunim, and then the nucleus of Elon Moreh, which was established in Samaria in 1979.
“I think that Israeli democracy, under its current structure, is in constant conflict with its Jewish identity, and in recent years, every time it bends its Jewish identity backwards. This structure of democracy has only one mission: to dismantle,” he told Haaretz.

The Separation Of Synagogue And State


Toward Separation Of Synagogue And State

Israeli FlagIsrael is in danger of no longer being governed by the people; this danger does not come from the multitudes surrounding us who seek our destruction, but rather from those who wish for rabbinic fiat and Torah law to rule supreme.

The question of Israel as a Jewish democracy
Israel is in danger of no longer being governed by the people; this danger does not come from the multitudes surrounding us who seek our destruction, but rather from those who wish for rabbinic fiat and Torah law to rule supreme.
By Ilan Ben Zion • Ha’aretz

The Israel that Herzl envisioned was a bastion of democracy and a haven for all Jews against the evils of anti-Semitism. This is the Israel I grew up on, and the Israel I had hoped to move to; a country based upon Jewish values and liberal ideals.

But this island of democracy in a despotic sea is in danger of no longer being governed by the people. This danger does not come from the multitudes surrounding us who seek our destruction, but rather from those who wish for rabbinic fiat and Torah law to rule supreme.

This faction of Israeli society is multiplying far faster than those who advocate egalitarian democracy, and in the past thirty years has benefitted from an unprecedented and disproportionate increase in religious party power.

What if the Masoretic mullahs of Mea Shearim succeed in the coming decades and take over, turning Israel into a Jewish Iran? Is half the Zionist vision good enough?

Sixty years ago, fearful that Israeli democracy would be overthrown in the future, Professor Yehuda Leo Kohn asserted it would be foolhardy for Israelis to delude themselves into believing that “nothing like [the fall of German democracy] could happen in Israel”.

Having witnessed firsthand the downfall of many European democracies in the thirty years prior to Israel’s founding, Kohn recognized Israel’s need for a constitution that enshrines civil liberties, prevents perfidious government action, and safeguards the rights of the individual.

There are measures that can and must be taken to prevent our fragile, imperfect democracy from crumbling beneath the demographic weight of black hats and coats; Israel needs a constitution.

Ben Gurion and his contemporaries balked at the daunting task of constitution building while struggling to establish the state, instead leaving it for generations to come. Today’s Israel does not have that luxury.

If Israel is to properly protect its citizens’ rights, it must finally reach a national consensus –however difficult and daunting it may be – on what laws are above the state and the people.

We the people must ratify a constitution that guarantees individual freedoms, minority rights, separation of religion and government, and a clear system of checks and balances.

With secular Jews and non-Jews together constituting a majority of the country’s population, the time has come for Israeli identity to be divested of its religious trappings.

How can a large portion of Israel’s population uphold the current state if they do not identify
with the religious Judeo-nationalism it promotes? And what if this ultra-Orthodox perversion over the law only intensifies with time?

An Israeli constitution needs to separate Israel from its Jewish religious trappings, and make the state impartial to the religious identities of its citizens.

If this does not happen, many Israelis my find themselves forced out of this Mediterranean sanctuary, preferring to live a free Jew in another country than shackled by injustice in a Jewish one.

Ilan Ben Zion is an active blogger currently living in Be’er Sheva; he is a graduate of Tel Aviv University with a Masters in Diplomacy.

How To Suck Baby Penis Explains Jewish Rabbi


Jewish Rabbi Explains Why Baby Penis Is To Be Sucked

Racism, Rabbinical and Otherwise


Via Ran HaCohen, December 20, 2010

As part of Israel’s orgy of racism and fascism since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formed his far-Right coalition almost two years ago, dozens of Israeli racist rabbis (RR) have signed an edict forbidding Jews in “the Land of Israel” from selling or renting property to non-Jews (in other words: to Israeli Palestinians or Arabs). The RR base their decision primarily on the prominent medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides (1135-1204), who forbids selling houses and fields in the Land of Israel to “idolaters” (Mishne Torah, Hilkhot avodat kokhavim 10).

Did Maimonides, who lived and prospered in a tolerant Muslim world, consider Muslims idolaters? On the contrary. In one of his responses, he states, “The Ishmaelites [i.e., Muslims] are not idolaters at all.” Like almost everything in Jewish law, then, things are open to negotiation: Maimonides’ authority is negotiable, his interpretation of the Law is negotiable, and his own intention is negotiable too. The RR reflect their own racism rather than some indisputable, inherent Jewish racism.

The Orthodox Fault

It was the Zionist Orthodox intellectual Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903-1994) who urged the Israeli rabbinical establishment not only to emancipate itself from the state (the RR are all state employees!), but also to undertake a fundamental reform in order to adapt Judaism to the unprecedented reality of a modern Jewish state. The rabbinical establishment ignored Leibowitz’s call. Present-day Jewish Orthodoxy, especially the Zionist Orthodoxy, is therefore entangled in a whole network of ludicrous inconsistencies and contradictions, deriving from the fact that the Halakhah, the Jewish law, was conceived and developed in exile, when Jewish national independence – let alone a modern state – was at best a Messianic fantasy.

Jewish Orthodoxy has failed to cope with the fact that the Jews in Israel are no longer a minority but an sovereign majority. Many of the racist facets of Judaism are traceable to this unaccounted-for shift. A majority in a modern state has very different moral rights and duties than a small religious community in exile.

The leading Ultra-Orthodox Israeli rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv has poked fun at the Zionist RR by reminding that they are the ones who support the disputed circumvention of the biblical order to give the land a Sabbatical and to avoid cultivating it every seventh year. The controversial circumvention of this biblical order consists of selling the land to a non-Jew for the duration of the seventh year – in clear contradiction to the racist edict. The RR are not only racists – they are also hypocrites; their political commitment to chauvinistic racism is deeper than their religious integrity.

If the RR insist on treating Arabs in Israel as “idolaters,” why don’t they remind us of the rest of Maimonides’ words? In the same chapter, Maimonides forbids doing anything to actively save an idolater’s life: If an idolater is drowning, a Jew should not pull him out; if an idolater is dying, a Jew should not save his life; and a Jewish doctor should not even cure an idolatrous patient unless he is forced to.

On the other hand, in the same chapter Maimonides states that all these regulations apply only when Jews are in exile or when the idolaters are superior. What if the Jews have the upper hand? Then the Biblical command (Deuteronomy 7) should be followed in full: “When, however, Israel is in power over them, it is forbidden for us to allow an idolater among us. Even a temporary resident or a merchant who travels from place to place should not be allowed to pass through our land” – unless he accepts the Seven Laws of Noah, in which case he becomes a resident alien, a category that enjoys almost all the rights of a Jew. There can be little doubt that the Muslims obey the Seven Laws of Noah, and therefore…

The RR conceal all these considerations. They conceal the disputed validity of the racist regulations because they are adamant racists themselves. They conceal the worst racist regulations because they fear many of their followers would not go so far. At least not yet. At least not in public.

And they know their followers. Their urge not to rent or sell property to Arabs is supported by 55 percent of Israeli Jews, if a recent YNet poll (Hebrew) is to be trusted, including by a big minority of 41 percent of the non-religious Jews, and by 88 percent of Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews. I challenge the Alan Dershowitzes of this world to find another country, Western or otherwise, in which a majority objects to selling land to an ethnic minority of fellow-citizens. 

The Secular Zionist Fault

The most vociferous among the RR is Shmuel Eliyahu of Safed. Not coincidentally, it is in his hometown where Arab students are regularly harassed and intimidated, their property is vandalized, and Jews renting flats to them are terrorized.

In a Hebrew column, the racist rabbi smears almost everybody: the “leftists,” the “environmentalists,” the “Arabs,” the court, the state – they all conspire against the true word of God, on which he and his followers have a monopoly.

But one of the RR’s targets is worth special attention: there’s nothing illegal about forbidding land sales to Arabs, says Eliyahu, because the Jewish National Fund has been doing the same for decades, and under the state’s auspices.

Here the racist rabbi hits the nail on the head. Indeed, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) owns 13 percent of Israel’s lands and explicitly allots them to Jews only. The Fund was created long before the state of Israel, collecting money in order to purchase land for Jewish settlements in Palestine. It’s a major player in Zionist consciousness all over the world; in former decades, no Zionist classroom all over the Jewish world was free of its  famous Blue Box for donations. This colonialist institution has been kept alive even after the state of Israel was established. Again, a sovereign state has very different moral rights and duties than a pre-state colonialist movement. But Israel is holding the stick in both ends.

The JNF’s discriminatory policy has been in place for decades and is now under consideration by Israel’s Supreme Court. Even last year, however, Israel signed a massive land-swap with the JNF, in which the JNF gives the state lands in the populated center of Israel, and gets in return mostly uninhabited lands in the north and the south – so that it can stop Arabs from settling them. The state of Israel uses the JNF as a subcontractor in order to bypass the principle of equality and to discriminate against non-Jews in their access to free lands – or, more often, to lands already inhabited by Arabs that Israel is determined to expel.

The JNF is the major dispossessor of the Bedouins in Israel’s southern areas: it is planting trees on thousands of acres of land containing Bedouin villages, in order to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Jewish presence. The JNF is also behind the destruction of al-Arakib, a Bedouin village which has been destroyed at least seven times in the past months by JNF bulldozers.

When President Shimon Peres, then, and other Zionist politicians condemn the RR, their condemnation should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It has always been the Israeli policy – left-wing and right-wing governments alike – not to sell or hire lands to Arabs, a complementary measure to the massive confiscation of Arab-owned lands. Orthodox Judaism has failed to accommodate to the Jewish majority status; Zionism has refused to come to terms with its pre-state colonialist roots, even within “smaller Israel” (let alone the Occupied Territories). The racist rabbis may be less eloquent than, say, Shimon Peres, but both Peres and the rabbis are part and parcel of a much deeper Israeli ethos of ethnic discrimination. In fact, the victims of Israel’s relentlessly discriminatory policy are by far more numerous than those of the shameful rabbinical edict.

Read more by Ran HaCohen