Author Archives: Rabbi

The Wall and its Shadow

   The controversy in Emanuel has certainly generated acrimony but even more confusion. What exactly happened is itself disputed, as is the essence of the dispute. What is certain is that this event illuminates some of the most pressing issues in the Jewish world, is not easily resolved, and might be a watershed moment. Or not. What follows is a preliminary analysis, because the true story has not fully emerged, and might never.

     The thumbnail sketch certainly sounded awful. As reported in the secular press, Ashkenazi parents in Emanuel, a largely Charedi settlement, refused to allow their children to study or socialize with Sefaradi girls in the same school. They even built a wall that divided the campus, and decreed there be separate lunch hours and recess time lest any mingling took place. After a lawsuit, Israel’s High Court ruled that the school must be integrated, and held in contempt (and jailed) parents who refused to comply with the Court order. Immense demonstrations ensued, by Charedim against the court, mainly in Yerushalayim and Bnai Brak, against the intervention of the secular court system in a Torah-education matter.

     Obviously, the secular media, willfully or not, followed the template of the American South, and trotted out terms like “separate but equal,” “segregation,” Bull Connor,” “racism,” and the like – and so got the story wrong. It seems that the dispute was not at all Ashkenazi v. Sefaradi; three of the families whose parents went to prison were Sefaradim. The “offensive” school in question has roughly a 27% Sefaradi population, and the school “discriminated against” has roughly a 33% Ashkenazi population. So racism was patently not the issue, although the accusation is so trite and familiar that it alone is tantamount to a conviction and sentence, and provoked a stream of lamentations about racism in the religious world. Good penance for the self-flagellation, or anti-religious, set.

     The real issue, apparently, is troubling for a different reason: the segregation was mandated because of religious differences between the parent bodies and hashkafot (world views) of the two schools. Parents who wanted their children to attend the “Charedi” school had to abide by a series of personal restrictions in their home life. The precise nature of those restrictions is unknown to me, but I can easily guess most of them – dress code, television, etc. The inability to create two completely separate schools led to the physical divisions on the school property, followed by the parental complaints about discrimination, the lawsuit and decision, and protests. Charedim do not take kindly to being ordered to compromise their religious practices, and especially by those – and Israel’s High Court is notorious in its disdain for the sanctity of Torah and the world-view of religious Jews (charedi, modern, or right-wing) – who do not share their core values.

     All sides are to blame for this fiasco, and the black eye given to Torah. The High Court’s involvement was a typical mistake; its tolerance for Torah is so infinitesimal that its decisions in this realm could never be accepted, no matter what they decided. They simply have no credibility, justifiably so, and most religious Jews – Chareidim or not – challenged to follow the Torah’s mandates or the dictates of this Court – so relentlessly anti-religious for many years – will obviously choose to obey the Torah, and not really think twice about it.

     But, what exactly was the great religious principle at stake here ? Certainly, parents have the right to create their own educational framework and insist on even very restrictive behavioral norms – but not when the school is publicly funded. Private schools have greater flexibility, and even if this particular Charedi school is somewhat autonomous, the government that provides the funding has the right to expand the student population, within reason.

     And there is the crux of the problem as I see it: were the differences between the religious standards in the two “schools” sufficient enough to warrant two separate schools  – and to build a wall between the schools – as if the less rigorous group is ritually impure ? Shouldn’t Jewish education encompass the notion of “love of all Jews” – not in theory but in practice, and especially all Jews who are committed to halacha ? Jewish law and practice are not so monolithic (to be sure, neither is it completely open-ended) that it cannot tolerate slightly different standards of practice, and even lower standards. Must we identify and isolate from religious schools children of parents who have a television or internet access in their homes, or whose the mothers don’t cover their hair or whose sleeves expose their forearms, or eat Rabbanut hashgacha, or serve in the army, or don’t serve in the army, or plan on learning full-time, or plan on working full-time ?

     One of my great teachers once said that there are Jews who act as if there are only 12 or 13 Jews in the whole world – only their tiny group constitutes the “true believers” – and everyone else is either illegitimate or inferior. But that is not how we were created; G-d formed us as a nation with all types of people, who would interact, learn from and try to better each other. That is why we were divided into twelve tribes, and why those tribes included great Torah scholars, farmers and craftsmen – and pious people, learned people, impious people and ignorant people. But we remain a nation, and that is best fostered by integration, not segregation.

     Saddest of all is that the protests, even if warranted, bring to the fore the great flaw of Charedi life and lifestyle – and interpretation of Torah. Advice in a nutshell: it is impolitic to bite the hand that feeds you. With an unemployment rate of close to 65% of males between the ages of 25-65 (astounding, and the highest in the industrial world), Charedim are financially sustained by a larger community that is growing more and more resentful of their antics, even as they are ignorant of their enormous contributions. Chesed is great, and Chevra Kadisha is wonderful, but those are not jobs that put money on the table. To vent against a society that works and fights for Charedim, when they largely absent themselves from these nation-building tasks, is imprudent, to say the least.

     To say the most, it puts the Torah in a negative light, broadcasting to the world – Jewish and general – that the Torah is incompatible with life in a modern state. It says, in essence, that a modern state cannot defend itself or support itself according to the laws of the Torah, and the Torah’s ideals can never be the foundation or governing policy of a real nation. That is heresy, but it is difficult to refute the charge that the Charedim are primarily responsible for fostering that heresy in our world.

    I understand their grievances, their antipathy to the High Court, and their fears of eroding the high standards they seek for themselves by interacting with society. But you can’t build a wall in a schoolyard and expect the insulted to pay for it and guard it. You can’t withdraw from the world because of fear. You can’t educate your children to be unproductive in society and expect others to foot the bill in perpetuity. Great acts of personal kindness cannot substitute for “you are praiseworthy when you eat the fruits of your own hands” (Psalms 128:2). Dedication to Torah study must accompany the obligation to love all Jews, especially when those differences are nuances and not fundamental principles of Judaism (and even in the latter case, the obligation remains to love those Jews as well). Otherwise we run the risk of disassociating ourselves from other Jews based on the minutiae of hat size or shape, following this Rebbi or that one, or other small things that become magnified amongst people that are so similar but do not at all define the individual’s spiritual state.

    We should remind ourselves that there is a prohibition to be poresh min hatzibur (separate oneself from the community), and that tzibur includes – as the acronym would have it – tzadikim, beinonim v’resha’im – the righteous, the intermediates and (even) the wicked. There are no “wicked” in this tale, and that should make it easier for all involved to co-exist, to build together, and to live and learn together, all for the glory of Hashem, His Torah and His people.

The Decline and Fall of Newsweek

    I’ve been reading Newsweek since 1975, when, as a Yeshiva student in Israel, I subscribed in order to keep abreast of world events when otherwise not ensconced in the study of Torah. It’s been 3½ decades, and my subscription that lapses this coming August will not be renewed. And the reasons are reflective of the state of American culture – and mainstream journalism – today.

     Newsweek has always been a reliably liberal publication, with the sop to the right-wing in the erudite and enlightening form of the bi-monthly columns of George F. Will. Indeed, Newsweek and the NY Times (that subscription I cancelled in early 2009) were windows into the liberal world and mindset, usually sophistic but necessary to illuminate the viewpoints of the opposition (in the Reagan and Bush years) and the government (Clinton and Obama administrations). It is important not to live or think in an echo chamber, or conduct one’s discourse on public issues with only like-minded thinkers. That is a sure route to intellectual stultification, or, what has transpired in the last decade and a half, people on opposite sides of the political spectrum just yelling past each other.

    I can’t take it anymore, and it is not Newsweek’s politics but its in-your-face immorality that is so off-putting, and has likely led it to the brink of bankruptcy (not unlike the NY Times). It loses $30M annually, its owner (the Washington Post Corporation) is looking for a buyer, its circulation has dropped precipitously, and it could very well disappear in the next few years. The ridicule of conservatives and Republicans, the genuflection before President Obama, the Israel-bashing (in the style of “Haaretz,” so it escapes an anti-Israel label), the unconcealed derision of religion and traditional values and the snide, snippy and sneering attitude towards Sarah Palin, et al, are all faintly tolerable, even if despicable. (Its recent photo spread of the alleged devastation in Gaza – without the context that the destroyed sites were launching pads for rockets against innocent Israeli civilians – is typical, as well as morally repugnant.) But Newsweek’s celebration of decadence and its advocacy of the overturning of the social order are intolerable. Scarcely a week goes by without some crack about religion or an opinion piece denigrating traditional morality and those who live their lives accordingly.

    Here are classic cases in point: Last week’s edition touted on the cover “A Case against Marriage,” a tendentious and saddening piece about the “growing movement” among educated women against marriage, an institution they find irrelevant and unnecessary in their lives. They cite “studies” that little accord with real life, and present women who are unable to project the dire loneliness they will feel in years to come or who deny the obvious harm caused to children who are raised by single mothers by choice. Well, it is certainly a viewpoint, but in typical Newsweek fashion, no attempt was made to present the “other side” – the Case for Marriage, how or why marriage has been the bedrock of civilization and family since ancient times, and how marriage is the foundation of one’s personal happiness according to every study. No balance at all.

     Now contrast that with two other Newsweek classics – the December 2008 AND January 2010 “Cases for Gay Marriage.” (It obviously did not suffice to share this viewpoint only once, and the latter was even a cover story.) Again, there was no attempt at balance, no presentation of the case why homosexual marriage is detrimental to civil society.

     To summarize, in Newsweek’s topsy-turvy, confused moral universe, heterosexuals need not marry; the only couples who should marry in society are homosexuals. If so, biblical Sodom has been re-born, and its flagship publication emanates from Washington, DC. No wonder Newsweek’s circulation and advertising revenue have collapsed. It is so far out of the mainstream of American life that it has become a dinosaur, a tawdry curiosity. Its values are so askew that I find it embarrassing to receive such a publication in the mail, even if it came wrapped in brown paper.

     It is not merely the debauchery, which is still just an opinion, but primarily Newsweek’s pretense that its degenerate views reflect the coming attractions of American life. In fact, its celebration of these alternate lifestyles is an effort not to report the news or even modern social trends – but to influence those very trends, as if regularly reading about them will make them appear normal and conventional to their readership. Perhaps, it does, and undoubtedly that is why their readership is disappearing faster than Obama’s popularity. But its moral stain and ethical pollution linger, like the oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

     Fortunately, there are other vehicles from which one can receive news – and real news, not the perverted versions of the liberal press – and even news with a liberal tint. Decent people – those who wish to keep society decent, moral and civilized – have options at their disposal. It is a free society, and we are all free to read and not read what we want. We are free to employ our values when making purchases of products, books or magazines. That is what I am doing in cancelling my subscription.

      Newsweek’s descent into the cultural sewer presages its disappearance from the American journalistic scene. When it fails, it will undoubtedly attribute its problems to the Internet and the ease of acquisition of news and information from that venue. It will claim that with news literally available every minute of every day in real time, there is no need for a “weekly” newsmagazine, which is dated even before it is received. That is true, but not relevant. Newsweek’s failure will come about through its self-destruction – its embrace of the unholy and ungodly as sacraments and the dissolute lifestyle as appealing and natural. It is so far gone that it is incapable of recognizing that it has become disconnected from the virtues that sustain American life. Newsweek lost me and thousands of others not because of the Internet but because of its own depravity. There are plenty of news publications that endorse traditional values – the monthly Newsmax, for one – and ultimately the inculcation of good values matters much more than a shallow education about some nuances of domestic politics.

    In the meantime, the death watch for Newsweek has begun. Good riddance !

Remembering Nothing

      The Obama administration long ago deleted all references to “Islam,” “radical Islam,” or even the word “terror” in its discussions of America’s ongoing war against…radical Islamic terror. This, undoubtedly part of its world view, adheres to the troubling pattern that has afflicted Westerners for almost a decade now.

     The National Education Association, the largest teacher’s union in the United States, routinely urges its educators to commemorate the anniversary of the Islamic-Arab terrorism on September 11, 2001, by omitting any reference to the perpetrators, Islamic-Arab terrorists. They feared that such an explicit rendering of the facts would harm efforts at diversity and arouse prejudice and intolerance.

     Sbarro’s Pizza Restaurant in Yerushalayim, destroyed amid terrible human carnage in August 2001, dedicated its memorial one year later. The plaque, which hung on the wall until the restaurant closed, read: “In eternal memory of the darkness that fell upon us” (translation mine) – as if Sbarro’s and its patrons had been afflicted by an electrical blackout, and not an Arab suicide bomber, on that fateful summer afternoon.

     The moving memorial (in front of the Teaneck Municipal Building) to Teaneck’s Sara Duker, hy”d, murdered in 1996 by Arab terrorists in the Gaza Strip, mourns her life which was tragically cut short by “violence” – place, purpose and perpetrators apparently unknown, or, at least, unmentionable.

     Imagine reading an account of the Holocaust that consciously and studiously deleted any reference to Germans or Nazis (or Jews, for that matter). Or, imagine if the Torah blandly commanded us to “remember what happened to you when you left Egypt”, period – instead of underscoring that we were attacked, in a dastardly and unprovoked way, by a nation which forever epitomizes evil – Amalek – and that we are adjured never to forget what Amalek did, even to wage eternal war against them. Imagine these two alternative, revisionist histories, and the examples brought above, and a clear pattern emerges: there is an ongoing, willful attempt to obscure, gloss over, or minimize the identity of the perpetrators of almost all of the terrorism in the world today, and for the last three decades. Why is that ?

     In the best-case scenario, many good-hearted people perceive man as naturally good, and evil as a gross aberration. Evil, therefore, exists as an entity, a concept, or as a failure of the human being – but it never inheres in the person. It is therefore unconstructive to associate the evildoers with the evil they have done. There are no evil people; there are only good people who do evil acts.

     This notion persists, despite its unequivocal rejection by the Torah. After the flood, Hashem advises Noach (Breisheet 8:21) that “the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth”, meaning from birth (Rashi). Judaism maintains that the unfettered, unrefined, untrained – i.e., morally unguided or natural – human being is a primitive, savage beast capable of committing the worst atrocities without a trace of guilt. As Jews, and after enduring two millennia of persecution, we should not need to be reminded of this.

      There are other possibilities why the identity of murderers is being systematically concealed. Perhaps, their identity is so obvious that it is unnecessary to state it. Or, it is unpleasant or unsettling to think about them. Or, there is a tangible fear that those who point it out will themselves become targets of attack (presumably from members of the same unnamed group). Or, perhaps there is concern that identifying the perpetrators as, disassociate themselves from the heinous crimes being committed and planned in their names.

      Of course, those standards were never applied (and are still not applied) when we classified past persecutors of Jews as Germans, or Poles, or Ukrainians, etc. Surely not every German, Pole, Ukrainian, etc. was a Jew-hater or Jew-killer. Yet, those groups were regularly categorized without qualification, i.e., stereotyped, because the stereotype was largely true. Those who disassociated themselves from the group – overtly or covertly – were so miniscule in number as not to be reflective of the group in general.

      The Arabs have escaped these natural consequences, largely because of the innate American reluctance to tolerate group stereotyping (cf. the abhorrence of racial profiling, which has made a mockery of attempts to upgrade airport security), but also because of a massive multi-billion dollar public relations campaign now underway in America, paid for by the Saudis, and designed to preclude and pre-empt such conclusions. But we ignore reality at our peril. It is undeniable that most Arabs are not terrorists, but equally undeniable that in today’s world most terrorists are Arabs (or Muslims). And if even 10% of America’s Muslims support terror, then there are well over 100,000 people in the United States willing to murder innocent people to achieve political goals. And if only 10% of the world’s Muslims support terror, that leaves 100,000,000 people out to commit mayhem. This alone should give us pause for thought, and for honest remembrance.

     One further example of the obfuscation of today’s evil is the media’s (and government’s) tendency to compartmentalize the “bad guys.” It’s Al Qaeda, it’s the Taliban, it’s Osama bin Laden, it was Saddam Hussein – in other words, an insignificant number of evildoers rather than a wealthy, sophisticated mass movement that numbers millions of adherents and tens of millions of tacit supporters.

     We are unfortunately well aware that since the Nazis, the primary murderers of Jews in the world have been Arab Muslims. We should be more aware that since the end of the Vietnam War, the primary murderers and tormentors of Americans in the world have also been Muslims, and primarily Arabs. The 1979 seizure of the United States embassy in Teheran, the American hostages there and in Beirut, the bombings of the embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 258 Americans, the destruction of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, the homicides of Rabbi Meir Kahane and young Ari Halberstam, hy”d, in New York, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the destruction of the Egypt Air flight that killed 217 people off the coast of New York City, the 1998 attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 224, and the September 11, 2001 massacres which extinguished more than 3,000 innocent lives were all Arab/Muslim productions, and only a sampling at that.

     Certainly, one would hope, not every Arab or Muslim across the globe is a sponsor of terrorism, and a relative handful (mainly in America, but elsewhere as well) have denounced terrorism as a grave distortion of Islam. Many of those Muslim repudiators of terror have themselves become subject to death threats and hate mail, and have been silenced. And, of course, mere membership in a group is no indication of guilt, and no inherent reason to ascribe guilt. But, tellingly, many across the Middle East (the Saudis are a prime example) have condemned the attacks on America, while continuing to underwrite and exhort terrorism against Jews in Israel and elsewhere. It is not the murder or the mayhem that is inherently offensive, they seem to be saying, it is the lack of prudence in selecting an American target and not an exclusively Jewish one. In the Arab Muslim world, we have yet to hear of a substantial outpouring of soul-searching or even a massive wave of revulsion at the terrorism that blackens their names and defines their movements in the popular mind.

     Evil is not amorphous or abstract. It has a name, a face, an address, and an ideology. It is easier to forget, look away, and mask the hideousness of what Arab terrorists did and are still trying to do – mask it behind euphemisms, conceal it behind political correctness, submerge it in a torrent of pale palaver and innocuous nattering, and drown it in a raging river of wishful thinking. But we must be vigilant, as Jews and Americans, to combat evil, hate it passionately, weaken its perpetrators, hasten its demise, and avidly support the defenders of freedom and morality.

     Those who persist in believing in the intrinsic goodness of man have to account for the 150,000,000 human beings murdered in the 20th century alone. To distort the truth while purporting to remember the past is to remember nothing, to dishonor the victims, and to facilitate the murders of the future. Sadly, the Obama administration follows this naïve path, contorting to disassociate Islam from the Fort Worth killer, the underwear bomber, et al, and every murder whose root is directly traceable to radical Islamists.

    The Torah teaches us the nature of evil, how to recognize it, how to combat it, and how to defeat it. And it also teaches us that the destruction of evil – Amalek incarnate – is the precursor to the Messianic age, when man’s goodness, freed of the shackles of ego, strife, evil, greed, and jealousy, will flourish and triumph. Let us hasten that day by remembering Amalek (by name), by unflinchingly supporting the war against evil, and by being lovers of justice and truth.

The Blame Game

     What is outrageous about President Obama’s pledge to “kick” the posteriors of the BP officials who have offended him is not its crassness but its utter senselessness. America has long suffered from a decline of elementary decency in public discourse, and Obama’s vulgarity shatters another barrier. But it was as contrived to feign anger and seriousness as was the elder President Bush’s heeding his advisors’ plea to show that he “cares” about the economic hardship endured by those during the early 1990’s recession by actually stating, in a speech, that the point of his speech was: “Message: I Care.” Obama’s remark was just as hollow.

    But what does it actually mean that an American president will assault someone’s backside ? Will he strike them physically ? Will he take away their money ? He has already ordered BP not to pay dividends to their shareholders, presumably based on some constitutional provision that only he, adjunct professor of Con Law that he was, knows. Will he have them arrested – and for what ? BP has lost billions, and surely would rather earn money selling oil than waste money cleaning up spills, and watching millions of barrels of oil literally washed away. Will Obama invite BP executives to the White House – or other officials – and chase them around, extending his foot at their derrieres as they race around the Oval Office ? If they kick back in self-defense, can they be prosecuted for assaulting the president ? And once they have had their rear ends spanked, has the president solved the problem ?  And is the message that the president wants to send to the public and impressionable youngsters not the choice use of barnyard expressions but the efficacy of settling disputes through violence ?

      Actually, no. The message the president wants to send is one that has become increasingly grating and difficult to stomach: whatever happens, anywhere, anytime, is not his fault. His faux fury briefly changes the subject, engenders discussions of propriety and classiness (or the lack thereof), so there is a respite of several days until the question re-surfaces: what exactly has President Obama – keen environmentalist that he is – done to prevent or repair the greatest environmental catastrophe ever to strike American shores ? And the answer is: nothing.

    One can fairly ask: what can he do ? What should he have done ? But no such consideration was given to  President Bush after the New Orleans levees broke in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and inundated that city. He was held to be a heartless incompetent, and led by the shrill liberal media chorus, saw his administration effectively ruined. Bu what could Bush have done ? Primary responsibility initially was in the hands of Louisiana’s Democratic governor and New Orleans’ Democratic Mayor, who at first refused Bush’s offer of the National Guard and then could not deal with the crisis. (The Mayor, in classic political form, was later re-elected despite his ineptitude.) By coincidence, I visited New Orleans less than two months before Katrina, as another hurricane was about to strike that city (it missed), causing a mass exodus that frustrated the population and led many to stay put rather than leave again when Katrina blew in. The levees themselves were long in need of refurbishing but –politics, politics – the local politicians always preferred to spend money on other projects (likely to gain them more votes) than on reinforcing infrastructure. And that is still true today, across the country. People would rather have a new park or community center built than repair an old bridge – until the bridge collapses and they rail against the politicos for their lack of foresight.

     What is most disturbing is that, yet again, Obama obsesses on deflecting fault from himself on everything, especially the economy. It is unseemly that the administration – 18 months into its term – still blames today’s economy on President Bush when, by now, Obama’s own policies – the mad spending spree that has added trillions to the national debt – have prolonged the downturn and might be thwarting the recovery. The unpopularity of the health care reform is, similarly, the fault of others – usually the evil Republicans.

     It is not only the economy. Others are at fault for Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran’s nukes, the price of oil, the environment, the Democratic losses in Congress, and Obama’s shrinking poll numbers. I don’t recall Reagan blaming Carter for the economic disaster he inherited – he changed course and implemented policies that lowered interest rates and inflation. I don’t recall Eisenhower blaming Truman for the mess he inherited in Korea (of course, I wasn’t born yet). I don’t recall Bush blaming Clinton for letting Osama bin Laden escape, and leaving the country ill-prepared for the Arab terror of 9/11. Worse than unseemly, it evinces the exact opposite of leadership. The blame game is a flight from personal responsibility that is unbecoming and un-presidential, and that – at a certain point long past – even supporters must see through.

    People always seek scapegoats, and Jews are certainly and painfully familiar with that sad dynamic. But sometimes things just happen; accidents that could not be anticipated occur and wreak great havoc. The criminal investigation is a diversion and waste of time and energy, another play in the blame game. Sure, they may find some statute predicated on recklessness (“should have known…”) for which the government can prosecute and look like heroes when they collect fines. But if “they” should have known, should the President also have known ? Oil spills are exceedingly rare. But the devastation caused is not eased by a woeful attempt to castigate others, as if the country’s Chief Executive has little influence. He has influence, but this is a good reminder that even the president is not all-powerful.

    The president does have a bully pulpit. A president takes responsibility – the country’s leading adult. The buck stops with him. If Obama has a better idea than the BP engineers, then offer it. To date, Obama’s response to the oil rig disaster has been shrill talk, firing the head (some poor Jewish woman) of the Minerals Management Agency, making speeches, holding photo ops, looking engaged – but not doing anything. If his economic policies are prolonging unemployment, then change them. If his foreign policy has left America weaker – and less popular across the globe – than under President Bush, then re-evaluate. Shift gears. Forget Bush, Mr. President. You own these problems now. Do something, or step aside. Don’t play the race card that your acolytes keep at the top of their deck, and don’t run against Bush this November or in 2012. It won’t work, and the country cannot wait.

      Based on past experience, that plea is likely to go unmet. But, even so, Obama would do well to leave people’s posteriors where they belong, and unkicked.