Israel "Helpless" To Stop Rampant Haredi Child Abuse, Ynet Reports

Also, we have more on the Orthodox woman who raped her own children to get back at her ex-husband, posted below in the extended post…

Here's the Ynet report:

State helpless in face of skeletons in haredi closet
In spite of efforts by welfare officials, local rabbis, state authorities are unable to curb rampant child abuse in ultra-Orthodox families
Yael Branovsky
Published: 04.03.08, 08:03 / Israel Jewish Scene

One harrowing case after another, yet welfare officials stand by helpless: Faced with a string of heart wrenching cases of child abuse in the haredi community, even state officials now concede that they have only been able to reach this closed community on rare occasions, and often too late.

One recent, disturbing case, for instance, in which a Netivot mother had sexually abused her son, only came to light when the son began to attend boarding school and molested a fellow pupil. The social workers who handled his case quickly realized that the child had no idea that what he was doing was wrong.

New generation of rabbis encouraging battered Orthodox women to seek help, involve police. Welfare minister: Conspiracy of silence on this issue slowly being broken
Full story
Dalia Lev-Sade, director of community services at the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, stated in an interview with Ynet that seeing as the haredi community is so sequestered, haredi children enjoy less exposure to societal conventions of right and wrong.

“This is a group that is extremely closed off from the rest of the world, and so many times we are unaware of problems within the community and cannot intervene.”

“The case in Beit Shemesh is a classic example,” recounts Lev- Sade. ”Even though the family was monitored by welfare services, the social workers involved could not fully understand the family, nor the essence of the problems it was facing, because they kept such closely guarded family secrets. Only when something drastic occurs can we actually begin to take action.”

The ultra-Orthodox community, however, is slowly becoming more open, according to Lev-Sade. “The haredi community is slowly opening up and coming to realize that you can’t keep the skeletons in the closet forever.”

Orlet Moyal, director of welfare services at the Bnei Brak Municipality, tends to haredi families on a daily basis and knows all too well that that road to reaching this clandestine community is long and torturous. “It was nearly impossible to reach the haredi community just a few years ago, but we began to come up with creative means of reaching this community without offending its sensibilities.

“We wanted to be able to reach the haredi community before things became disastrous,” says Moyal, "and so we contacted local rabbis and rabbinical councils and urged them to mediate and intervene when families were reluctant to accept help.”

'More willingness to report abuse'
Dr. Yitzhak Kadman, head of the National Council for the Child, believes that it is the closed and reticent nature of the haredi community that in many instances precludes intervention by state authorities in child abuse cases.

“The haredi community firmly opposes airing its dirty laundry out in public, like we saw with many kibbutz communities in the past. The haredi community is extremely concerned about its public images, and in many cases rabbis did not allow families to go to the police and report abuse.”

Kadman noted, however, that this trend is mercifully changing. “In recent years there is more willingness among haredi families to report abuse. In our council alone, 30% of individuals involved in a project tending to victims of sexual abuse are haredi.”

Doron Aggasi, director of the Shlom Banecha foundation, which aids victims of sexual abuse and violence in the haredi community, stated that the recent public cases of child abuse within the haredi community indicate that the haredi world is changing for the better when it comes to reporting such crimes.

“These kinds of cases were often stifled in the past, because the haredi community was unwilling to disclose anything. Now however, people are far more aware of issues such as sexual abuse and familial violence, be it through exposure to the internet or other sources.”

Aggasi maintains that it is rabbis that are at the forefront of these positive changes in the haredi community.

“Rabbis have asked me about the best treatment options for pedophilia and sexual deviance, and we are currently training social workers to treat both victims and perpetrators.

"In this respect, the haredi community has bypassed its secular counterpart by far, because this is a very motivated, obedient society that has taken heavy handed measures to help curb such phenomenon.”

Roi Mandel contributed to this article

This is part of what was a larger Ynet series on sexual abuse in the haredi community. What we have appears to be only the article reporting the alleged good news, not the article reporting, I'm told, four cases of horrific haredi child abuse in the past week alone.

I said this on another post and I'll say it again – the progress toward normalcy in the haredi world is only as good as its outcomes.

That means real support for victims, even when the alleged molester is a big rabbi. It means no coercion to silence, no quirt 'solutions' that avoid the criminal justice system, no shipping off abusers to rape and molest their way through another community.

It also means no delusions.

The idea that pedophilia can be successfully treated (successful outcomes are exceedingly rare) and therefore molesters who have received or who are receiving treatment can be left in place with free access to victims is simply not acceptable.

It does not matter which big rabbi claims which abuser is "cured." Cured or not, he cannot be left alone with children, cannot serve as a teacher, etc.

This would seem to be obvious. But, in haredi communities, it is not. A leading Gerrer rabbi claims he has "cured" Avrohom Mondrowitz – this despite child porn found in Mondrowitz's home and the fact that Mondrowitz to this day has never so much as apologized to the boys he raped.

The Ynet report also fails to mention something that has changed the equation in haredi society, something that is brining change – blogs and the Internet.

Blogs and message boards provide what haredi media will not – access to information unflattering to haredi leaders, including information about haredi pedophilia and rabbinic coverups. This information is often downloaded by one person, printed and quietly passed around to others without access to the Internet. For all but the most sheltered haredim, the information is there to be found. And many of them have done so.

Without this (relatively) free flow of information, there would be no real change.

Perhaps Ynet will translate the other articles in this series so the context is returned.

Now a word about the two pictures posted below. Both come from Ynet, and are pictures of the Orthodox woman who admitted Tuesday to molesting and raping her own children to get back at her ex-husband. The top picture is the one that ran Monday night. The bottom is from today's paper and was used to illustrate the above story:

On Tuesday, commenters here accused me of bias because I labeled this woman Orthodox. Her skirt, said one, could very well be pants. No matter, it was clear, they said, that I was a bigot.

Of course, today's picture clearly shows the woman, wearing a skirt and a blouse rarely seen outside haredi society, with her hair in a snood, a religious hair covering.

And Ynet has identified the woman as haredi.

It is very easy for these commenters – all anonymous by the way – to hurl insults, especially when those insults are hurled at someone whom they deem an Other.

They all have long histories here of just such behavior.

They are, I believe, representative of what haredi society is. And, perhaps, we will see more on this in the days to come.

Comments

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.BostonChabad.com]

B"H
If the Israeli government or any government wants to combat abuse in closed communities it should empower their own leadership to be able to punish the abusers.
In communities like this where the leadership is held in high regard yet has no real legal powers silence is encouraged to prevent chilul Hashem however if one could go to the local Beis Din and complain the Beis Din would have the power to order malkus (lashes) , fines etc. on the members of its community this issue , the fear of chilul Hashem and hence the abuse itself would have been deminished.
Also note the artcle mentions Kibutzim (not exactly Charedim to say the least) as another group that was notorios for hiding its internal scandals.

[jewishwhistleblower]

Note: alleged abusers Shimon Gabbai and Rabbi Elior Chen still at large

1) Court denies bail to two moms in abuse cases
By Jonathan Lis and Ofra Edelman
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/971187.html

2) Jerusalem child abuser to be indicted next week
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207159746535&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
...
The woman's three-year-old child remains hospitalized in critical condition with severe head injuries, and is likely to remain in a vegetative state, officials said.
...

3) Rise in child abuse or a media creating 'moral panic'?
By RUTH EGLASH
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1207159746528&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Yochanan Lavie]

Reb Ariel writes:

If the Israeli government or any government wants to combat abuse in closed communities it should empower their own leadership to be able to punish the abusers.

In a modern nation-state, the state has a monopoly on violent power (police, army, etc.). In a pre-modern state, such as the old empires, communities are empowered to run themselves, provided they keep social peace and give fealty to the Ruler.

Outside arbitrators, included Batei Din, can be empowered as binding powers if the parties involved agree. They cannot, however, enforce imprisonment, corporal, or capital punishment- just monetary and social sanctions. That's as far as any modern state will go, and rightfully so.

If not, authoritarian cults such as the Moonies, Scientology, Hare Krishna, fundie Muslims, etc. will run little tyrannical fiefdoms where the members are helpless and have no recourse for appeal. (You might say, "Yes, but we're different! We know we have the truth!" They all say that).

I don't want to return to tribal self-rule; I prefer the (imperfect) modern rule of law. So how would Reb Ariel's proposal play out?

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.BostonChabad.com]

B"H

I don't want to return to tribal self-rule; I prefer the (imperfect) modern rule of law. So how would Reb Ariel's proposal play out?
It would play out in a similar way as currently Muslim neighborhoods in England and France are essentially governed by Sharyah law. If there is an altercation between community members police only comes in with the permission of the recognized leadership of the community.
It is the purpose of the state to ensure peace and harmony within its borders not to push whatever modern ideology is currently popular among its leadership on various ethnic and religious communities.
Each monolithic community that has a strong
internal leadership recognized by its members should be given ability to govern itself as much as possible for all matters that arise internally.

Ariel - next time I'm in Boston please introduce me to your dealer. That is some powerful crack.

[Yossi]

Allow Rabbis to apply corporal punishment as they see fit? When money and yichus are already such detrimental influences already in those communities? That's yet another step closer to becoming Iran. Pity the person who's a non-comformist, in the slightest degree, if Haredi rabbis are given such power.

[Archie Bunker]

Shmarya, you are really getting childish in your old age.

And you should get a free pass for insulting and smearing all kinds of elderly scholars because they symbolize something you despise with their white beards but no one can say a cross word back to you?

Get a life.

[Archie Bunker]

Notice that Shmarya hyperlinks 2 comments disputing his description of the first unclear picture, claiming that he is being insulted when there are no insults contained in those comments.

He goes to wail like a crybaby that he is under attack for his "otherness".

Who knew Shmarya was such a fragile softee who loses it at the most remote perceived slight?

GRANT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO THE LIKES OF LIPA MARGOLIS & THE REST OF THE HEAR-NO-EVIL-SEE-NO-EVIL GANG?

I don't know what your smoking but I'm surprised you could type a comment on anything that strong.

I can just imagine the verdict if a panal of roshai yeshiva would be appointed to decide the fate of Yehuda Kolko:

'Yeah, mistam if so many boys claim to been shtupped mistam we should be choishesh that he shouldn't be teaching but ehr hut a groisser mishpochah and even if he finds another line of work his daughters won't find good shidduchim vee spast for the daughter of azah talmid chuchem and anyway he promised he'd be more careful mikan ulehabah so he can stay on as a rebbeh in the cheder but only until the last of his grandchildren are married off."

[Archie Bunker]

Shmarya of course must know all about "otherness". That is the code word used to describe the reason for the attraction people have to each other in interracial dating.

[Shmarya]

Notice that Shmarya hyperlinks 2 comments disputing his description of the first unclear picture, claiming that he is being insulted when there are no insults contained in those comments.

He goes to wail like a crybaby that he is under attack for his "otherness".

Who knew Shmarya was such a fragile softee who loses it at the most remote perceived slight?

So this is how you admit your mistakes? Pathetic.

[Archie Bunker]

No SHmarya. The word perceived, in case you didn't know, means that you are imagining that you were insulted in that case.

What's the underlying problem? Do you suffer from paranoia?

[Shmarya]

Still can't admit you're wrong, can you?

Most knowledgeable person looking at that first picture would come to the conclusion the woman is Orthodox and most likely haredi.

What I originally wrote is well within reason.

Your objection – and others, as well – was not.

My point of posting these two pictures today was not so much to show that you were wrong – most people realized that Tuesday.

My point was to show that you are incapable of normal discourse, that you would not apologize or concede error, and that you would lash out with more insults and inane rejoinders rather than say "I'm sorry."

You have a long history here of making false statement of fact (remember the yarmulke issue, for example?) and then never apologizing or admitting error when proved wrong.

This is about your fundamental dishonesty, Bunker, not about my feelings.

[Archie Bunker]

It is you that is wrong to deduce anything from the first picture.

There are for instance Bocharian women who appear to dress Haredi when they are not Sabbath observant or even kosher. They wear dresses, blouses and tichelach. The tichel is obviously not for religious reasons, it is some kind of style from the old country.

And like has been pointed out to you, but which you ignore, there is a type of pants that is shaped like a dress and it could not be discerned from the first picture.

As I pointed out earlier, I still have not seen any indication from the Gra on not wearing a yarmulka although I pointed out that other authorities take the position you cite.

Whatever you claim this is all "about", you are still acting very childish.

[steve]

It bothers me when outright grievous sinners and criminals are labelled as "haredi" or even "orthodox". What makes one Jew haredi while another non-haredi? Is it simply the way they dress and their outward appearance? How does one still refer to Avrohom Mondrowitz, Yudi Kolko, Ephrayim Bryks, et al, as haredim? Haredi is supposed to mean "most religious" or one that fears G-d. These criminals are the least religious and least G-d fearing amongst all Jews! Meanwhile, another hard working, honest, G-d fearing, Torah observant Jew who doesn't have a beard or wear a black hat, can never be referred to as a "haredi", even though he is more religious and G-d fearing than most bearded "haredim". We are so hung up on labelling and stereotyping people that it's gotten absurd. We need to stop looking at the l'vush and start looking at the inside of these people. Also, these criminals should take off their yarmulkes and snoods if they choose to live such lifestyles. We all saw that ABC News picture of the Brooklyn John School with three out of the eight pictured had yarmulkes on. The news report made sure to mention it also. That is a classic chillul hashem and it only adds to the already grievous sins of these sinners/criminals.

[Shmarya]

Bunker –

1. There aren't many Bukarian Jews in Netivot.

2. I was clearly correct.

3. Your were – and remain – wrong.

4. As for the Yarmulke issue, you were given Dan Rabinowitz's article in pdf by another reader. It clearly details everything I said, including the Gra reference.

So, when you write, "I still have not seen any indication from the Gra on not wearing a yarmulka," what you mean to say is that you did not take the brief time necessary to read the article.

So read it, learn a little bit, and then apologize to Rabbi Lookstein for your incorrect assertions against him.

[Shmarya]

It bothers me when outright grievous sinners and criminals are labelled as "haredi" or even "orthodox". What makes one Jew haredi while another non-haredi?…

What makes them haredi is the fact that they still receive aliyot and other honors in haredi synagogues, are treated with respect by haredi rabbinic organizations like Agudah, and have not been removed from the community in any way.

To define haredi or Orthodox as someone who meticulously keeps all commandments to perfection would mean no one is Orthodox or haredi.

These men and women identify with and live in haredi communities and are treated by other haredim as full haredim.

They are, therefore haredi.

[steve]

To define haredi or Orthodox as someone who meticulously keeps all commandments to perfection would mean no one is Orthodox or haredi.

Obviously there is nobody alive today that meticulously keeps all commandments to perfection. I meant that child molesters and other outright criminals should not be referred to as "haredim". There has to be something in between a criminal and a perfect tzaddik.

These men and women identify with and live in haredi communities and are treated by other haredim as full haredim.

What THEY identify with, where they live, how they dress and whether or not they have facial hair does not make them haredi. Nor does it matter how other haredim or others treat them. Notice in all my posts, I never refer to a child molester or enabler as "rabbi", even if they actually have a smicha. If no true rabbi has the guts to take away their smicha, I have done it for them. These scumbags that deserve to be locked up for life, should not even be classified as human beings, let alone be labelled as G-d fearing Jews. If so-called haredim want to still give them kavod and aliyos, then we need to reclassify those "haredim" as well.

[Archie Bunker]

SHmarya, you are being preposterous.

You admit there are at least some Bocharian women in Netivot. You had no shred of evidence to jump the gun that the woman is Haredi. The first article did not describe her. The first picture was not even clear if she wore Haredi style dress.

You can claim I am wrong until you are blue in the face but any thinking person sees right through your charade.

I did not get around to reading Dan Rabinowitz's article yet but what earlier authorities say have little if any bearing on Haskell Lookstein or most others because of what has become binding custom. According to my research and inquiries, Jews of all backgrounds except for Yekkes from Holland, accepted on themselves over the centuries to cover their heads. This also holds true of Sephardic & Oriental Jews, at least according to Rabbi Ovadya Yosef. The issue of binding custom is a different halachic discussion.

If Lookstein is a Yekke of Dutch extraction, I certainly owe him an apology. I will investigate his "yichus".

[A reader]

Never called you a bigot. And the woman can call herself whatever she wants but she acted as an immoral animal.

[A reader]

Somewhat flattered that you hyperlinked to my comment, but nowhere did I insult you in that statement. I don't think I even criticized you!

[Shmarya]

You had no shred of evidence to jump the gun that the woman is Haredi. The first article did not describe her. The first picture was not even clear if she wore Haredi style dress.

I described her as "Orthodox" in my first post, Bunker, not haredi, even though I was very sure she is haredi based on her style of dress. But I wasn't sure enough to say it yet.

You attacked me thee for calling her Orthodox, for the reasons you repeat here.

Yet, she clearly was wearing a very long, loose skirt that is only in style (so to speak) in haredi communities, along with a long sleeve, all white blouse of a style also found almost exclusively in haredi communities.

Her hair seemed to be cover with a snood, as well.

I could see all this with little difficulty – you could 'see' none of it.

Yet, I was correct in my assessment. You were incorrect in yours.

But you used your incorrect assessment to attack me for what you consider to be my extreme bias.

In other words, your 'mistake' (really, your intentional blindness – your own extreme bias) was used to attack me for something in which I was 100% correct.

Past that, you continue that attack without ever admitting your error.

In the haredi community where you live, this may (note the word: "may") be normative behavior.

Outside of haredi communities, however, you just look like a desperate person trying to attack your enemy with whatever you can throw, be it right, be it correct, be it just, no matter.

[maven]

Steve-
"Hareidi" is a sociological definition. Thus, as you point out, people who live within the cohort identified as "hareidi" may not actually be so from a theological standpoint. The appropriate religious statement may be "shomer Torah u'mitzvoth", or the equivalent, which no one is suggesting these criminals are, but it is legitimate to speak sociologically about people who choose to live within the confines of a sociologically determined way of life as determined by clothing, external appearance of maintaining a set of customs, etc. "hanistarot l'hashem...v' haniglot lanu", so the term "niglot" is what defines a sociological cohort. It is fair to speak in these terms, recognizing that it does not mean that these actions are sanctioned by anyone nor even representative.

And Archie- as a proud member of the Bukharian community I take real offense at what you are saying. Why is making this woman Bukharian any better than making her chareidi? There are very few communities that are as loving and caring for their children than are those of the Central Asian Jewish communities. And for the record most are at least masorati. Bukharian kids learned in the Lithuanian yeshivot before the Soviets decimated the religious language and outlawed Tat, the Bukharian "Yiddish". So keep your hateful anti-non-ashkenaz views to yourself (Bukharians are not technically Sepharadim).

[Shmarya]

I did not get around to reading Dan Rabinowitz's article yet

But you still feel comfortable babbling about something you know pretty much nothing about.

but what earlier authorities [like the GRA] say have little if any bearing on Haskell Lookstein or most others because of what has become binding custom. According to my research and inquiries, Jews of all backgrounds except for Yekkes from Holland, accepted on themselves over the centuries to cover their heads

This is false.

If Lookstein is a Yekke of Dutch extraction, I certainly owe him an apology. I will investigate his "yichus".

Actually, Bunker, you owe Rabbi Lookstein an apology for several things, one of them being the idea that a blowhard liek you could attack the man for doing something the halakhot of which you, Bunker, are wholly ignorant.

[Shmarya]

In fact, Bunker, what you did to Rabbi Lookstein is exactly what you accused me of doing to haredim in general with this woman (and the picture).

The difference, though, is that I knew what I was talking about and I was correct.

You do not know what you are talking about and you are also flat out wrong.

[Archie Bunker]

That's right Shmarya, you will keep spinning things endlessly so that you don't have to admit an error.

It doesn't matter if the women was eventually deemed to be orthodox. You jumped the gun at a point when there was no proof. You are trying to use details from various stages to "prove" yourself "correct".

I did not intend to slight Bocharians. My only point was that Bocharians, and there are others, can appear to be Haredi from their style of dress when they are not.

SHmarya also continues to ignore any detail I note that weakens his already piss poor argument. She was not "clearly" wearing a long "skirt" in the first picture, that was cut off. Has SHmarya even seen the type of pants I refer to that looks like a dress?

ANd here's this bubb Shmarya constantly launching volleys at me for my bias when all he does is dig up dirt on orthodox Jews and label a 95 year old rabbi as "evil" over & over because of some twisted logic that forms in his convoluted mind.

I still plan on getting to rabinowitz but SHmarya also ignores the concept of binding custom so it's probably pointless at least where he is concerned.

[Shmarya]

t doesn't matter if the women was eventually deemed to be orthodox. You jumped the gun at a point when there was no proof.

There was proof, Bunker – you were, and are, simply too blind to see it.

I still plan on getting to rabinowitz but SHmarya also ignores the concept of binding custom so it's probably pointless at least where he is concerned.

The "binding custom" in America from day one through much of the 1960s was not to wear a yarmulke in public.

Haredim who came just before, during and immediately after WW2 rejected Minhag America in many areas, from non-halav yisrael milk to head coverings.

Past that, you don't even know the halakha. Why not take a few minutes away from your heavy posting schedule and read Rabinowitz's piece.

Then you can post an apology to Rabbi Lookstein.

[Shmarya]

Somewhat flattered that you hyperlinked to my comment, but nowhere did I insult you in that statement. I don't think I even criticized you!

I see your point.

The idea that it is only because the woman is Orthodox that any identifying mention was made is wrong. The Israeli media regularly identify immigration status, community status, etc., in crime reports.

[steve]

Maven,

The literal meaning of the word "hared" is to tremble (from fear). It is not merely a sociological term but is supposed to connote someone who is very G-d fearing and thus, ultra observant. To think that the term has evolved to simply mean someone who wears a beard and a black hat, or who lives in Boro Park, Lakewood or Bnei Brak, is tragic. I will not give in to such abuse of the term and as such refuse to label criminals as "haredim". They are the direct opposite of haredim for they do not fear G-d in any way.

[maven]

Steve:

Again, from a theological standpoint, I agree, but that's not how the phrase evolved. No one was described as "haredi" until a few years ago in Israel, when it emerged as an alternative descriptor to "dati", which didn't distinguish between kippa seruga and "black hat" communities sociologically. There are no seforim that use the term as a religious goal, there are no historical "charedi" texts, the term doesn't appear as a classification in the classical chassidic, mussar or philosophical works. Not in Mesillat Yesharim, not even in ArtScroll :)
So while I agree with the sentiment, who doesn't get upset when a psycho killer turns out to be Jewish (or sigh with relief when they aren't), what can you do, schizophrenia and mental illness occurs with more or less equal representations across populations, from papua new guinea to benei berak. What differs frequently is the response of the surrounding community. I remember when a mother killed her child in Boro Park a few years ago, they brought Twerski in and helped the mosdot screen for issues, which I thought was commendable. In Israel its harder because of the relationship between some of these extreme groups and their rejection of science, health care, etc. If you've ever lived in these communities, you'd know. That's why the burka lady could be considered a "spiritual leader", there's alot of rejection-of-sociey-as-spirituality that goes on, "healers", etc. Think of Uzi Meshulam, various small time Babas and "roentgens" in the south of Israel, etc.

[Yossi (Joe) Izrael]

Lavie:

Completely off topic, but on topic "BTW":

"In a modern nation-state, the state has a monopoly on violent power (police, army, etc.). In a pre-modern state, such as the old empires, communities are empowered to run themselves, provided they keep social peace and give fealty to the Ruler."

Consider one thing: Militias in the US are legal, not only in theory, but in practice. Yes, their power was largely broken in the 60es and 70es, but they're alive and well. THAT is the main thing keeping the gov't in relative check. In contrast, in Israel there are no militias (but the Communist party is legal!) hence the gov't can let the Jews blow up on buses and in malls on a regular basis, or send their troops into enemy territory without ammo or food. Freedom, Lenin-style.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Joe: I am for the second amendment. Modern states recognize that private citizens can engage in self-defense. I am referring to the Peace of Westphalia in 1649, that ended the Thirty Years War in Europe and created the modern Nation State as we know it. Before that, noblemen had there own armies (not limited, local, militias) in addition to, or instead of, a national army. That's one reason why the 30 yrs war was so bloody (and long). The Treaty, as I understand it, said that only the State shall have an army. Our constitution provides for local militias, hence they are state sanctioned. A local militia does not have its own courts, police force, offensive capability (like tanks, aircraft, nuclear weopons, etc.).

As for the State of Israel, it has no written constitution and is currently run by corrupt incompotents. Jews can, do, and should bust a cap in the ass of any terrorist caught in the act. But once you have well-meaning groups of private citizens launching their own pre-emptive strikes on the terrorists (scumbags though they are) you will end up with Lebanon- a failed state. Israel is in trouble, but its infrastructure is sound, so it's salvagable. It is not a failed state.

Reb Ariel: You are a nice man, but you are smoking a bad brand. One of the reasons decadent Europe is dying is because they have ceded their civilizational rights to pockets of Muslim Fundies who are instituting their barbaric Sharia. That is not a recipe for civil peace, any more than letting the Bloods and Crips take over the gov't of the City of Los Angeles would ensure civil peace (by ending the strife between the bangers and the cops).

And I am sorry if I offend anybody, but halacha has actually gone backwards in the past few years, IMO. In no way do I want to live in a Jewish theocracy either, although I believe in following mitzvot as an individual act of conscience between the INDIVIDUAL and God- and not because some guru with a beard and a militia is forcing me to.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Joe: I am for the second amendment. Modern states recognize that private citizens can engage in self-defense. I am referring to the Peace of Westphalia in 1649, that ended the Thirty Years War in Europe and created the modern Nation State as we know it. Before that, noblemen had there own armies (not limited, local, militias) in addition to, or instead of, a national army. That's one reason why the 30 yrs war was so bloody (and long). The Treaty, as I understand it, said that only the State shall have an army. Our constitution provides for local militias, hence they are state sanctioned. A local militia does not have its own courts, police force, offensive capability (like tanks, aircraft, nuclear weopons, etc.).

As for the State of Israel, it has no written constitution and is currently run by corrupt incompotents. Jews can, do, and should bust a cap in the ass of any terrorist caught in the act. But once you have well-meaning groups of private citizens launching their own pre-emptive strikes on the terrorists (scumbags though they are) you will end up with Lebanon- a failed state. Israel is in trouble, but its infrastructure is sound, so it's salvagable. It is not a failed state.

Reb Ariel: You are a nice man, but you are smoking a bad brand. One of the reasons decadent Europe is dying is because they have ceded their civilizational rights to pockets of Muslim Fundies who are instituting their barbaric Sharia. That is not a recipe for civil peace, any more than letting the Bloods and Crips take over the gov't of the City of Los Angeles would ensure civil peace (by ending the strife between the bangers and the cops).

And I am sorry if I offend anybody, but halacha has actually gone backwards in the past few years, IMO. In no way do I want to live in a Jewish theocracy either, although I believe in following mitzvot as an individual act of conscience between the INDIVIDUAL and God- and not because some guru with a beard and a militia is forcing me to.

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.BostonChabad.com]

B"H

Reb Ariel: You are a nice man, but you are smoking a bad brand. One of the reasons decadent Europe is dying is because they have ceded their civilizational rights to pockets of Muslim Fundies who are instituting their barbaric Sharia. That is not a recipe for civil peace, any more than letting the Bloods and Crips take over the gov't of the City of Los Angeles would ensure civil peace (by ending the strife between the bangers and the cops).

And I am sorry if I offend anybody, but halacha has actually gone backwards in the past few years, IMO. In no way do I want to live in a Jewish theocracy either, although I believe in following mitzvot as an individual act of conscience between the INDIVIDUAL and God- and not because some guru with a beard and a militia is forcing me to.

Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | April 03, 2008 at 09:54 PM
In some other post you describe yourself as somewhere in between a Mimonedian Rationalist and a Karaite.
As such can you please explain to me the source of your views that perfect society that we must strive to create especially in the Holy Land of Yisrael is the one not based on Torah law but on whatever majority of people including Arabs and Communists decide?
What are you smoking that causes you to believe that this Christian like ideology where mitzvot are only a matter between man and G-d (and shouldn't be enforced as law of the land if possible)is what we must strive for if it is our desire to do what is right in G-d's eyes according to His eternal commandments revealed to us in the Holy Torah?

[Paul Freedman]

Yossi--there is a National Guard, there is the U.S. Army, in the United States citizens have 2nd amendment rights--they cannot however challenge, supplant, or attempt to voluntarily augment the exclusive powers of law enforcement, national defense, and deployment of weaponry vested in the chain of command of these legal bodies. The government is not being kept in check by White Militants, Aryan Separatists or other fellows banded together in the militia movements--it is I think kept in check by its citizenry. I don't know that Jews have much to hope for from guys who oppose the "Zioinist Occupation Government"

Ariel: whose Torah law? You support the rabbis right up to the movement you decide to provoke them with RebbeGodism, concubinage, etc.

[Paul Freedman]

YL: Are you sure there are state sponsored militias? I thought these were private clubs that call themselves militias--the 2nd amendment gives guys the right to carry guns and nothing is to prevent them from getting together, opening clubhouses, and calling themselves militias or Knights of the Roundtable--I didn't that states, however, supported them in any official capacity

[Archie Bunker]

Shmarya, your continued "defense" of "proof" from the first picture is getting so pathetic that it's obscene.

I don't plan on responding again to your virtual diarrhea on that topic as any intelligent reader can make their own deduction that you are full of it.

There is no point anyway as the whole story emerged a day later, so keep knocking yourself out over nothing.

"The "binding custom" in America from day one through much of the 1960s was not to wear a yarmulke in public."

But other types of headcovering was worn even if only because it was the style to don fedoras & caps.

"Past that, you don't even know the halakha."

I am familiar with more authorities than you are. Authorities that you ignore / reject because they don't fit with your agenda to undermine the halacha.

"Why not take a few minutes away from your heavy posting schedule and read Rabinowitz's piece."

Not a bad idea except at least unlike you I don't have to beg the public for pocket change to engage in "heavy posting".

It reminds me of an old addage in the Talmud, I think tractate Hulin that the average person has an aversion to a haughty beggar.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Ariel writes:
In some other post you describe yourself as somewhere in between a Mimonedian Rationalist and a Karaite.

I reply:
You describe yourself as an Orthodox Jew, yet you believe in a dead messiah and hypostatis. You introduce my heterodox credentials to discredit my POV- not very nice and not good reasoning.

Ariel continues:
As such can you please explain to me the source of your views that perfect society that we must strive to create especially in the Holy Land of Yisrael is the one not based on Torah law but on whatever majority of people including Arabs and Communists decide?

I reply:
And when will I stop beating my wife? Ariel, like other democracy haters, creates a straw man that equates democracy with “the tyranny of the majority.” I never advocated an Arab majority state- that is why I support the Allon Plan (rather than a transfer plan that will deteriorate rapidly into genocide- if God strikes down the Palestinians- fine. I will not sink to their level). Democracy is not a suicide pact, as Justice Robert Jackson opined. To prevent that, to my mind, the Allon Plan is the best of all the bad options we have, but I claim no Daas Torah or other hocus-pocus. I call upon neither the Rambam, nor Anan ben David to back me up. My heterodox religiosity is irrelevant.

Also, the nature of the state’s cultural Jewishness is ingrained in its name, official language, flag, and anthem. These cannot be changed overnight. Of course I don’t want such an outcome, and it is intellectually dishonest to slyly imply that I am so committed to democracy that I would passively allow that situation to happen.

The source of my views? Theocracy is a utopian-totalitarian system that has caused misery where ever it’s been tried. That is why many young Iranians now hate Islam, for example. Jewish history also bears this out. Kings and Cohanim become decadent and corrupt from too much wealth and power. As Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for any other that’s been tried.”

Ariel’s rant continues:
What are you smoking that causes you to believe that this Christian like ideology…

It’s called Judaism. It is almost like your religion, except we have no Rebbe-God. A believer in hypostatis lecturing me on Christian influence is fucking rich!

The fulmination continues:
where mitzvot are only a matter between man and G-d…

Ariel displays his ignorance about Christianity here. It is a covenantal religion, that sees itself as the New Israel and its “new covenant” (sic) as absolutely binding upon its members. Membership is not voluntary; you are baptized when you are born, and then absolutely obligated. Europe was a theocracy until the 19th century- first under exclusive Catholicism or Orthodoxy; then under whatever religion the ruler was: Catholic, Protestant (or Orthodox). (This is part of the Peace of Westphalia). Religion was often enforced- such as minimal church attendance, Sunday Sabbath observance, etc. That lead to the Enlightenment and the concept of individual conscience- and to secularism. People became disgusted with compulsory Christianity, and a fat, corrupt clergy (sound familiar)?

The more voluntary, “born-again” forms of Christianity started with the Anabaptists, who were ruthlessly persecuted as heretics, by other Christians. In modern times, Existentialists such as Soren Kierkegaard also emphasized a personal relationship with God. But a personal relationship is not incompatible with covenantal religion.

And more importantly, speaking of Judaism, I believe in Am Yisrael, I believe in Divine Revelation (even though I don’t believe Moshe brought a Vilna Shas and a Stone Chumash balanced on his head when he carried the Luchot down Mt. Sinai). I believe that the mitzvoth are mandatory. I just don’t think the sledgehammer of the state should be brought to bear on people’s heads. Forcing someone, on pain of skillah, to observe Shabbat will not create a love for Shabbat in that person’s heart.

Ariel again:
(and shouldn't be enforced as law of the land if possible)

Which would cause Sinat Chinam, as it always has whenever the State has forced religion upon people.

Ariel:
is what we must strive for if it is our desire to do what is right in G-d's eyes according to His eternal commandments revealed to us in the Holy Torah?

Again, theocracy doesn’t work. Most Jewish Israelis: chilonim, “traditional,” moderate MO would make yerida, thereby ensuring the very thing Ariel wishes to avoid: An Arab, Muslim, Islamic Palestine from the Jordan to the Sea.

You want to know what drove me from Orthodoxy? Intellectual dishonesty, chumrah of the month, small-mindedness, and authoritarian rabbis who are not very spiritual or insightful. But politically, I am a conservative small “d” democrat.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Not to beat a dead horse: Ariel mentions communism. No one in Israel believes in it anymore: Arab or Jew. The Israeli communist party is a fringe organization that attracts mostly protest votes. Israel becoming communist in the 2000's is as likely as it converting en masse to Scientology. As a political conservative, he knows I hate communism. It's another straw man.

Paul: The National Guard is a militia, and some states actually have official militias. The clubs called "militias" are legal, and therefore condoned implicitly by the State. If a "militia" decided to invade Mexico or Canada, or launch a punitive raid against a gang HQ, or acquired tanks and fighter planes, I doubt they would be allowed to continue.

I never meant to imply militia clubs were officially state sponsored, however.

[Shmarya]

"The "binding custom" in America from day one through much of the 1960s was not to wear a yarmulke in public."

But other types of headcovering was worn even if only because it was the style to don fedoras & caps.

Wrong.

I am familiar with more authorities than you are. Authorities that you ignore / reject because they don't fit with your agenda to undermine the halacha.

Just read the Rabinowitz piece – and learn.

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.BostonChabad.com]

B"H
Yochanan Lavie
You misunderstand my comment.
I simply asked you in what way do you derive your views on society from interpreting Tanach and Talmud
since you described yourself as somewhere in a between Mimonedian rationalist and a Karaite.
I wasn't trying to discount your views because you say you area Karaite rather I don't see how even a Mimonedian rationlist/Karaite can have such views so please explain to me how you derive them from the Tanach.

[Paul Freedman]

YL--OK, sorry for my misunderstanding--I didn't think you meant the guys in the camaflogue and the compounds--Wikipedia notes that the relationship between the State branches of the National Guard with the Federal Army is coordinated under the 1903 Militia Act with officially organized state State Defense Forces recognized under Federal Authority but independent of it.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Reb Ariel: Here'a my admittedly imperfect understanding of Tanach. This does not derive from Rambam or Karaism. (BTW: I say I am somewhat a Karaite because I prefer pshat most of the time, and I think their interpretations are occasionally more logical. I also am skeptical of some rabbinic claims. However, I don't live as a Karaite because I believe one has to join a community, and that involves some sacrifices to live up to the norms of that community. There is no Karaite community near where I live.)

The people ask Shmuel HaNavi for a king, and he seems reluctant to do it. The rabbis interpret his reluctance because they asked for a king "for us," not "over us." That may be correct (I can't psychoanalyze the great Navi), but I see it as his prescience in foreseeing the problems a monarchy would bring.

When the Davidic line of kings are established, there are some great kings (such as David himself), but many more awful kings. Even the great kings are deeply flawed, and have to be chastised by the Prophets. (Again, see David himself).

With Churban Bayit Rishon, the Davidic monarchy is overthrown. That is the only one sanctioned by God. It is not re-established. The problematic Hasmonean dynasty produces 1 or 2 good kings, and one good Queen (Shlomtzion-Alexandra). The Herods, of questionable Jewish status, produce only one good king, Herod Agrippa, who runs afoul of Rome and is disposed of. The rest of that line are horrors.

One could argue that theocracy was a good thing in Tanach, when the kings themselves were not flirting with avodah zarah, and when the Cahuna was not corrupt. However, that was not true the majority of the time. In bad times,(the majority) an all-powerful synagogue-state would use the coercive precedent set by the "Orthodox" kings to turn around and persecute pure monotheists, who did not want to syncretize with paganism, instead. "V'yakam melech chadash al-mitzrayim asher lo yada et Yosef" ironically applies to Jewish kings in ancient Israel, too.

So using Tanach as history (which secular-skeptics would NOT do), I see a bad precedent for a Jewish totalitarian theocracy. (Unlimited monarchy IS totalitarian; unlike limited monarchy).

Theocracy is a Utopian ideal, and people who attempt Utopias have always brought dystopias instead. Ignoring political reality is not a lack of faith in God; it is a recognition that God is not Santa Claus and he has left us, outside of Gan Eden, as adults to face the consequence of our actions. Doing something reckless, like establishing a theocracy, or attempting to expell all the Palestinians from Yehuda/Shomron and 'Aza, and expecting it to all work out fine, is like believing in magic.

Reliance on magical thinking doomed the Bar Kochba revolt, and helped bring about the Roman Holocaust. I don't always dispute the rabbis; they were right when they warned us not to rely on miracles. Until messianic times, (whether it's a personal moshiach, or an era as the Rambam postulates) we should not attempt a monarchy or a theocracy. It will not work.

Have a restful Shabbat.

[Yochanan Lavie]

An article from the UK Daily Mail:

A senior Church of England member called yesterday for the building of mosques to be banned.

Alison Ruoff said more construction would lead to Islamic no go areas dominated by exclusively Muslim populations living under sharia law.

Mrs Ruoff, a member of the General Synod, the Church's parliament, added: "If we don't watch out we will become an Islamic state. It's that serious."

Leading clerics have been divided over how the Church should respond to Islam. The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams caused controversy by calling for sharia law to be given full legal status.

He later told the the Synod he took the blame for "distress and misunderstanding" that swept through the Church in the wake of the speech.

But Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester, has warned against the spread of Islamic no-go areas and said amplified calls to prayer at mosques impose an Islamic character on nearby areas.

Mrs Ruoff, a former nurse and magistrate, is a conservative evangelical regarded as one of the more outspoken Synod members. She responded to Dr William's sharia lecture by calling for the Archbishop's resignation.

Speaking on Premier Christian Radio, she said: "We are constantly building new mosques, which are paid for by the oil states.

"There are enough mosques for Muslims in this country.

"You build a mosque and then what happens? You have Muslim people moving into that area, all the shops become Islamic, all the housing will become Islamic and that will be a no-go area for anyone else.

"They will bring in Islamic law. We cannot allow that to happen.

"We are still a Christian country, we need to hold on to that."

Me:
Letting pre-modern communities run their own affairs will lead to the fragmentation of the polity. Introducing Sharia is suicidal.

[The Monsey Tzadik]

A relative had to go for court-mandated counseling (don’t ask). He got a Chinese female as therapist, in one of their sessions she told him that the ultra-orthodox community in that particular area is infested with cases of child molestation by family members as well as by strangers. So this is not a secret anymore

[Sephardic-male]

More sickness brought to you by the destructive, anti-family cult known as Haredi Judaism.

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.BostonChabad.com]

B"H
Yochanan
If you would judge Israeli "democracy" for the last 60 years in the same way you look at Tanach you'll see that it has allowed and sometimes perpetuated various crimes against individual Jews and Jewish
communities that has rarely happened even under the most wicked among the kings of Israel.
In any case our forefathers didn't pray for the "redemption" with Eretz Yisrael having a country were Jewish government persecutes Jews under non Jewish legacy laws and norms
not according to the Torah (at least my forefather didn't pray for this)and I'll do everything within my power to help turn this phony "beginning of redemption" into a real redemption the way our holy Torah describes it.
This cannot continue otherwise there is no turning back until it ends like the following song:
http://truepeace.org/Audio/shalom.rm
to "shortenize":
"everything will be returned (Golan , Yehudah veShomron Azah ve Yerecho Ramlah ve gam Yafo mizrach ve gam dorom maarav ve gam tzafon lagur be yam tichon in yitzhok ve Shimon , hayikar she yihie shalom! and we will dwell in the mediteranian sea with Yitzhak and Shimon the main thing that there shall be peace.

[Yochanan Lavie]

And you non-army serving Chassidim will defend Eretz Yisrael HaShleimah to the last Israeli, right? I never claimed to have Daas Torah, or be an expert on Tanach or political affairs, but I still have the right to my opinion. If Scotty would beam up all the Arabs in the Middle East, that would be great (and I don't mean Shmarya by saying Scotty). Absent that, we have to do what is possible. I would love to have all of E"Y, including Transjordan. It ain't gonna happen before Yumot HaMoshiach, (and the late Rebbe, zt"l, was not moshiach). If we try to hold to peripherial outposts, we can loose everything- like another messianic figure Bar Kochba. We have to prioritize- that's the Coastal Plain were most live, the Galil and the Negev, which we can loose demographically, part of the Jordan valley & Shomron for security reasons, and above all Jerusalem. A "transfer" plan would be rejected by the Palestineans and the world, including USA, and result in a genocidal/suicidal war.

As for Israel, I am not as stupid as I look, and I know it is not a perfect democracy. Nothing is. America has many skeletons in its closet,too, and I say that as someone who loves America. Rather than rehash the battles of the past, Israel needs to reform its political system to make it more representative and less beholden to special interests (such as a segment of the population that doesn't serve in the army). I never claimed Israel is a Utopia. I just claim that Utopia is impossible.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Israel has more Jews than ever before, a strong army, yeshivot and universities, and even a strong currency. Yes, judges legislating from the bench is a problem, as in the US. Because Israel isn't perfect, why look at the glass as half empty? Imperfect as it is, I think it's miraculous. It's not the messianic age- but it's not all bad.