Then open your first two fingers of each hand and make a “mask” by bringing your fingertips together over your nose. Draw them out to the sides while closing them. The mask is “Purim.”

That’s how you say “Happy Purim” in Sign Language. Share the greeting with those who can’t hear it!

JERUSALEM (AP) — An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.

If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C.

That’s a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible’s account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time.

WHEN Yitta Schwartz died last month at 93, she left behind 15 children, more than 200 grandchildren and so many great- and great-great-grandchildren that, by her family’s count, she could claim perhaps 2,000 living descendants.

Mrs. Schwartz was a member of the Satmar Hasidic sect, whose couples have nine children on average and whose ranks of descendants can multiply exponentially. But even among Satmars, the size of Mrs. Schwartz’s family is astonishing. A round-faced woman with a high-voltage smile, she may have generated one of the largest clans of any survivor of the Holocaust — a thumb in the eye of the Nazis.

[The new design is now fully implemented. If you notice any display problems, please send us a comment or email feedback -at- cross-currents dot com. Thank you!]

I want to take a moment to explain the primary motivation for this redesign. As all our regular readers know, many of the articles you find here are far longer than “blog posts,” and, we like to think, more carefully thought-out as well. A large portion of those articles also appear in other online and print publications. As a result, we the writers have felt a certain reluctance to publish brief tidbits, thoughts, references to articles published elsewhere, real-time commentary on events in the Jewish world etc., intermingled with those lengthy and thoughtful articles.

Thus the redesign, featuring a third column, “In Brief,” which you will find between the articles and the sidebar, on the home page. All articles will be archived together, but the home page will separate the two types.

In addition, the new theme which we are using permits us to publish the ... Read More >>]]> Yes, you’ve arrived at the right place, though it now looks a little different. Cross-Currents now has a different theme, the first significant redesign since our launch five years ago.

[The new design is now fully implemented. If you notice any display problems, please send us a comment or email feedback -at- cross-currents dot com. Thank you!]

I want to take a moment to explain the primary motivation for this redesign. As all our regular readers know, many of the articles you find here are far longer than “blog posts,” and, we like to think, more carefully thought-out as well. A large portion of those articles also appear in other online and print publications. As a result, we the writers have felt a certain reluctance to publish brief tidbits, thoughts, references to articles published elsewhere, real-time commentary on events in the Jewish world etc., intermingled with those lengthy and thoughtful articles.

Thus the redesign, featuring a third column, “In Brief,” which you will find between the articles and the sidebar, on the home page. All articles will be archived together, but the home page will separate the two types.

In addition, the new theme which we are using permits us to publish the most recent two articles in their entirety, while the older articles will follow with shorter excerpts than before. This will probably be of greatest benefit to those who check back with Cross-Currents frequently – and perhaps will encourage you to become one of them, if you aren’t already.

We hope you enjoy the new design, and encourage your feedback. We’re also looking for a better title for the “In Brief” section, if you have any suggestions!

Why is such an apparently benign, religious act against the law, worthy of arrest? When it isn’t a religious act at all, but rather a political one, aimed to disrupt the prayers of those around her and to confront them with her agenda.

Frenkel begins her essay by speaking movingly, poetically, about the fervent religious sentiment of those praying at the Western Wall. She presents her case as if her wish were merely to join them. “The atmosphere at the Kotel, the feeling that all those women praying around me were also turning to G-d and pouring out their hearts to Him, inspires me with the joy of Jewish fraternity. Here is one place in which, shoulder to shoulder, all the hearts are calling to G-d.”

Eventually, though, she exposes her true colors. “The Kotel,” she writes, “is not a Haredi synagogue, and the Women of the Wall will not allow it to become such” [emphasis added]. In other words, ... Read More >>]]> Nofrat Frenkel made the news two weeks ago — by getting herself arrested. In violation of an Israeli court order, she took out a Torah scroll in the area of the Western Wall consecrated for women’s prayer, and prepared to read it.

Why is such an apparently benign, religious act against the law, worthy of arrest? When it isn’t a religious act at all, but rather a political one, aimed to disrupt the prayers of those around her and to confront them with her agenda.

Frenkel begins her essay by speaking movingly, poetically, about the fervent religious sentiment of those praying at the Western Wall. She presents her case as if her wish were merely to join them. “The atmosphere at the Kotel, the feeling that all those women praying around me were also turning to G-d and pouring out their hearts to Him, inspires me with the joy of Jewish fraternity. Here is one place in which, shoulder to shoulder, all the hearts are calling to G-d.”

Eventually, though, she exposes her true colors. “The Kotel,” she writes, “is not a Haredi synagogue, and the Women of the Wall will not allow it to become such” [emphasis added]. In other words, she was not there to join in Jewish fraternity, but to disrupt it — to confront those sincere and pious women with her political message, and to deny them their place of traditional worship. She demonstrates a complete lack of the very tolerance for which she begs, and inverts every relevant fact in order to make her argument.

For example, she claims that the Kotel is not a synagogue. It is, on the contrary, the most holy synagogue in the Jewish religion — there is no more desirable spot in the world for a traditional Jew to pray. The ‘Kotel‘, the Western Wall, is so called because it is the remaining outside wall of the Temple Mount, which, in our tradition, is the site to which all of our prayers are directed and from which they ascend to Heaven. Since being restored to Jewish control in 1967, a large plaza before the Western Wall has been established with clearly divided sections for men and women to pray in accordance with Jewish Law, and even has a state-sponsored Rabbi to direct the Western Wall plaza. The majority of those who pray there on a daily basis are, like the Rabbi, indeed Haredi, a Hebrew term for the fervently Orthodox — because the sanctity of that site has greatest appeal to these traditional Jews.

She also expresses disdain for an alternate site, the Robinson’s Arch plaza, which she calls “a place for second-class citizens.” It is nothing of the kind. It is not only just as proximate to the Western Wall, but it is along a portion of that Wall which is even closer to the portion of the Temple called the Holy of Holies. And from her perspective, it should be preferred for another reason as well: it has no separation to divide men and women. It was developed specifically in response to a petition from Israel’s tiny Conservative Movement for an alternate site for prayers.

So what is it, then, that renders Robinson’s Arch unfit for her use? The only thing it lacks is the presence of those she derides as “the offended public” — those same thousands of pious Orthodox Jews. “In the wake of the Conservative and Reform movements, during the past 10 years, people in the Orthodox world have come to understand that the woman’s place is no longer restricted to the kitchen.” It is only the “Haredi” Jews, she believes, who continue to believe that G-d Created men and women with different spiritual needs. And it is her job, she believes, to correct them — by bringing out a Torah scroll in the women’s section, and showing them all how it ought to be done. And if they don’t like it — well then, they ought to go someplace else.

Thus her worst offense to truth and reason is to claim that she is merely seeking “freedom of religious worship.” She would have that, worshiping at Robinson’s Arch or at any of several dozen non-Orthodox synagogues dotting Israel. What she does not have, though, is the right to disrupt the prayers of others. It is the freedom of religious worship of “the offended public” which needs our protection — protection from those like Nofrat Frankel, who believes her religious “freedom” must involve a political confrontation in order to be worthwhile.

Someone wrote to the Twitter account of the Republican Jewish Coalition that “Making pro-Israel advocacy a partisan issue weakens the pro-Israel lobby and weakens Israel.” I believe this individual felt that the Republican Jewish Coalition should not have commented on the fact that someone was at the J Street conference recruiting for a “freedom march” in Gaza. I responded, opining that it “Can’t be worse for ‘Pro-Israel’ than defining expansion of a Hamas terrorist base as ‘Pro-Israel’.”

Shai Gluskin: “Where did you get the idea that J Street wants ‘expansion of a Hamas terrorist base?’”

YM, in a six part series: There’s this place called Gaza, which Israel left, and ... Read More >>]]> The discussion which led to this post began, of all places, on Twitter. Shai Gluskin, a Reconstructionist Rabbi whom I’d met on a train four years ago, was monitoring the J-Street Conference this week, as I was. I posted several comments about J Street and it’s formula for peace, he noticed and followed me (that’s a Twitter term), and we got into a discussion about what it means to be pro-Israel, what it means to be Pro-Peace, and, in Shai’s words, the “terms of engagement for Jews who disagree.”

Someone wrote to the Twitter account of the Republican Jewish Coalition that “Making pro-Israel advocacy a partisan issue weakens the pro-Israel lobby and weakens Israel.” I believe this individual felt that the Republican Jewish Coalition should not have commented on the fact that someone was at the J Street conference recruiting for a “freedom march” in Gaza. I responded, opining that it “Can’t be worse for ‘Pro-Israel’ than defining expansion of a Hamas terrorist base as ‘Pro-Israel’.”

Shai Gluskin: “Where did you get the idea that J Street wants ‘expansion of a Hamas terrorist base?’”

YM, in a six part series: There’s this place called Gaza, which Israel left, and which Hamas soon took over and operated as a terrorist base. // When Israel (finally) took action against Hamas, JStreet called it collective punishment of the citizens of Gaza // JStreet did so despite Hamas using the populace as human shields and Israel avoiding civilians to an *unprecedented* degree // JStreet calls for the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with Hamas terrorists, who will be part of a two-state solution // Those who do not recognize that the obvious result will be an expanded Hamas terrorist base are, in Eric Yoffie’s words, appallingly naïve. // QED what JStreet is working for is an expanded Hamas terrorist base, whether they recognize it or not.

While Twitter seems an extraordinary way to waste time for many people (do you really need to know when your friend is headed to the mall?), it has its uses. For those unfamiliar with it, Twitter allows postings of only 140 characters or less — that’s why the above was a six-part series. While a blog can be used for quick postings, it is hard to put up a two-line comment alongside the well-crafted articles that others, especially Rabbi Rosenblum and Rabbi Shafran, are also putting in print in other, more traditional outlets. Twitter offers the opportunity to make a short comment about an interesting article or fact which might or might not evolve into a post (often because of time constraints). So if you use Twitter, you’re invited to follow my account if you care to know (or respond to) what might be my next topic here.

Indeed, that’s what happened in this case, because six lines was already testing the limits of what Twitter is designed to do. In order to respond, “RabbiShai” turned to his own blog. And although you can find a dialog between us in the comments there, I also wanted to provide a more complete response, and an analysis of some of the issues many have with J Street. I’ll attempt to address his points, and we will probably continue in the comments in both places. You are, of course, invited to contribute your thoughts as well.

To begin at the beginning, Shai published under the heading “Response to an Assertion that Promoting a Two-State Solution isn’t ‘Pro-Israel’,” which isn’t quite what I said. My statement was that “JStreet calls for the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with Hamas terrorists, who will be part of a two-state solution” — and this was, perhaps, ambiguous. I think everyone understands that Israel is headed towards a “Two State Solution.” However, I do not believe there should be a Two-State Solution involving Hamas governance, and if the US and Israel negotiate with them they will then be part of one.

This is but one of J Street’s critical mistakes. They critique the “myth” that “J Street favors the United States negotiating with Hamas,” by saying that “one makes peace with one’s enemies not one’s friends. Hamas is a political movement that has an important and significant base of support within Palestinian society and politics. Ultimately, a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require Palestinian political reconciliation and we support efforts by third parties to achieve reconciliation and a unity government.” In other words, “we believe in talking to Hamas as long as they make nice with Fatah.”

One can only achieve peace through negotiation with those who will compromise. That’s what a negotiated settlement is all about, and “Pro-Israel” certainly requires a commitment to Israel’s continued existence. In order to achieve peace, Egypt and Jordan both officially abandoned the goal of eradicating the State of Israel. They reached this conclusion by repeatedly waging wars against Israel, and losing. Israel had to first defeat them, and do so repeatedly until they abandoned that objective.

Similarly, the PLO expressed the willingness to change its Charter. We can debate whether they were originally sincere, or whether Arafat intended all along to launch a second Intifada with a much better infrastructure in place. But no one questions that Hamas is unwilling to change at this time. Negotiating with Hitler led to disaster, and if the UK had responded to Germany’s attack upon Poland with a call for additional negotiations… let’s not go there. The problem with Hamas is not merely “its use of violence for political purposes,” but its belief that peace will be achieved through the eradication of Israel. Until and unless Hamas is willing to abandon its goal of a one-state solution, or it loses its “significant base of support within Palestinian society,” an expanded “Palestine” is going to be an expanded terrorist base, similar to what Neville Chamberlain “achieved” by handing Czechoslovakia to the Nazis.

Shai continues: “Israel left Gaza without a deal. Under the cover of angry settlers, and with the peace camp in Israel (and abroad for that matter) seduced, Sharon masterfully dealt a blow to Palestinian self-determination/statehood by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza.”

This is a masterful job of historical revisionism, as if Sharon could have “seduced” the entire left wing and the entire international community, not to mention the Palestinian Authority, all of whom believed that Israel withdrawing from Gaza was a great idea. Shai also dismisses as “angry” the “settlers” who were encouraged by Israel to move to Gaza in the first place, only to see their homes destroyed and to find themselves living unemployed in trailer parks. I think we owe them a little bit more than a dismissive attitude. This was an incredibly painful step for Israel, and one which Israel took at the behest of the left and the international community. If this is truly the attitude of that same left wing after the fact, this simply exemplifies the sheer foolishness of taking the views of J Street’s supporters seriously down the road.

Furthermore, it infantilizes the Palestinians, as if they could no more control themselves than a two-year-old once given a shot at local self-governance. “Israel remained in complete control of air, land, and sea, contributing to an environment that would end up with Hamas in power.” This is untrue, of course, given that Egypt controls the southern border. But in addition, the surrender of Gaza was a clear sign of Palestinian objectives coming to pass — supposedly. If the citizens of Gaza had responded by building local government and building commerce, the border with Israel would be relatively open, just as it was shortly after the withdrawal.

It is absolutely true, as a Palestinian participant said at the conference, that “Pals. did not benefit from peace. Production base has dropped while population base grew. Result: per capita production dropped 50%.” But it didn’t start that way. Not only did the West Bank economy compare quite favorably to Jordan’s between 1967 and 1987 (the start of the first intifada), but there was a significant jump between 1993 and the launch of Arafat’s Second Intifada in 2000.

I have to detour here into a personal story, because I was in Israel, studying in Yeshiva, during that first intifada. At the time, the custodian in “Lakewood East” was a man named Mamoon (if I recall correctly), from the West Bank. He was very friendly, and everyone got along with him. He taught me how to say “I want to learn Arabic” in his native tongue, and on Purim he was very amused to find me outfitted in a suit, tie, artificial mustache and Arab keffiyeh. These were friendlier times.

Then there was a wave of stabbings, initiated by Arab employees at various Israeli locations. They didn’t attack military installations, they attacked children in schools, students in universities and yeshivos, office workers and people in their homes. And all of them were model employees up until that moment.

Undoubtedly, Shai will call it “racial profiling,” but our Rosh Yeshiva was unwilling to risk the lives of his students. Mamoon, who was supporting a family of over 10 children, lost his job. I think every one of us “knew” that he would never hurt us. Every one of us knew that he truly wanted peace, and the economic benefits of peace. And at the same time, none of us could question the wisdom of paying a little bit more, to hire someone else, from a community that wasn’t encouraging people just like Mamoon to pick up knives.

It is absolutely true that the Palestinians have not seen the economic benefits of peace. To blame that upon the Jews requires an extraordinary blindness to history. Before the second intifada, Israelis were pumping nearly $1 million every month into the Oasis Casino in Jericho, alone. But who would go there, after a pair of army reservists were torn limb from limb for the “crime” of making a wrong turn? Is Israel to blame for the fact that the GDP of the entire region was decimated?

Nor is the problem limited to the fact that no Israeli considers it safe to enter Palestinian-controlled territory. When the Gaza withdrawal took place, the hydroponic greenhouses of Gush Katif were among the most advanced in the world. And American Jews paid to insure that those greenhouses were delivered intact to the Palestinian Authority. They set the stage for Palestinian greenhouses to sell lettuce throughout Israel and other countries as well — it was the Palestinians who had other things in mind, destroying millions of dollars of Palestinian property, and sacrificing tens of millions of dollars of future revenue on the altar of blind hatred.

Shai refers to a “prescient” interview with Haifa University demographer Arnon Soffer, “widely considered to be the architect of the disengagement” back in May, 2004. However, he claims that to Soffer, the Gaza “disengagement” was “a necessary step to defeat a Palestinian statehood and put coals on the fire of a war of attrition,” which is nowhere to be found in his actual words. On the contrary, Soffer speaks with obvious sadness as he predicts that Gazans “will bombard us with artillery fire” from the day after the disengagement. He predicts a “human catastrophe” because living in a closed-off Gaza without an Israeli military presence, “those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam.” “It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill… If we don’t kill, we will cease to exist. The only thing that concerns me is how to ensure that the boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings.”

To characterize the war as something to which Soffer was looking forward, as something that would “defeat” the Palestinians, is to willfully misread. He regarded it as a necessary step to preserve the existence of the State of Israel: “at least the war will be at the fence — not in kindergartens in Tel Aviv and Haifa.”

Furthermore, he said “if a single missile is fired over the fence, we will fire 10 in response.” And did that actually come to pass? What happened while 8,000 missiles were fired at Israel from Gaza? What happened after Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier, an obvious act of war if ever there was one?

In response to my statement that Israel waited too long to respond, Shai writes, “Israel never stopped taking action against Hamas and other targets in Gaza. Cast Lead was on a whole different scale. According to the IDF over 1100 Gazans, human beings created b’tzelem elohim, died in that incursion. What, actually, was the urgency of that? We are talking about human lives, every bit as endowed with the divine as ourselves. Please explain the urgency.”

The statement that “Israel never stopped taking action” is simply false. Before Cast Lead, the only thing Israel did was engage active participants coming to attack Israel. At a kindergarten. It is ridiculous — and, I must say, repugnant, at least to me — to claim that Israel “shares blame” if it responds to missile fire, whether before or after the missile.

During Cast Lead, Israel took unprecedented efforts to avoid civilians. Israel took action to stop the terrorists who were making not only the civilians of Sderot, but those in much larger cities throughout the Negev, targets. Not only did Israel not treat Gaza City the way the US treated Dresden and Hiroshima, but it did not treat Gaza City the way the US treated Kabul and Baghdad. As for its urgency, the proof is in the pudding — it was successful. An eight-year-old child living in Sderot no longer needs to know the location of every bomb shelter between her house and that of her friend down the block.

If Shai doesn’t appreciate the urgency, it is only because he did not ask his old friends at Kibbutz Nir Am what their life was like one day before Cast Lead.

There is no moral equivalence developed through body counts or the accuracy of weapons. J Street was notably silent during the entire period when Hamas was shooting rockets at Israel’s children. J Street was even silent when Hamas ended the “cease-fire” and unleashed 10 days of particularly harsh attacks (on civilians, as always), attempting to prove that J Street’s few allies in the Knesset would leave the nation paralyzed. The moment that Israel took action, that’s when J Street reached the conclusion “that escalating the conflict will prove counterproductive, igniting further anger in the region and damaging long-term prospects for peace and stability.”

J Street seems to believe that it is both Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian, as its leader declared at the close of the conference. But it only criticizes Israel. Apparently, according to J Street, the “appropriate” response would have been for Israeli vigilantes to launch Qassam rockets at kindergartens in Gaza. Or to do nothing, and allow its own citizens to be terrorized, traumatized, maimed and killed.

In conclusion, I did not say that J Street wants a terrrorist base, and I continue to think that that is obvious to any honest reader — not something which required clarification. As for the charge that JStreet is working for an expanded terrorist base, yes, that’s what I said. And I believe the facts are reasonably conclusive on this point — and that those on the ground, in Israel, agree. J Street was unable to muster up even 10% of the members of the Knesset to sign their names to a Washington Post advertisement heralding the conference.

Shai is not so sure. He concludes that “you might be right and I might be wrong.” And he’s right, I’m no prophet and I could be wrong. I’m just not willing to gamble the survival and mental health of millions of Jewish schoolchildren on the idea that Hamas will spontaneously experience a change of heart if given the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. After all, the PLO was founded in 1964.

Here are the key points that he has made, to the best of my understanding:

1. The status of Belmont Abbey College as a religious institution is questionable. This is buttressed by the fact that the College “advertised itself as an equal opportunity employer and freely accepted funding that was not available to religious institutions.” Additionally, the majority of its faculty, staff, students, and alumni are not Catholic.

2. The college offered coverage for these services for 26 years, “indicating that this was a change of a deliberate policy.” It was then done immediately, unilaterally, and without discussion, and the College refused to negotiate.

3. It is not the eight faculty members, but the school, that is attacking religious freedom. “Forcing us to abide by ... Read More >>]]> I am honored that Professor David Neipert, one of the faculty members who initiated the EEOC complaint against Belmont Abbey College, saw fit to respond to my earlier article on this topic (as it appeared on the Baltimore Sun’s “In Good Faith” religion blog). Given his personal involvement in this case, it is obvious that he begins with a far greater knowledge of its particulars, and I appreciate his sharing his perspective of the facts.

Here are the key points that he has made, to the best of my understanding:

1. The status of Belmont Abbey College as a religious institution is questionable. This is buttressed by the fact that the College “advertised itself as an equal opportunity employer and freely accepted funding that was not available to religious institutions.” Additionally, the majority of its faculty, staff, students, and alumni are not Catholic.

2. The college offered coverage for these services for 26 years, “indicating that this was a change of a deliberate policy.” It was then done immediately, unilaterally, and without discussion, and the College refused to negotiate.

3. It is not the eight faculty members, but the school, that is attacking religious freedom. “Forcing us to abide by a Catholic approved health plan makes no more sense than prohibiting a Catholic plumber from eating a Pork sandwich for lunch if he works at a Jewish hospital.” Prof. Neipert was assured that he would “not be expected to adopt Catholic practices and that not being Catholic would not affect my career in any way.”

Let us address each of these in turn.

In order to question Belmont Abbey’s status as a religious institution, Prof. Neipert conflates two entirely different standards, from two vastly different sections of the law. He writes that “the college actually went to the federal court of appeals arguing that it was not religious in order to obtain state funding.” The decision in that case, however, states that “in the charter of the College, the fourth stated purpose speaks of Christian inspiration, fidelity to the Christian message and of reflection upon the growing treasury of human knowledge in the light of the Catholic faith.” [These four purposes are apparently drawn directly from Pope John Paul II's definition of a Catholic college.] The decision further quotes from the faculty handbook to the effect that BAC is a “Catholic institution.”

On the contrary, in that case the question was whether the state could legally provide tuition grants and scholarships to students attending Christian colleges in order to receive an education in the liberal arts. “A three-judge court held that the two colleges in question, although they had religious ties, were not so pervasively religious that their secular activities could not be separated from their sectarian ones; and that the program did not involve excessive entanglement on the part of the state with the religiously affiliated colleges, so that application of the scholarship program to the colleges did not violate First Amendment rights.” Under the law, the state cannot provide tuition grants to young monks joining the Belmont Abbey, but can provide them to their peers, whether Catholic or otherwise, attending Belmont Abbey College. That hardly means the college isn’t “religious.”

Even the claim that “the majority of the faculty and students are not Catholic” is problematic at best. According to the Office of the President at BAC, the majority of the Administration, the Board of Trustees, the faculty, and the resident students are all understood to be Catholic (the college does not formally survey faculty). In the same legal decision mentioned above, the Court states that “Catholics predominate on the Board of Trustees, the offices of administration, faculty and staff of the college,” and comprise roughly 70% of the students. While I hesitate to take an anonymous comment on a blog as having any credibility, someone claiming to be a junior at the college writes on catholic.org that “the student body overwhelmingly supports Dr. Thierfelder and the Abbot in this decision.” So I would say the jury is still out on that claim.

Sadly, the fact that this coverage sat on the books for 26 years, if true, is no proof that it was there intentionally. It is clear that neither the President nor the Abbot knew that their insurance coverage provided for services that violated Catholic teachings. They took action not to discriminate against any party, but to remove the college from paying for activities which violate their religion, and did so as soon as they became aware of the issue. They didn’t discuss, negotiate, or delay, because following the tenets of the Catholic church is part of the charter of the school, and not something that can be discussed, negotiated, or delayed.

Prof. Neipert is unable to understand why the Monks of Belmont Abbey might go so far as to close the College rather than pay for the violation of their religious beliefs. This is because he is only considering the importance of earthly things such as degrees, donors and college credits. While he claims to be fighting for religious principle, he fails to demonstrate an understanding of the overriding importance of religious law to those truly sincere in their faith.

Which brings us to the final, and surely the most crucial point of Professor Neipert’s rebuttal of my earlier post: his claim that it is he and the other seven faculty members that are fighting for religious freedom, rather than Belmont Abbey College. While he attempts to draw a parallel to “prohibiting a Catholic plumber from eating a Pork sandwich for lunch if he works at a Jewish hospital,” a more accurate analogy would be if the plumber were to demand use of the hospital microwave to heat his sandwich, rendering that microwave unusable for the preparation of Kosher food afterward. The college is not prohibiting an employee from undergoing voluntary sterilization or taking prescription contraceptives; it is only excluding itself from assisting financially in that effort.

There can be no confusion on this point. The college, by not paying for something which violates Catholic religious tenets, is not imposing its faith upon Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist faculty or staff. It is merely observing its own faith.

While Prof. Neipert and his seven colleagues may be confused about this, the EEOC is not. The EEOC already dealt with the claim of religious discrimination, and rejected it because “benefits were not changed based on each individual employee’s religious beliefs; contraception benefits were removed from the health plan for all employees, regardless of their religion.”

So Prof. Neipert’s response is enlightening but also perplexing. He tells us that their cause is one of noble principle, that they went to court “to protect our religious freedom not to have religious practices imposed upon us by our employer.” If that is true, one wonders why they continue to pursue a case that they have already lost.

In his essay of over 1200 words, Prof. Neipert does not so much as mention the word “gender” — the sole basis upon which the EEOC rests its case. Perhaps he recognizes that the charge of gender discrimination is logically vacuous, considering that Catholic teachings are equally relevant to any form of interference with reproduction, whether by man or woman. Perhaps he understands how incomprehensible it is for six men to continue to claim personal standing under Title VII, when all that remains is a charge of discrimination against women. Perhaps he also recognizes that if the EEOC position were to be sustained, the same tenuous logic (“Respondent is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral contraceptives”) would immediately require employers to pay for abortion on demand as well. Instead, he attempts to wave a banner that the EEOC has already discarded.

Regardless of the outcome in this particular case, the “freedom” to compel your employer to help you violate his or her own religious tenets will not be granted. As long as a condition is imposed upon all employees and does not require a religious observance, the EEOC will not call that “discrimination.” An employer affiliated with the Je-ovah’s witness might not provide for blood transfusions, or health care at all. A Muslim employer can tell you to stand facing Mecca in respect of those praying, he just can’t order you to pray. A Hindu employer, just like a vegetarian employer, can prohibit beef consumption on the premises of his or her business. And, of course, a Jewish hospital can insist that anything placed in the microwave be certified Kosher.

Prof. Neipert claims this is all a matter of principle, the EEOC has discarded that principle, and the case is lumbering forward. Perplexing, indeed.

In 2007, the College discovered that its employee health benefits plan inadvertently included coverage for abortion, contraception, and voluntary sterilization. The college president, William Thierfelder, immediately altered the plan, declaring that the school “is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church.” And at that point, several members of the faculty went running to the EEOC, charging “discrimination.”

If you think that government agencies take the First Amendment seriously, you should pay close attention to this case. In March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismissed the charge, stating that it was “unable to conclude” that the statutes had been violated. But then, in July, the District Director of the EEOC reversed course, and claimed that ... Read More >>]]> Belmont Abbey College is a small Catholic liberal arts college in North Carolina, serving nearly 1500 students. It was founded in 1876 by the monks of the Belmont Abbey, a monastery of the Benedictine Order. The school mission is “to educate students in the liberal arts and sciences so that in all things G-d may be glorified.” It is, without question, a religious institution, guided by the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church.

In 2007, the College discovered that its employee health benefits plan inadvertently included coverage for abortion, contraception, and voluntary sterilization. The college president, William Thierfelder, immediately altered the plan, declaring that the school “is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church.” And at that point, several members of the faculty went running to the EEOC, charging “discrimination.”

If you think that government agencies take the First Amendment seriously, you should pay close attention to this case. In March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismissed the charge, stating that it was “unable to conclude” that the statutes had been violated. But then, in July, the District Director of the EEOC reversed course, and claimed that Belmont Abbey is discriminating against its employees. Why? The following is an unaltered quote: “By denying prescription contraceptive drugs, Respondent is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral contraceptives. By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women.”

It is somewhat bizarre that the EEOC did not similarly refer to the lack of abortion coverage as “discrimination,” since it is equally true that only females obtain abortions. But this is the least of the evidence that this is little more than an attack on religious freedom, using whatever spurious reasons might be found.

I use the word “attack” advisedly. I do not think this can be characterized merely as a callous disregard for the religious values of the institution in question, as if that would not be sufficiently problematic. No. I think it is obvious to anyone that were there prescription contraceptives for men, Belmont Abbey would not cover them either, and for precisely the same reason. So the EEOC’s decision essentially blames the College for the current state of medical science, a position even the most entrenched bureaucrat would admit is patently ridiculous.

In the words of the EEOC, it does not matter why Belmont Abbey will not cover contraceptives, nor whether the situation would be different were male contraceptives approved for use by the FDA. The religious justification — the First Amendment — is cast aside, because prescription oral contraceptives are currently only available for women.

There are many reasons why this decision’s timing is especially problematic, as well. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Patrick Reilly, President of the Cardinal Newman Society, calls this “a bad omen for people of faith.”

The fact that the EEOC decided in favor of the College in March, and reversed its position in July, leads many to conclude, as did the Becket Fund, that this was “presumably at the direction of the new administration in Washington.” The National Catholic Register, under the headline “When ‘Rights’ to the Pill Trump the First Amendment,” highlighted President Obama’s promises of “robust” conscience protection in health care, belied by the EEOC’s actions. Kevin Hasson, president of the Becket Fund, said “When President Obama is at Notre Dame or the Vatican, he talks a good game about protecting conscience. But when his administration goes to Belmont Abbey College and the rubber meets the road, it’s a different story.”

It is easy to imagine that the same reasoning will, in fact, be used to require coverage for abortions. Writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Senator Rick Santorum said “Since only women get abortions, it’s not hard to see what’s coming for faith-based groups with moral objections to the Obama-Planned Parenthood agenda.” Patrick Reilly explains that the requirement to cover contraceptives comes from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, “(even though the law concerns pregnant women and does not, by strict interpretation, consider discrimination against all women of childbearing potential).” He then asks: “When will a federal court argue that if insurance coverage to prevent pregnancy is, by inference, mandated by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, then why not abortion to end a pregnancy?”

The biggest threat to our religious freedom, today, is not coming from any church. On the contrary, it comes from a government which considers religious values irrelevant. The ramifications of this case extend far beyond the 1500 students of Belmont Abbey College, whose president says will close rather than provide contraception.

The same is true, for example, in the world of Jewish philanthropy. To wit, Largest Outreach Effort for Alums Of Birthright Raises Concerns, appearing in The Forward. Were the effort in question not “characterized as Orthodox,” it would not raise any concerns at all — in fact, anyone raising “concerns” would be criticized for questioning the right of Jewish philanthropists to make their own choices and investment decisions.

Birthright Israel, as we all know, was co-founded by Michael Steinhardt. Three years ago, Birthright Israel NEXT was created to do “the critical job of follow up.” And ... Read More >>]]> Eytan Kobre asserts, in his most recent contribution, that the secular Jewish media turns free-market economics into sinister “pressure” when the word “charedi” can be placed before it. And, of course, he is right. Whether it’s separate swimming or cellphones without Internet, “serving the customer” becomes “bowing to pressure” when the customer is a Charedi Jew whose preferences stem from his or her religious beliefs. Yes, the normal and appropriate is turned by the media into something bizarre or sinister when the observant are involved — but it would be a mistake to believe that this only applies to the world of business.

The same is true, for example, in the world of Jewish philanthropy. To wit, Largest Outreach Effort for Alums Of Birthright Raises Concerns, appearing in The Forward. Were the effort in question not “characterized as Orthodox,” it would not raise any concerns at all — in fact, anyone raising “concerns” would be criticized for questioning the right of Jewish philanthropists to make their own choices and investment decisions.

Birthright Israel, as we all know, was co-founded by Michael Steinhardt. Three years ago, Birthright Israel NEXT was created to do “the critical job of follow up.” And Steinhardt — no Orthodox Jew himself — specified through a “restricted gift” that his funding for Birthright Israel NEXT should go in large part to an organization called the Jewish Enrichment Center.

A classic case of a donor stating how his donation should be spent, which is non-controversial, right? Wrong! The Jewish Enrichment Center has been labeled an Orthodox outreach organization, and that makes Steinhardt’s gift very controversial indeed.

Can you imagine? They’re spending his money to offer “inspirational and Torah-learning classes” rather than “secular Jewish cultural events like concerts and parties.” Never mind that Jewish education has a 3000-year success record of strengthening “personal Jewish identity and connection to the Jewish people” — why, the very things that Birthright is supposed to do — while concerts and parties have absolutely no demonstrable record of success in those areas. We’re not talking about logic here, we’re talking about spending money the way The Forward thinks Steinhardt ought to spend it.

The JEC is also criticized by some, like the former director of the New York University Hillel, and Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, for not being pluralistic. “Pluralism”, as we all know, is an absolutist position masquerading as tolerant and inclusive. “Pluralism” is the belief that there is no right and wrong when it comes to Judaism, only a multitude of “roll your own” possibilities — otherwise known as the Reform position. So when Eric Yoffie says a group isn’t “pluralistic,” what he means is that the organization doesn’t adopt the Reform view of Jewish authenticity.

Yoffie asserts that the JEC is being dishonest. “When some people say, let’s do away with labels, that’s simply another way of saying, I want to promote my type of Judaism without talking about it, without being honest and upfront about it,” he argues. He’s almost right. What they are really saying is, we want to teach Judaism and Jewish tradition without the listener being encumbered by artificial distinctions, much less the preconceived notions that others pushed upon you for years about how the Orthodox hate you or believe you not to be Jews — myths belied by the very existence of organizations like the JEC. The Reform movement, of course, has taken the lead in promoting those myths for generations. So who, indeed, is being dishonest?

In other words, you can change your life path, meaning your religion, because, in contrast to your religious faith, your sexual orientation is an unchangeable fact.

A bit of historical perspective is in order. Until 1973, the APA classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. In fact, a psychiatrist who spoke out about the issue the previous year wore a mask to prevent professional repercussions for identifying himself as a homosexual. Then, quite suddenly, the APA reversed course and announced that homosexuals were perfectly healthy. Today, its ... Read More >>]]> It is an interesting coincidence that two new volleys in the gay war on traditional religion were both fired last week, on two continents. While “GBLT” advocates in Israel were busy cynically misusing a shooting in a youth center to castigate rabbis who dare speak honestly about the Torah’s view of “alternative lifestyles,” the American Psychological Association also re-entered the fray, asserting that its members “should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.” Instead, its new official recommendation to those experiencing a “conflict between their sexual orientation and religious beliefs” is that they “explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation.”

In other words, you can change your life path, meaning your religion, because, in contrast to your religious faith, your sexual orientation is an unchangeable fact.

A bit of historical perspective is in order. Until 1973, the APA classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. In fact, a psychiatrist who spoke out about the issue the previous year wore a mask to prevent professional repercussions for identifying himself as a homosexual. Then, quite suddenly, the APA reversed course and announced that homosexuals were perfectly healthy. Today, its website says that “since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with [alternate] orientations” — a stigma that the APA itself helped to propagate for decades. Now, barely 35 years later, it has swung the pendulum completely the other way — creating a new stigma for those who might wish to change their own “orientation,” and those psychologists who might dare suggest that this is even an option. “Practitioners should avoid telling clients they can change from gay to straight,” says the press release.

If this were not amazing enough, this momentous resolution results not from extensive research into the efficacy (or lack thereof) of “Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE),” but from its absence. “Insufficient evidence that sexual orientation change efforts work, says APA,” it reports. Given that lack of evidence, its response is not to commission new studies nor to suggest that the issue be examined, but to slam the door.

JONAH — Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality — has already condemned the APA resolution as the work of a one-sided task force that ignored evidence on its way to a predetermined conclusion. The APA’s own release admits that the articles reviewed by the task force were mostly out of date. “Most of the studies were conducted before 1978, and only a few had been conducted in the last 10 years.”

The APA is even unable to demonstrate that SOCE is somehow harmful. “The task force was unable to reach any conclusion regarding the efficacy or safety of any of the recent studies of SOCE: ‘There are no methodologically sound studies of recent SOCE that would enable the task force to make a definitive statement about whether or not recent SOCE is safe or harmful and for whom,’ according to the report.” Instead, the APA resorts to conjecture on a webpage devoted to a “better understanding” of sexual orientation: “Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate,” it says (emphasis added).

How might new, up-to-date evidence be developed to determine the efficacy of modern methods, if anyone attempting SOCE is already to be labeled an irresponsible psychologist? And, even more to the point, would the APA similarly suggest that psychologists abandon attempts to cure child abusers and practitioners of bestiality in the absence of extensive studies proving the efficacy of past efforts? Of course not — because everyone agrees that those behaviors are wrong. The APA thus arrogates upon itself the right to determine which behaviors should or should not be discouraged — what is, or is not, “wrong.”

That is not, though, the key to the conflict in values. Rather, the APA’s resolution sides with those who assert that a sexual preference defines a person. This is the same sort of thinking that caused HaAretz reporter Anshel Pfeffer to casually equate a belief regarding the behavior of homosexuality, namely that it is a perversion, with “homophobia,” a rejection of a person based upon his or her admitted predisposition towards that behavior. The APA says that this behavior is part of a person’s identity, and to promote change “seems likely” to merely reinforce stereotypes and contribute to a “negative climate” for the people whose identity is defined by this preference.

The Torah, on the other hand, does not place human beings into unique subdivisions based upon their preferences, or even their behaviors. It condemns a host of behaviors as wrong, immoral, even perverse — but not the practitioner. Even Capital Punishment, whether administered for immorality, murder, or carrying wood to the public domain on the Sabbath, was intended to cause the sinner to turn away from his past behavior and prepare his soul to enter the World to Come, while simultaneously educating others in the critical importance of not replicating those behaviors. It is no different whether the behavior is pork consumption or kleptomania: the behavior is condemned, as are efforts to promote it to others — but not the practitioners.

Obviously, not everyone manages to maintain that necessary distinction. The answer, though, is not to condemn those who reach out to people with these issues to assist them to make changes more in accordance with the Torah’s values. What JONAH and other psychologists do is nothing less than Kiruv, and their efforts should be commended, not condemned.

Here is what we know. A single shooter, masked and dressed entirely in black, entered a GBLT youth center in Tel-Aviv and opened fire. After killing two teenagers and wounding over a dozen others, he ran back out and disappeared into the streets of the city. It is reasonable to suspect that the killer chose his target in advance, having planned to enter with his features already disguised, shoot, and run. So the police are looking for a person who knew something about the “scene” in Tel-Aviv, knew that this was a youth center, and chose that youth center as a target.

In one instance after another of mass shootings, the killer has imagined himself rejected by the target group. This is especially true of teenage (e.g. Columbine) and college-age ... Read More >>]]> Even without the recent spate of well-warranted negative media attention towards Orthodox Jews, the cynical misuse of a recent murder in Tel Aviv for further Charedi-bashing is little surprise. It is, nonetheless, worthy of note. With even a cursory examination of the facts, it becomes clear that those whom the GBLT community seek to blame are a politically-convenient target, rather than those whom the police might do well to investigate.

Here is what we know. A single shooter, masked and dressed entirely in black, entered a GBLT youth center in Tel-Aviv and opened fire. After killing two teenagers and wounding over a dozen others, he ran back out and disappeared into the streets of the city. It is reasonable to suspect that the killer chose his target in advance, having planned to enter with his features already disguised, shoot, and run. So the police are looking for a person who knew something about the “scene” in Tel-Aviv, knew that this was a youth center, and chose that youth center as a target.

In one instance after another of mass shootings, the killer has imagined himself rejected by the target group. This is especially true of teenage (e.g. Columbine) and college-age (e.g. Virginia Tech) shooters, but is equally true of the man responsible for the shooting at a Pittsburgh fitness center last week. Mass shootings infrequently target those pursuing an alternate, not to say deviant, lifestyle as a group — in one exceptional case, the man’s last name was “Gay” and he blamed that community for the teasing he endured.

There has also never been a mass shooting carried out by an Orthodox Jew, and no murder under rabbinic encouragement — despite the frequent accusations made following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which were disavowed by the killer himself. [The sole exception to the above is the murder of the wife of a Reform Rabbi in New Jersey, whose husband is now serving 30 to life for arranging her death.] As a more honest voice said in the wake of the Rabin assassination, “Any rational review of murder statistics would show that orthodox Jews do not contribute their share of transgressors to this group.”

Furthermore, despite the obvious and well-known opposition by Orthodox Rabbis to the pursuit of lifestyle choices in opposition to Torah guidelines, the “alternate” community in Israel has enjoyed relative peace compared to those in other countries. A GBLT spokesman quoted in Yediot said that overall, Israel “has not yet reached the violence level against the gay community seen in the US and the rest of the world.”

Given all of the above, you would expect that police would actually have found and interrogated the shooter before “gay activists” would start pointing fingers at Charedi rabbis. As I said at the outset, the premature blame-throwing is a matter of political expediency, and little more.

Of course, you have the defenders coming forward and pointing out that they were trying to help their institutions rather than personal gain, or even doing a favor for a guy who’d fallen on hard times — only to learn the hard way that he was an FBI informant. All of that will come out in court, and it’s pretty unlikely that some of them will see any significant time behind bars.

But all that doesn’t matter. Rabbis are supposed to do better.

Miriam, Moshe’s sister, also did something wrong. She spoke badly of her brother, and she was punished for it. And the Medrash Tanchuma says that those sent to spy out the land of Israel, on behalf of the Jewish Nation, “saw and did not take Mussar.” They didn’t learn. We can either look at what happened and make clucking noises, or we can learn from events.

Less than two years ago, there was a similar scandal involving a group of ... Read More >>]]> For what it’s worth, I have never met any of those ensnared in the money-laundering scandal in Deal, NJ and Brooklyn, NY. Nonetheless, it’s always embarrassing when you have a scandal involving several rabbis. Rabbis are supposed to do better, right?

Of course, you have the defenders coming forward and pointing out that they were trying to help their institutions rather than personal gain, or even doing a favor for a guy who’d fallen on hard times — only to learn the hard way that he was an FBI informant. All of that will come out in court, and it’s pretty unlikely that some of them will see any significant time behind bars.

But all that doesn’t matter. Rabbis are supposed to do better.

Miriam, Moshe’s sister, also did something wrong. She spoke badly of her brother, and she was punished for it. And the Medrash Tanchuma says that those sent to spy out the land of Israel, on behalf of the Jewish Nation, “saw and did not take Mussar.” They didn’t learn. We can either look at what happened and make clucking noises, or we can learn from events.

Less than two years ago, there was a similar scandal involving a group of schools and institutions run by a Chassidic Rebbe in California. And he, having pled guilty to significant crimes, will likely begin serving his sentence shortly.

At a hastily-arranged seminar in business ethics early this week, this Rebbe made a surprise appearance. He offered no defenses, no justification for what happened. On the contrary, he admitted that what he did was wrong, what his organizations and people did was wrong, and must never happen again. [Thanks to Rabbi L. Oberstein for pointing out that the video is available.]

And he also took another step forward. He disclosed that together with a team of lawyers and accountants, his institutions had created a compliance plan to ensure that it would never happen again — that everything done would be completely above board. And he publicly offered to share that plan with others.

The Torah tells us that a judge may not take any sort of bribe, because “bribery blinds the eyes of those with clear vision, and distorts the words of the righteous” (Exodus 23:8). When you or your chosen cause stand to benefit, there is a temptation to look the other way. It doesn’t matter who you are or your chosen calling — the Bible says it’s human nature. G-d tells us that clarity of vision, intelligence, and decades of honest and upright behavior will not provide foolproof protection. It’s not that your accountant is inherently more honest; it’s that your accountant doesn’t stand to benefit, and is able to appraise the situation with an unbiased eye.

If that’s true for an 87-year old Rabbi, who among us is going to look in the mirror and say he or she is inherently better than that?

We all need an impartial third party to give us the hard advice that we may not want to hear.

It has become obvious by now that those “on the inside” in Israel, those with sufficient stature that their voice actually makes a difference, are coming forward and making the necessary and well-deserved statements of condemnation of the violent demonstrators. I did say their behavior was abominable and inexcusable, but also knew that Israel’s Torah leadership does not need the voices of American writers telling them what to do or the hooligans how to act [the idea of me sharing my opinion alongside that of Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel or Rav Moshe Shternbuch is frankly laughable]. As I expressed in a recent comment, I concur that there is internal soul-searching to be done, and not just at the individual but the communal ... Read More >>]]> Several weeks ago, I wrote a short post providing an example of Israel’s media twisting the words of Charedi protesters, turning a quote from Torah and Halacha into a perverse call for the death of other Jews. The most frequent nay-saying comments said one of two things: “yes, but they did say such and so,” or “yes, but their behavior was abominable” — as if either justified the media’s bad habits — and why didn’t I criticize those?

It has become obvious by now that those “on the inside” in Israel, those with sufficient stature that their voice actually makes a difference, are coming forward and making the necessary and well-deserved statements of condemnation of the violent demonstrators. I did say their behavior was abominable and inexcusable, but also knew that Israel’s Torah leadership does not need the voices of American writers telling them what to do or the hooligans how to act [the idea of me sharing my opinion alongside that of Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel or Rav Moshe Shternbuch is frankly laughable]. As I expressed in a recent comment, I concur that there is internal soul-searching to be done, and not just at the individual but the communal and educational levels, in the wake of events like these, but my voice is hardly necessary there. The residents of Meah She’arim are not the readers of Cross-Currents.

The internal soul-searching should also be largely irrelevant to anyone outside the Charedi community. In any other situation, a person expects the police to behave in a reasonable fashion, and in the absence of such, will be less interested in the behavior of individual demonstrators than police lawlessness. In any other situation, one expects the media to attempt an unbiased picture of the totality of a situation, neither, for example, underestimating the total size of a protest, nor overestimating the number who resorted to vandalism or violence. As I mentioned previously, to condemn the hooligans and overlook police brutality and lawlessness because these hooligans are Charedim is hypocritical and anti-charedi, and frankly indistinguishable from the way anti-Semites treat Jews in general. The fact that Charedim are supposed to behave better is no excuse. Jews are supposed to behave better, and — to use another, perhaps even sadder example — a generalization from five Rabbis in Deal and Brooklyn to all Rabbis is no different than a generalization from Bernie Madoff to all Jewish financiers. [There were five Rabbis accused of money laundering for the benefit of their charitable efforts, and sixteen mayors, assemblymen and other officials -- all elected to serve the public trust -- accused of abusing that trust by accepting bribes for their personal enrichment. Now which do you think got the above-the-fold photographs and dominated the headlines?]

What is remarkable is that a number of distinguished Israeli journalists have awakened to this reality, and are saying the same thing. Quoting Ruthie Blum Leibowitz in the Jerusalem Post: “the knee-jerk presentation of the haredim as hypocrites at best, and evil at worst, should be cause for pause. That such pause came this week from Yediot Aharonot’s prime political pundit, Nahum Barnea, is as surprising as it is refreshing.” This is a double surprise, coming from a Jerusalem Post writer better known for her interviews with politicians and broadcasters than her defense of Charedim.

Concerning the allegedly mentally-ill mother, suffering from Munchausen-by-Proxy Syndrome, she criticizes the Israeli press — as a group — for failing to acknowledge “the presumption of innocence,” and then goes on to attribute this to anti-Charedi bias.

It certainly hasn’t been doing so. Every lead into every Hebrew news story this week has referred to “the starving mother” (“starving” as a verb, not an adjective), with additional features discussing Munchausen Syndrome — as though there has already been a diagnosis, a trial, a guilty verdict and a sentence.

This is only partly due to the fact that child abuse is one of those issues that everyone feels strongly about, and which makes for sensationalist copy. More to the point in this particular case is its connection to a community toward which the bulk of the public, egged on by a largely secular press, feels a sense of schadenfreude whenever something dark emerges from its midst.

Let’s be frank — I’m sure that not a few readers were snickering that I would bother to insert the word “allegedly” in front of “mentally-ill mother.” Schadenfreude — “delight in the suffering of another which is cognized as trivial and/or appropriate” — made real. The sad fact is that when it comes to the accusation, I think the evidence is very substantial. Munchausen-by-Proxy Syndrome is a very tragic mental ailment, doubly-so because it afflicts people who do not merely appear to be dedicated, doting parents, but often truly are with the exception of the one child visited with the most abhorrent “parenting” one could imagine. The mother in question has three (apparently) healthy older children, is carrying a baby, and — as the Court decided late last week, poses no apparent danger to her other children if placed under house arrest, especially under supervision. As Jonathan Rosenblum wrote last week, there is no “Charedi consensus” that the accusation is false. There is only a consensus that it is strange, to say the least, to see a woman jumped, shackled, and imprisoned with convicted murderers, in response to an accusation that she is mentally ill and needs urgent psychiatric care.

This is why it is so positive to see the media stop and reflect, if several weeks too late for this round of conflict. Besides Leibowitz’s opinion piece, the JPost also ran “Haredim Under Attack” by Peggy Cidor, a piece providing a far more nuanced picture of life in Meah She’arim amidst the demonstrations.

Two of the kids, one dressed in a black suit with a hat too big for his head, found a pile of ragged clothing and tried to set it on fire. Their third attempt succeeded, and suddenly the flames rapidly spread to a neighbor’s clothesline.

Seemingly out of nowhere, a van burst onto the scene. The [young haredi] driver jumped onto the sidewalk, leaving the vehicle’s engine running, … managed to catch the boy in the suit and, holding his arm firmly, brought him to his car, asking for his principal’s name. One of the women shouted in Hebrew, “His parents will have to pay for the clothes he burned; it’s a shame. And in the newspapers they will say that we’re barbarians.”

The reporter also took the dramatic and unusual step of actually interviewing the Charedi driver, who had this to say: “I feel that the secular press is too eager to put us all in the same basket. After all, they could see for themselves that it was mostly children and teenagers. I’m not saying that we should be indulgent, but hey, they’re kids, you know? It’s summer, they feel part of what’s going on, but the secular — authorities, residents and media — are too quick to accuse us of anything.”

The same article also quotes extensively from an interview with Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim, a Toldos Aharon Chassid. Yes, this is the same Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim who spoke with Jonathan Rosenblum and expressed opposition to the demonstrations — even saying they delayed the final Redemption. To the Jerusalem Post, he had this to say:

“Who sends a pregnant — and presumably sick — woman to prison with her hands cuffed?,” retorts Papenheim. “If someone thought she could hurt herself or someone around her, well, that’s what guards are for, no? Nothing can explain the decision to send her to prison in her condition. And on top of that, I know about the cruel attitude she had to face there. They even took away her mattress, and she had to lie on the floor. Where does that cruelty come and for what purpose? What she is going through is a trauma. And we all know that a fetus feels his mother’s traumas while in her womb. Who will be responsible for the damage caused to that baby once he is born with some trauma?”

Asked if he was expecting the medical authorities to act differently once suspicions were raised, Papenheim says he expected the Hadassah authorities to establish contact with the woman’s community leaders. “We would have taken care of her in the most appropriate ways, and they knew it,” he says.

Papenheim, like [Zaka founder and charedi activist Yehudah] Meshi-Zahav, says that the whole haredi community, and more specifically the Eda Haredit, feels that the secular society and the establishment is after them out of hatred, ignorance, perhaps fear of their difference. “We feel that Israeli society considers us all as neglectful or abusive parents. We are judged by different criteria without taking into consideration any cultural differences to which we have the right like any other community.”

“They just don’t understand; with us it’s different. These people, the ‘primitives,’ the ‘not so well groomed,’ they ‘only’ know by heart the whole Babylonian Talmud, but then they don’t know who Madonna is. They may not even know that Michael Jackson is dead, who knows how? But that’s the way we are: primitive, but we love our children, even if our houses are small, not fancy and sometimes not so neat and tidy.”

Not only does Cidor quote Rabbi Papenheim, but she even quotes a fellow who “didn’t look like a member of the Eda Haredit” who nonetheless condemned the police for “indiscriminate” arrests of innocent bystanders — the same story the Post told me they were uninterested in pursuing less than 20 years ago. Something really may be changing.

But most stunning of all, without question, is to hear Rabbi Papenheim’s sentiments echoed in the words of Yediot’s Nahum Barnea, who is secular and, as quoted below, in favor of opening the Carta parking lot on Shabbos. As translated and quoted by Leibowitz:

A hospitalized child is the responsibility of the hospital, not the mother. Before we turn her into a monster, perhaps we should look at what the hospital did with the responsibility given to it. Hadassah’s hospitals make a living from the haredim. They have extensive experience in treating them. Many problems, including mental ones, have been solved there discretely over the years, through dialogue with the rabbis… Many haredim truly believe that secular Israel is plotting to exterminate them, and if not that, then to humiliate them, disparage them and force them to betray their faith. A responsible Israeli establishment needs to disprove these suspicions, rather than reinforce them.

In no way am I suggesting that we mitigate the punishment of a haredi abuser, that we turn a blind eye to vandalism or that we capitulate in the face of the groundless campaign managed by elements within the Eda Haredit sect against the opening of a parking lot on Shabbat.

What I am suggesting, however, is that the champions of secular righteousness wipe the drool off their face. We used to have a party, Shinui, which fed off hatred of the haredim. This party disappeared… The haredim, on the other hand, were there before, and will continue to stick around.

Stunning, I tell you, absolutely stunning.

I am tempted to joke that I have been gifted with prophecy for the following prediction, but it is no laughing matter. I do predict that the HUC will be ordaining intermarried Rabbis within the next decade — and my main concern, in terms of accuracy, is that I’m giving them too much time by half — but that just stems from common sense and seeing the writing on the wall. To my knowledge, there has yet to be a deviance from Jewish law and tradition concerning which “a debate has swirled in progressive Jewish circles” which has not become normative “progressive” Judaism sooner or later, and usually sooner.

While Ms. Wiener’s husband may be a ... Read More >>]]> “In the Mix” is the name of a monthly column by Julie Wiener, carried by the NY Jewish Week. Ms. Wiener describes herself as “married to a lapsed Catholic — one who has encouraged me to become more involved in Jewish life.” But in her most recent column, she nonetheless grapples with her own discomfort at the thought of a Rabbi entering into a relationship exactly like her own. As she puts it, “there’s something that feels, well, not kosher to me about intermarried rabbis.”

I am tempted to joke that I have been gifted with prophecy for the following prediction, but it is no laughing matter. I do predict that the HUC will be ordaining intermarried Rabbis within the next decade — and my main concern, in terms of accuracy, is that I’m giving them too much time by half — but that just stems from common sense and seeing the writing on the wall. To my knowledge, there has yet to be a deviance from Jewish law and tradition concerning which “a debate has swirled in progressive Jewish circles” which has not become normative “progressive” Judaism sooner or later, and usually sooner.

While Ms. Wiener’s husband may be a “lapsed” Catholic as she claims, she is more influenced by her husband’s Catholic view of religion than she may realize. In Catholicism, of course, there are very serious differences between the conduct expected of their clergy versus the laypeople. Rabbis, on the other hand, don’t have more Mitzvos to follow than anyone else. While we obviously expect, as Rabbi Adlerstein put it, the behavior of a Talmid Chacham to change as a result of his Torah, the basic requirements are the same.

The converse, of course, is also true. There are no dispensations for laypeople in Judaism. Perhaps, in some measure, this explains why the misdealings of a person who dresses and carries himself like an observant Jew are pounced upon by the media — because there really is no such thing as a Jewish layperson. We are a mamleches kohanim v’goy kadosh — a Nation of Priests and a Holy Nation — and anyone dressing the part is expected to play the part… ready or not.

Ms. Wiener’s evaluation of intermarriage is, in some ways, refreshing in its honesty. “The fact is,” she writes, “intermarriage is complicated and challenging, and in such unions Judaism loses out as often, if not more often, than it wins.” But here, most of all, it makes no sense to differentiate between clergy and laity. Marriage isn’t just about love, it’s about the next generation, and transmitting a mixed message to the next generation is never a good idea.

This is, of course, why the Jewish discomfort with intermarriage is not a matter of ethnic bias — it’s about preservation of our unique nation, and the values we wish to transmit. Those fully committed to other religions happen to share this position — even a devout Catholic and fundamentalist Protestant might find too many points of contention to truly provide their children with a single, clear message about religion.

So Ms. Wiener is right to be distressed about the prospect of intermarried clergy, but not simply because she wants “the ultimate representatives and teachers of Jewish tradition to be more respectful of Jewish law and more immersed in Judaism” than she is. It has already been reported that among Reform Temples, as many as half of the sisterhood presidents are not Jewish by any measure. If even the clergy are not committed to Jewish partners, the next, logical, inevitable step will be a majority non-Jewish laity.

At what point will “progressive” Judaism cease to be a religion practiced, in the majority, by Jews? That turning point is probably far sooner than we think.

Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits zt”l, Rabbi Sacks’ predecessor as Chief Rabbi, was also given peerage during his tenure, but Rabbi Sacks’ nomination comes at a time when there’s a lot of anti-Israel agitation in Britain. The Jerusalem Post also says that the Chief Rabbi’s office is underscoring the fact that the appointment was an apolitical recommendation from the Lords Appointment Commission, rather than from PM Gordon Brown’s office (the PM and the Chief Rabbi are said to have a close relationship). The appointment is notable in its own right, but the time and the source both speak to British high esteem for Rabbi Sacks.

Enjoy!

The experience was notable for a few reasons. First and foremost, the judge was (as the previous comments might indicate), very friendly and down to earth, very unpretentious. He was handling “non-incarcerable offenses” (his translation: “the only way you can go to jail is by doing something really dumb in this Courtroom”), and was happy to ... Read More >>]]> Yesterday found me at the District Court of Maryland, Traffic Division, to fight a parking ticket. We had received a “Warning Notice” for failure to respond to a citation that we had never received, for our van being parked in a Transit Zone, in one of those neighborhoods in which you might be ill-advised to park in the most legal of spaces — especially after dark, which, according to the time on the notice, it was. Mistakes happen, and the most likely explanation is that the wrong license plate number was transcribed from the citation onto the notice. Besides a compliment from the judge for having a “mean” hat (like many Orthodox Jewish men, I wear a black fedora, which he didn’t want me to forget on the bench), he also gave me the Not Guilty verdict I was looking for (benefit of the doubt).

The experience was notable for a few reasons. First and foremost, the judge was (as the previous comments might indicate), very friendly and down to earth, very unpretentious. He was handling “non-incarcerable offenses” (his translation: “the only way you can go to jail is by doing something really dumb in this Courtroom”), and was happy to show the friendlier side of the court system. Everyone appealing a ticket seemed to have some justification, and he was happy to give a Not Guilty to, for example, the obviously handicapped woman who was driving the wrong car on the day she was ticketed for using a handicapped spot. “Justice, justice shall you pursue…” but tempered with mercy. I was impressed.

He also told the following story, which happened to take place in the same neighborhood in which we were charged with parking illegally. He walks, he says, through all of Baltimore’s neighborhoods, and on a Sunday morning a young man approached him on the otherwise-deserted street corner. “Hey man,” he said, “want some weed?”

The judge responded by reaching into his pocket, and pulling out his badge indicating that he is a judge. The young man looked at him, looked at his badge, back to him, back to the badge, and finally back to him. And then he said, “so does this mean you don’t want any, or you can’t have any?”

Of course, the story had to be shared simply because it’s very funny. But I also wonder what it says when a young drug dealer is so unaware of the law and its possible consequences… or so brazen as to imagine the judge would have no thought of having him arrested.

Thinking pragmatically, a Jewish teacher of millenia past blessed his students that they should fear G-d as much as they fear other people (they were taken aback, but he pointed out that many will do in private, i.e., in G-d’s Presence, what they would never do in public). What does it say about society when even an earthly higher authority is given so little recognition? In the end of days, the Mishnah says, “chutzpah” will overwhelm…

The reason is pretty simple. In Hebrew, a Biblical quotation sounds like… a Biblical quotation. Imagine that! And when you say to someone violating the Sabbath that the Bible says a desecrator “will surely die,” that’s not a call to murder, but the very opposite: “Why are you killing yourself?”

Only for an audience ignorant of the original Hebrew, can the media get away with turning the Bible into a call for murder. And make no bones about it — the editors of the JPost speak Hebrew just fine, thank-you-very-much, and they know better. The protesters were not calling — and would never be calling — for the death of other Jews, no matter how far from our mutual heritage they may lie.

I’ve collected the mission statements of the largest 17 Jewish federations in North America, and not one mentions “G-d,” “Torah” or “Judaism.” Nor do the mission statements of the B’nai B’rith Youth Organization, Hillel, the National Council of Jewish Women, The Wexner Heritage Foundation, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Hadassah and the Jewish National Fund. Of all the organizations I looked into, only United Jewish Communities mentions but one of the three words, Torah, in its mission statement.

Mr. Alperson’s theory is that these terms are avoided because they are “more particularistic. Tzedakah [Charity], tikkun olam [Repairing the World] and klal yisroel [the People of Israel] are considered universal and inclusive terms.” He bemoans this phenomenon, and considers this problem to be one with a uniquely Jewish angle. He believes that ... Read More >>]]> No, it’s not what you think. I am not referring to a healthy (and Biblically-mandated) fear of G-d and his Ineffable Name, but an aversion to mentioning G-d as a motivating force in our lives. Joel Alperson, a past national campaign chair for United Jewish Communities, wrote about this in a recent Op-Ed entitled “Don’t fear ‘G-d,’ ‘Torah’ and ‘Judaism’” published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He writes:

I’ve collected the mission statements of the largest 17 Jewish federations in North America, and not one mentions “G-d,” “Torah” or “Judaism.” Nor do the mission statements of the B’nai B’rith Youth Organization, Hillel, the National Council of Jewish Women, The Wexner Heritage Foundation, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Hadassah and the Jewish National Fund. Of all the organizations I looked into, only United Jewish Communities mentions but one of the three words, Torah, in its mission statement.

Mr. Alperson’s theory is that these terms are avoided because they are “more particularistic. Tzedakah [Charity], tikkun olam [Repairing the World] and klal yisroel [the People of Israel] are considered universal and inclusive terms.” He bemoans this phenomenon, and considers this problem to be one with a uniquely Jewish angle. He believes that the reason these terms induce such discomfort is because communal organizations, aiming to serve the breadth of the entire Jewish community, are afraid of any mention of a term that might highlight our numerous and profound internal divisions.

He may be right. But at the same time, I am reminded of an article written over 20 years ago by Daniel Polisar* — today the director of the Shalem Center, and at that time a fellow student at Princeton University. He described an experience in a class in Philosophy and ethics, in which the students were asked to respond sequentially to a classic question of moral and ethical behavior: when confronted by an assailant who orders you to murder another, on threat of your own life, what are you supposed to do?

Now as it happens, Jewish ethics offers clear and unambiguous guidance on this matter: “who says your blood is redder?” Thus the Talmud prohibits murdering another person, even in order to save your own life. And this is what Dan, when asked, proceeded to tell the class: that Judaism teaches us that G-d Commanded us to react this way.

It so happens that Mr. Polisar was somewhere in the middle of the group of students. At the end of the class, he realized that he had triggered a sea change in the way the class answered the question: not one of the students asked before him had mentioned G-d in his or her response… and all, or practically all, of the students responding after him also mentioned G-d.

This encounter, along with numerous others, led him to argue in The Princeton Tory that G-d has been exiled from the college campus — that students are inculcated to regard belief in G-d as anti-intellectual, the realm of irrational fundamentalists rather than the enlightened students of the Ivory Towers. And thus, while the vast majority of students clearly regarded G-d as a force in their lives (based upon the answers following his), no one wanted to be the first to admit that he or she sought the guidance of a higher power.

The directors of our communal organizations are generally well-educated, and if there is considerable truth to Mr. Polisar’s argument — and I believe there is — this offers an alternate and more inward-directed reason why the mission statements of Jewish organizations might be averse to mentioning the Jewish religion. It is not that the writers fear highlighting our divisions, but that they do not want to highlight terms with which they themselves are uncomfortable.

At the same time, this is not necessarily the (only) reason why the students were reluctant to use G-d in their answers in that classroom. While in retrospect it may seem almost instinctive to call upon G-d’s Name in a discussion of ethics, it is also fair to say that most people could not be nearly so unequivocal about what G-d would want them to do. Most religions, including the modern Jewish movements that do not regard the Talmud as an authoritative source, do not state an absolute, required answer to that precise question.

It could similarly be argued that many in the Jewish community feel this sort of ambiguity about their religion overall. How should they observe, or not? What should they, or shouldn’t they, believe? Having departed from the moorings of Jewish tradition, they aren’t quite sure which way to point themselves when the waves start crashing around them.

In the end, I think all three of these factors — a reluctance to highlight divisions, ambiguity about religion, and a reluctance of the educated class to express religious feelings — combine to explain why Jews outside the Orthodox community are apt to avoid mention of G-d, His Word, and our religion.

Where Joel Alperson and I certainly agree is regarding the consequences of that silence.

We must be the only people on the planet who believe we can transmit a message to future generations without saying specifically what that message is. Is it any wonder that most Jews cannot articulate Jewish purpose beyond some catch phrases or beyond merely expressing a desire that we survive as a people?

As with so many areas in life, religion is about making choices. We cannot be all things to all people, and we serve no one if we try to pretend otherwise.

* As I half-expected, Daniel Polisar isn’t sure he wrote the article. “It’s possible that I wrote that, but I really don’t remember if I did.” I’m trying to find out who did, if not him.

Perhaps more to the point, though, Rabbi Mark was very anxious to help his Temple away from the old, stodgy, tradition-laden Conservative movement. The Temple “recently shed its ultra-conservative image” and now calls itself “progressive conservative.” I think there’s a confusion there between Conservative and conservative, because from a religious standpoint, it’s not the conservatives usually called “ultra-.”

And how better to prove how “progressive” they are by hosting the “first ever commitment ceremony in the county?” This refers, of course, to an alternate form of marriage for two people of the same gender. This was the “need out there” that Rabbi Mark found, that pained him so greatly while the Conservative Movement’s Committee of Jewish Law and Standards refused to give its blessing.

And now that that’s changed, he’s advertising. And advertising. And now it’s in the news: “Rabbi Searches in Vain for Kosher Gay Couple to Marry.” The Temple “wants ... Read More >>]]> Rabbi David Mark of Temple Sholom in Pompano Beach, Florida, is anxious to fill a void. “There was a need out there among the public for something like this,” he said. “It hurt me so much to my very core that I could not help these people.”

Perhaps more to the point, though, Rabbi Mark was very anxious to help his Temple away from the old, stodgy, tradition-laden Conservative movement. The Temple “recently shed its ultra-conservative image” and now calls itself “progressive conservative.” I think there’s a confusion there between Conservative and conservative, because from a religious standpoint, it’s not the conservatives usually called “ultra-.”

And how better to prove how “progressive” they are by hosting the “first ever commitment ceremony in the county?” This refers, of course, to an alternate form of marriage for two people of the same gender. This was the “need out there” that Rabbi Mark found, that pained him so greatly while the Conservative Movement’s Committee of Jewish Law and Standards refused to give its blessing.

And now that that’s changed, he’s advertising. And advertising. And now it’s in the news: “Rabbi Searches in Vain for Kosher Gay Couple to Marry.” The Temple “wants to be the first of its kind in Broward County to hold commitment ceremonies for gay couples… But it has to find two people who want to take the plunge together.” And thus far it isn’t finding them.

The Mishna says that in the days before Moshiach, “the face of the generation will be like the face of a dog.” According to one interpretation, this refers to the way a dog pulls ahead of its owner on a leash, appearing to lead, but simply changes direction when the owner does — and a moment later is “leading” in the new direction. Religion is not, at least historically, a democracy, where the people choose what they want. To the contrary, true leaders pull us upwards, rather than rushing to endorse whatever we are already bent upon doing. And in any event, it seems Rabbi Mark is pulling at the leash a bit too hard.

Agudath Israel, the Jewish communal organization representing the interests of traditionally Orthodox Jews, issued a statement as well. Its statement, though, was different — it consisted solely of an open letter to the young son of the security guard who gave his life defending the visitors to that Museum.

This letter’s personal touch reminds us all that this was not only an outrage against the national consciousness, but an acutely personal tragedy as well.

To the Young Son of Stephen Tyrone Johns:

Your name wasn’t mentioned on the ABC-Nightline report where you were briefly interviewed after the tragic death of your father. But what mattered were your words, that your Dad was “a loving father” and your “hero.”

I want you to know that he is a hero to us too.

Your father died protecting people, young and old, of many races and religions, who had come to a very special place: the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. ... Read More >>]]> In the wake of the shooting attack at Washington’s Holocaust Museum last week, many organizations issued public statements. Most of those were similar to these words from President Obama: “This outrageous act reminds us that we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms.”

Agudath Israel, the Jewish communal organization representing the interests of traditionally Orthodox Jews, issued a statement as well. Its statement, though, was different — it consisted solely of an open letter to the young son of the security guard who gave his life defending the visitors to that Museum.

This letter’s personal touch reminds us all that this was not only an outrage against the national consciousness, but an acutely personal tragedy as well.

To the Young Son of Stephen Tyrone Johns:

Your name wasn’t mentioned on the ABC-Nightline report where you were briefly interviewed after the tragic death of your father. But what mattered were your words, that your Dad was “a loving father” and your “hero.”

I want you to know that he is a hero to us too.

Your father died protecting people, young and old, of many races and religions, who had come to a very special place: the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. He was the victim of a terrible hatred — a hatred cut from the same ugly cloth as the hatred that killed my grandparents in Europe, a hatred the museum was designed to warn us about, and to help erase from the world.

May we soon see the day when such irrational hatred in all its forms will be erased from the world. And may you derive comfort, even as you mourn your terrible loss, from the fact that your father was not only a hero in your life but died a hero to the world.

Rabbi David Zwiebel
Executive Vice President
Agudath Israel of America

It’s not always enjoyable to be proven right. Sometimes you’d much rather be wrong. My early assessment of President Obama’s attitudes towards Israel — which was joined, of course, by many other pro-Israel writers — is a case in point.

In advance of the election, when Obama called for “an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” I was sharply criticized for terming that “an inability to discern between good and evil.” Similarly, when I questioned why the President-elect refused to support Israel during the recent Gaza conflict — unlike so many of his colleagues in the Senate — I was accused of a “desire to assume the worst about Obama.” When Rabbi Avi Shafran posted words of hope about Obama, that same commenter asserted that “those who once vilified our incoming president are now scurrying to ... Read More >>]]> While I contemplated writing this article before hearing from Rabbi Oberstein that he wanted to send his remarks as well, I believe that our two perspectives together provide yet more fodder for dialogue. Here, then, is where I stand on President Obama and Israel, in the wake of a visit to the Middle East that has the Israelis frowning, and its Arab enemies crowing.

It’s not always enjoyable to be proven right. Sometimes you’d much rather be wrong. My early assessment of President Obama’s attitudes towards Israel — which was joined, of course, by many other pro-Israel writers — is a case in point.

In advance of the election, when Obama called for “an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” I was sharply criticized for terming that “an inability to discern between good and evil.” Similarly, when I questioned why the President-elect refused to support Israel during the recent Gaza conflict — unlike so many of his colleagues in the Senate — I was accused of a “desire to assume the worst about Obama.” When Rabbi Avi Shafran posted words of hope about Obama, that same commenter asserted that “those who once vilified our incoming president are now scurrying to demonstrate their moderation and seek his favor.”

It wasn’t our moderation that was the issue, but Obama’s. And now we fast-forward to the present day, as the President charts out an anti-Israel course without precedent in the last 50 years of US-Israel relations. One is reminded of the Eisenhower administration, which refused to sell weaponry to Israel while simultaneously demanding that Israeli Naval vessels leave the Gulf of Aqaba — leaving Eilat defenseless from a naval assault.

The relationship between the US and Israel has gone from an unprecedented closeness under George W. Bush, to one of confrontation. Few would know this better than Bush’s Former White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, who said that while both Presidents used similar language about how “both sides had obligations to fulfill,” the underlying attitudes are very different: Bush took Israel’s side because of the terror attacks to which Israel was subjected, while Obama is genuinely trying to stand in the middle. Following Obama’s speech in Cairo Fleischer told CBS News, “the speech was balanced and that was what was wrong with it. American policy should not be balanced. It should side with those who fight terror.”

“For instance, Obama said, ‘the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security,’” Fleischer told [CBS News Reporter Mark] Knoller, “[yet] he failed to note that Israel pulled out of Gaza and it’s the behavior of the Palestinians and Hamas that created the humanitarian crisis there.”

“The other greater reality is rocket fire,” he continued. “In exchange for withdrawal, Israel received daily rocket fire. Speeches serve useful purposes, but if you’re on the receiving end of rocket fire, security comes before rhetoric. That’s why the first step toward peace has to be the cessation of terrorist attacks; otherwise Israel will of course do whatever is necessary to defend herself. America would do the same.”

Not only does Obama fail to take Israel’s side — on the contrary, he takes that of the PA. From the Palestinian side, what does he demand? That Hamas “abandon violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.” Is my recollection faulty, or is this not what the Palestinians had to do in 1993, 1996, and 2000? The Israelis expelled 8000 Gaza residents from their homes to make way for “peace,” and the Palestinians, having turned Gaza into a terrorist base in lieu of a peaceful and productive society, are told that they can repeat the same lies Arafat told the world in 1993, and we’ll call it “progress.”

And from Israel? In Hillary Clinton’s words, “a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.” If a new couple needs an apartment, if a family outgrows its quarters, if an undersized and run-down synagogue needs a facelift, Israel is supposed to stop it from happening. As Charles Krauthammer put it, “No ‘natural growth’ means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining.”

Why does it make sense to have Israel throttle the cities that it is expected to retain anyways? Simple: to the Obama administration, the Israelis must meet new demands, the Palestinians can repeat the same lies about how they’ve “abandoned violence,” and the United States can renege on its past commitments.

As Ariel Sharon was attempting to shore up internal support for his controversial, and ultimately counter-productive, “Disengagement” Plan, he received the following understanding from President George W. Bush:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

Obama flatly contradicted Bush’s letter. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” which he said violate previous agreements, undermine peace efforts and must “stop.” In the words of the Jerusalem Post, “Clinton and other State Department officials have also repeatedly refused to endorse” the Bush letter.

While I respect Rabbi Oberstein, I believe in this case that he’s trying just a little too hard to see the bright side. I hope that those who voted for Obama will be a bit more realistic overall, and recognize that they have a special obligation to back Israel and help it to resist pressure from the man they elected.

For the second time in 12 years, the boards of the JCC and the Associated (Jewish Charities of Baltimore) are considering opening the Owings Mills branch of the JCC on Shabbos afternoons — and for the second time in 12 years, the Orthodox community conducted a rally dedicated to the honor of Shabbos, and requesting preservation of the status quo. We (Torah.org) posted audio and video (as we did last time). A few thoughts and impressions follow, in no particular order.

First of all, the crowd conducted itself with near-perfect decorum. The Baltimore Police Department had advised organizers that they would be unable to ... Read More >>]]> With Baltimore’s Shabbos Rally now a week behind us, I’m a bit overdue on posting about it… but better late than never. I think it is important that this rally/demonstration be discussed far beyond Baltimore — because I would call it a model for how a protest rally should be done. I am at a loss to recall hearing about any protest, anywhere, that has been held with this level of decorum, honor and mutual respect. In fact, it could barely be called a protest or demonstration at all; it was a rally in favor of Shabbos.

For the second time in 12 years, the boards of the JCC and the Associated (Jewish Charities of Baltimore) are considering opening the Owings Mills branch of the JCC on Shabbos afternoons — and for the second time in 12 years, the Orthodox community conducted a rally dedicated to the honor of Shabbos, and requesting preservation of the status quo. We (Torah.org) posted audio and video (as we did last time). A few thoughts and impressions follow, in no particular order.

First of all, the crowd conducted itself with near-perfect decorum. The Baltimore Police Department had advised organizers that they would be unable to assist with crowd control, having already maxed their overtime resources for the Preakness, held the previous day. Given that the location was the local public high school, the task thus fell to the Baltimore City Public Schools Police, which is, of course, much less familiar with handling crowds of adults at a demonstration.

Cpl. Johnson, the commanding officer, said that the eight to ten officers he’d assigned were fewer than he would have, had he known how large the crowd was to be. [I've seen a news stories claiming "over 4,000," or simply "larger" than the turnout estimated at 3500 last time -- honestly, I would say at least 6,000 were there.] And yet they had nothing to do besides traffic control before and after, which was conducted with convivial, even jovial interactions between police and attendees. Cpl. Johnson had “nothing but high praise” for the way people acted. Yes, I realize that it’s different when the demonstration is against something the government is doing, and the police represent that government — but at the same time, it is too unusual for comfort to be able to say that every aspect of the event was a Kiddush HaShem, an honor to G-d’s Name in the world.

The level of honor and dignity between those on both sides of the argument was exceptional as well. The Rabbonim did not talk about the JCC trampling the sanctity of Shabbos, or destroying the Jewish people. There was a singular lack of anger, a supposed staple of protests. On the contrary, leaders of the Associated and JCC were invited to sit on the dais. Rabbi Moshe Hauer spoke about the dialog that had taken place between the Rabbonim and JCC officials. “You have heard our passion, and we have heard yours… Today we appreciate more than ever our unity, and we understand more than ever our lack of uniformity.” Expressing respect for the sincerity and commitment of the JCC’s leadership, he honored “the JCC’s mission of maintaining and enhancing Jewish affiliation” — a mission “that we all must share.” Only once he had spoken about how much we have in common, did Rabbi Hauer then add that “we are here because we challenge the appropriateness of a very specific method, opening the JCC on Shabbos, as a step towards achieving that goal.”

When offered that level of respect, it is unsurprising to find it reciprocated; JCC President Louis “Buddy” Sapolsky told a reporter afterwards that he has “unbelievable respect for the Orthodox leadership and for the crowd that turned out.” It is far more likely, as a result, that the JCC and Associated officials will give serious consideration to the feelings of the thousands of protesters — if indeed that word can even be used to describe them.

The Baltimore Sun, for example, never used the word “protest” at all. Prime space on the Sun’s cover the next morning was given to a large photograph of a young boy standing over a sea of black hats, followed by the large-print headline: “Rally promotes idea of Sabbath.” The event was described in an exclusively positive fashion, with descriptions of the opinions on both sides that were both accurate and relatively complete — again, a rarity when it comes to events of this nature. At risk of overusing the superlatives, I am again unable to recall a more balanced, more positive article about Orthodox Jews in the general media.

Finally, a personally gratifying moment came early on, when Rabbi Yissocher Frand told the following amazing story (starting at 3:50 in the video). There is apparently a gentleman who comes into Yeshivas Ner Yisroel (Ner Israel Rabbinical College) to study on a weekly basis, who doesn’t look like a typical student, neither in dress nor in age. At some point, Rabbi Frand heard that this man had become Sabbath-observant because of the rally held 12 years ago because of something that he heard, and recently “had the temerity” to approach him and ask him what it was that he heard, 12 years ago.

He went to a website, and listened to the speeches… He heard [in the speech by Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg zt"l] that Shabbos was a sign, a symbol, an emblem. But not just any kind of sign. It’s “a Sign between Me and you, my people,” a sign that signifies the special relationship between G-d and His people. And he heard the moshul (parable) that was said in the name of the Chofetz Chaim, how Shabbos is like the ring that a husband presents a wife, that the wife takes with her and wears all the time. And what it says about the relationship if the wife removes that ring. And that led him to investigate what Shabbos is all about. And today he and his family are shomrei Shabbos, they keep the Shabbos. And as he said to me, and these are his words, “because everything flows from Shabbat.”

Torah.org was that website. Needless to say, we had no idea, when we posted the videos, that they would have this sort of impact. And I must admit that I am at a loss trying to describe quite how that feels.

The article is notable primarily for the petty nature of its grumbling against the Orthodox. Hess spends two paragraphs documenting the financial advantages of children’s Jewish education in Israel vs. the United States. Besides the laughable assertion that a chareidi classroom is “more comfortable, less crowded” than a secular one, he’s clearly missed the obvious: anyone moving to ... Read More >>]]> Those moving from America to Israel on aliyah are predominantly Orthodox, while Reform and Conservative Jews are staying put in America. Most of us would attribute this to Orthodox “willingness to pay a personal price, both in quality and comfort of life,” for the sake of the “mitzva of settling the land,” compared to the 88% of Sunday School graduates who don’t feel a strong connection to Israel. But if you’re the executive director and CEO of the Masorti (Conservative) Movement in Israel, the obvious (and obviously correct) answer is unacceptable. Thus readers of the Jerusalem Post were recently treated to an alternative theory authored by Yizhar Hess: the Orthodox make life nice and comfy for their own, and miserable for everyone else. Yes, the reason Reform Jews don’t immigrate to Israel can be traced to the Chassidic Rebbes of Meah Shearim.

The article is notable primarily for the petty nature of its grumbling against the Orthodox. Hess spends two paragraphs documenting the financial advantages of children’s Jewish education in Israel vs. the United States. Besides the laughable assertion that a chareidi classroom is “more comfortable, less crowded” than a secular one, he’s clearly missed the obvious: anyone moving to Israel for an improved standard of living — material living, that is — is smoking something of which the Rabbis don’t generally approve.

The article then goes on to recycle a number of tired and overused claims of state-sponsored Orthodox discrimination. Hess claims, for example, that the state government funds Orthodox synagogues, exclusively. Not only are the vast majority of synagogues funded privately, but this tired old claim was recycled once too often — it’s no longer true. Yet government funding of Reform Temples had absolutely no known impact upon the likelihood of American Reform Jews to make aliyah. It was, in fact, so insignificant that Hess himself apparently forgot about it.

His memory lapse continues when he speculates, “With which feeling will the Conservative girl return after almost being attacked at the Kotel for wanting to pray with a kippa and tallit?” To date, no Jew has been almost, nearly, or otherwise attacked at the Kotel for wanting to pray, as compared to wanting to make a political statement. Mixed “Kabbalat Shabbat” services on the Kotel plaza were a weekly feature of a summer’s Friday night during my time in Israel, and I presume this remains true even with the rehabilitation of Robinson’s Arch (see below). This is something the Conservative and Reform movements tried to obfuscate well into the 1990’s, but spokespersons (such as Anat Hoffman, Meretz politician and entirely secular in Jewish affiliation) developed an annoying habit of admitting to open microphones that the only “prayer services” generating controversy were more aptly described as political rallies.

But furthermore, Israel spent millions of dollars configuring a section of the Kotel as a space for non-Orthodox prayer services, in response to the demands of the Conservative movement. Three years ago, I endorsed the Masorti claim that it was inappropriate for the government to turn around and charge an entrance fee to those coming for prayer, now that the Robinson’s Arch area is an archaeological garden. And when the fee was withdrawn, “the Conservative Movement called the agreement ‘a victory for pluralistic Judaism in Israel and a move towards total equality among Jewish movements in Israel.’”

As I discovered upon searching for prayer at Robinson’s Arch, it is being used — but not, apparently, by Conservative Jews. Hess, CEO of the Conservative movement in Israel, seems to have already forgotten that the Israeli government spent millions of dollars to create a place at the Kotel for a young woman to pray with a kippa, tallit, sefer Torah, 2 turtle doves and an electric guitar. Perhaps it is because now that there is no political capital to be gained from doing so, the interest has dissipated.

If there is anything of value to be learned from the article, it is Hess’ admission that the Conservative movement, even in its more traditional Israeli wing, has abandoned any pretense of Halachic observance on no less critical a matter than conversion. “What will the Jewish federation president, whose wife was converted Reform,” Hess asks, “think when his daughter, who has made aliya, tells him in tears that she cannot get married in the Jewish state?” Apparently, Hess has no problem with the idea that a person with no pretense of Halachic membership in Am Yisrael should be listed as a Jew in the Jewish state, with all that that might imply for future generations.

So what is to be made of this senseless anti-Orthodox diatribe? It’s not worth, frankly, taking offense. It is a sign of a foundering movement that has so lost direction that its only remaining method for self-inspiration is through casting aspersions upon others — namely the Orthodox. It is a further indication that we won’t be seeing more essays of this nature (or any other) from the Conservative movement within a century… if not much sooner. How many of them will return to Judaism, and how many will be lost? That is the question, and that is the challenge.