Three Blind Jews! --- They will render Israel indefensible.

Kushner, with diplomats David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt 

“Without Judea and Samaria, Israel cannot defend Tel Aviv”

President Donald Trump’s negotiating team may unveil its “deal of the century” peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians soon after Israel’s April 9 elections.

Gershon Hacohen, a recently retired Israeli major general and former commander of Israel’s war colleges, now serves as a senior researcher at Bar Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Affairs, where he writes prolifically on the military significance of Israel’s relations with the Palestinians.

Hacohen is considered one of Israel’s most brilliant strategists. He is also something of a voice in the wilderness among his fellow generals, who almost unanimously identify with the left side of the political and ideological spectrum.

In light of the various media reports that have surfaced over the past year about the contours of the Trump plan, Hacohen has deep reservations about the plausibility of the American efforts.

This week, Hacohen published a major study in Hebrew, which received frontpage coverage in the Hebrew media in Israel. In it, Hacohen analyzed the military implications for Israel of a possible Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria – otherwise known as the West Bank – in any deal with the Palestinians.

In his report, titled, “A Withdrawal from Area C of Judea and Samaria is an Existential Threat,” Hacohen argued that Israel cannot afford to withdraw from any territory in Judea and Samaria.

Breitbart News spoke with Hacohen to discuss his paper and what its implications are for the Trump administration as it prepares to unveil its peace plan.

Breitbart News: How do you relate to the news that the Trump administration intends to release its peace plan after the election?

Hacohen: We still don’t know what’s in the plan. I hope it is based on an understanding that we have to abandon the Clinton Parameters. They render Israel indefensible.

[In December 2000, just weeks before leaving the Oval Office, then-President Bill Clinton presented what he referred to as the “Clinton Parameters” for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The Clinton Parameters called for an Israeli withdrawal from 98 percent of Judea and Samaria, along with 100 percent of Gaza, and the division of Jerusalem between Israel and the Palestinians with Israel surrendering sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the Palestinians. They called for Israel to swap sovereign territory with the Palestinians for the residual land in Judea and Samaria that it did not surrender. And they called for the Palestinians to establish a fully sovereign state on the lands that Israel transferred to their control. All U.S. peace plans since 2000 have been based on the Clinton Parameters.]

Hacohen: The Clinton Parameters constitute an existential threat to Israel. They are a complete repudiation of then-Prime Minister and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s principles for peace with the Palestinians. I believe that Rabin’s four principles are the only rational basis for peace with the Palestinians. They are the only principles that will ensure that the Palestinians cannot pose an existential threat to Israel.

Rabin set out his parameters in his speech to the Knesset a month before he was assassinated on November 4, 1995. In that speech, Rabin presented the Interim Peace Accord with the Palestinians for ratification and set out his vision for what a permanent accord would look like.

Breitbart: What were the four principles?

Hacohen: Rabin’s first principle was that Israel must remain a Jewish state with an 80 percent Jewish majority. He began ensuring that in July 1994, when Israel withdrew from most of the Gaza Strip and set up the Palestinian Authority as an autonomous government responsible for the Palestinians. The interim agreement, which he presented to the Knesset a month before he was murdered, ensured the completion of that mission. By extending Palestinian self-rule to the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria in January 1996, the deal placed more than 90 percent of Palestinians under Palestinian governance.

Ahmed Tibi, [one of PLO chief Yasser Arafat’s advisors and the time and a member of Knesset today] said then, “The occupation is over.” And he was right.

Since Israel withdrew its military forces and civilian population from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Gaza has been the de facto Palestinian state. And in Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians have maintained their autonomous governance for 23 years.

Breitbart: The world, and even Israel’s left, continues to insist that the occupation hasn’t ended.

Hacohen: True, but they are wrong. Israel ended the occupation in 1996. It does not control the lives or the governance of the Palestinians. The Palestinians control their own lives and their own governance.

Breitbart: What were the rest of Rabin’s parameters?

His second premise what that Jerusalem must remain united under sole Israeli sovereignty. Rabin envisioned Jerusalem as being a much larger municipal area. In his view, it should incorporate the major settlements of Givat Zeev and Maale Adumim in its municipal boundaries. Rabin understood that there is no military or practical way of dividing the city. There is no “no-man’s land” in Jerusalem that would serve as a natural boundary. Arabs and Jews live together. They cannot be separated and any attempt to do so would produce a military and civilian catastrophe.

Rabin’s third premise was that Israel needs to control the Jordan Valley – broadly construed – in perpetuity. As he saw it, the Jordan Valley includes all the land along Israel’s eastern frontier with Jordan, and stretches to the eastern settlement band along the Samarian mountain ridge in the north, and the Judean hills in the south.

Finally, Rabin said that the Palestinian entity that would be formed in a final peace deal would be less than a state. It wouldn’t control the electromagnetic spectrum. It wouldn’t control the airspace. It wouldn’t have an army.

Breitbart News: Rabin’s premises seem to have been forgotten by history.

Hacohen: “Rabin’s premises were discarded five years after he was killed. [In July 2000, then-Prime Minister] Ehud Barak ignored all of them during the Camp David peace summit. Barak conceded Israeli control over the Jordan Valley. Barak’s peace offer to Arafat divided Jerusalem. It included no security arrangements. He gave the Palestinians an entirely sovereign state. And he introduced the concept of “land swaps” wherein Israel would give the Palestinians land in sovereign Israel in exchange for retaining Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem built after 1967 and major settlements in Judea and Samaria. The idea was crazy. Israel has no territory to swap.

Breitbart: So the Clinton parameters were just an extension of Barak’s offer.

Hacohen: That’s right. They were essentially an expanded version of what Barak offered and Arafat rejected at Camp David, and then in later negotiations. Arafat also rejected the Clinton parameters. If Trump’s plan doesn’t get away from the Clinton Parameters, and the assumptions that inform them, it’s a non-starter. They are just too dangerous.

Breitbart: Why are the Clinton parameters so dangerous? Most of the generals in the IDF argue that Israel can walk away from Judea and Samaria and divide Jerusalem and survive.

Hacohen: One reason, which [former Israeli ambassador to the UN and president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs] Dore Gold explained a decade ago, is that the Clinton parameters deny Israel defensible borders, in breach of UN Security Council resolution 242.

[In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, the UN Security Council passed resolution 242 which set out the basis for an eventual Arab-Israeli peace. Resolution 242 called for the Arabs to recognize Israel’s right to exist in “defensible borders.” Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff presented then-President Lyndon Johnson with a memo summarizing what such borders entailed. According the their memo, to survive, Israel needed to maintain control over much of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and the Golan Heights. Without that territory, Israel lacked the strategic depth to defend itself from future invasions.]

Hacohen: The other generals ignore the significance of the joint doctrine our enemies Hamas and Hezbollah have adopted for fighting Israel. Rabin’s belief was that peace with the Palestinians would permit Israel to transfer its main military effort to fighting Hezbollah in the north. Thanks to the joint war doctrine that Hezbollah has crafted with Hamas since Israel withdrew from Gaza, Israel cannot easily neutralize the Palestinians in Gaza in order to free itself to fight Hezbollah in the north. If Israel withdraws from Judea and Samaria, we will face a unified enemy on three fronts. And that will be a disaster.

Breitbart: But the other generals claim that Israel is strong enough to manage this threat, and it is safe to withdraw from Judea and Samaria. What are they not seeing?

Hacohen: They think that we are much stronger than our enemies, but when a thousand Lilliputians tied Gulliver down, he was tied down. There are a thousand connections between Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. If we leave Judea and Samaria, it will be incorporated into their war doctrine. And if we have three fronts, it will be a disaster. It is a threat that Israel won’t be able to surmount because it won’t be able to free the forces to fight Hezbollah in the north as its main effort.

Israel’s coastal plain doesn’t have the depth to protect the country. Without Judea and Samaria, Israel cannot defend Tel Aviv. My claim is that even in the age of peace we canI’t take the chance because we don’t know what tomorrow will bring.

Breitbart: It seems that none of your fellow generals agree with you. Former Chief of General Staff Lt. General Benny Gantz is running as a peace candidate. And three other former chiefs of staff may join him in his political party. Why don’t they see this?

Hacohen: Part of the issue is the sociological. The leftist paradigm, that Israel can give up everything for peace, is the ruling paradigm. Part of the answer is ignorance of military affairs. They have not studied the wars of the past twenty years. They haven’t studied the war in Ukraine, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. Maybe if they studied them, they’d agree with me.

Part of the answer is that they simply don’t understand that the world has changed since 1967. Some of my colleagues claim that if we withdraw to the pre-Six Day War boundaries and the Palestinians attack us, we can just repeat the Six Day War. That’s like saying that if we all walked to the edge of the Red Sea and asked God to part it again that it would happen. That isn’t strategic analysis. It’s fantasy.

I have closely studied the Hezbollah-Hamas war doctrine. They created armed forces that can negate Israel’s comparative advantages as a hybrid military force. Anyone who understands this threat recognizes that Israel is hard-pressed to respond to this doctrine and force structure when we face it in Gaza and Lebanon.

Israel has no answer to this doctrine if it is also applied to Judea and Samaria. To defeat Hezbollah, Israel needs to stay in Judea and Samaria. Otherwise, in time of war, it will be unable to deploy its main force in the North.

Breitbart: At base, your colleagues believe that the way to reach peace is to separate from the Palestinians.

Hacohen: My colleagues suffer from the same groupthink in relation to the Palestinians, and to our strategic environment more generally, as our predecessors suffered from in the period leading up to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. It was that groupthink that left Israel unprepared for that war.

Regarding separation, [then-U.S. peace negotiator Martin] Indyk [under Clinton] said, “Good fences make good neighbors.” And my fellow generals agreed.

“But that is entirely wrong. The neighbors in question aren’t two ranchers in Texas that go to the same church every Sunday morning. What happened with Gaza is that Israel built a wall to defend itself from Hamas. But instead of protecting Israel, it protected Hamas. It allowed Hamas to build a military organization because the fence protected them from [the] IDF. The fence created a reality according to which every action by the IDF taken beyond the fence is a declaration of war.

In Judea and Samaria we don’t have a binary understanding of space – ours or theirs. We have a hybrid system. Jewish and Arab villagers living side by side is a better arrangement. It enables the IDF to carry out small military operations. Today Israeli forces can operate in Nablus every night. To do that in Gaza, you need a cabinet decision. If we lose the freedom of action in Judea and Samaria, it will be a disaster.

The generals’ second assumption is that if a new threat emerges, the Israeli government will be free to deploy troops to Palestinian territory to defend against it. What we learned from Gaza is that the possibility of entering isn’t easy.

Third, they believe that the IDF’s superiority will bring victory decisively and quickly, just as it did in the 1967 Six Day War. This is false. It’s not the IDF is weaker than the combined forces of its enemies. It is simply that Hamas and Hezbollah have developed a doctrine that plays to their advantages while neutralizing many of Israel’s advantages.

Finally, the generals believe that withdrawing from Judea and Samaria will give Israel the international legitimacy to fight. This is also false. We learned it from all the post-Gaza withdrawal operations – Cast Lead, Protective Edge, all of them.

Rather than receive the support of the international community, we have been vilified as war criminals for defending ourselves in the face of massive missile attacks.

In other words, all of their premises are incorrect.

Breitbart: The news reports of the Trump plan indicate that it expects Israel to withdraw from the vast majority of Judea and Samaria, and divide Jerusalem.

Hacohen: I saw the reports. I also saw that the Trump administration denied them. But they are a source of worry. Because if they are true, they indicate that the Trump team has learned nothing from the past. And if they do go forward with something that looks like what has been reported, then their plan is a non-starter.

Originally published at Breitbart.com. 

https://carolineglick.com/without-judea-and-samaria-israel-cannot-defend-tel-aviv/?fbclid=IwAR11nTt69pPWxP5e5gcB-aNqbG-KTN0rrl_0Pi_Z56jCykKsehrZZ9MRG3E

“Rabbi of Hate”, Yosef Mizrachi

The Extremism of Clowns and Fools

1st March 2019

By Daniel Jonas

The man described by the Jewish News as the “Rabbi of Hate”, Yosef Mizrachi, has been planning a visit to the UK. No doubt he hoped that the universal condemnation that he attracted from everyone from Chief Rabbi Mirvis to the National Autistic Society in 2016 has died down enough to allow him to slide into Manchester for a series of lectures. In the last day or so his platform at the (state-funded) Beis Yaakov school has been removed and other lectures at a local kosher restaurant have been cancelled after local uproar and unflattering press coverage.

Rabbi Mizrachi is perhaps the best illustration we have in the Jewish community of the manner in which the internet provides a platform through which extremist discourse can reach a worldwide audience. He is also a good example of the power of the politics of outrage. 

Mizrachi is best known as an internet preacher, although he has recently published a book. He might best be described as, essentially, a clown. Not unlike his fellow travellers in other religions or in politics, he plays to the gallery. His messages are both simple and clear, delivered with showmanship, in the expectation that the lack of critical faculties, education and discernment in his audience will save him from serious challenge. He is also a bully who threatens his critics with the fires of Gehinnom or “a thousand times Auschwitz” when challenged. Like a bully, he backs down when faced with opposition from powerful organisations.

Here are some of Mizrachi’s greatest hits:

• “Down syndrome, autistic and any other problem it’s a punishment as a result of a previous life”
• “Mixed parties bring tragedies to our children, there’s more accidents, there’s more cancer, every minute there’s a new Jew who gets cancer in the world, every minute. And that’s because of the way the women dress, and that’s because of the sins that guys and girls makes together”
• A non-virgin girl is “like an open bottle of Coke”, a “used product”
• “Look what happened when US gave blacks rights“
• The gay professor in the university (makes “mincing” gesture) ooo! You a rabbi! We are in the 21st century!”
• “Chinese (people), it’s one copy machine from 7/11 make 2 billion copies, all of them straight black hair, yellow skin, eyes like this… If I showed you I had in my computer, a picture of 20 Chinese, all of them twins!”
• “Technically, there’s almost not one goy in the world who didn’t steal at least not once in his life”

What is significant about Mizrachi is not what he says. His core theology is largely warmed-over popular mysticism extrapolated from the Zohar’s wilder flights or, at best, bowdlerised aggadic speculation. Rather, it is the attitude of his supporters. Under Mizrachi’s tutelage, a set of newly religious, swivel-eyed bigots has emerged. Mizrachi’s attitudes to women, race, sexuality, authority and international politics speak to their craving for certainty and uniformity in a world that they find challenging and complex. He speaks to those who yearn for “The Truth”. And Mizrachi has all The Answers to Life, the Universe and Everything. Do as he says: everything will be better. You will be the Elect. The Few. The Pure. G!D Is on your side and soon your prejudices will be justified by Divine Retribution.

It is the patterns of discourse that reveal the commonalities between religious and political extremists. Nobody is claiming that Mizrachi’s followers are planning a campaign of bombs and stabbings. He is neither Hitler nor Nasrallah. But extremism is not just about violence: a view that is shared by the UK Government. It is about the creation of an environment dominated by fear and hatred of the other, a self-imposed ghetto of isolation whose walls are constructed from paranoia and ideological conformity. Like all such extremist societies, evildoers are protected as long as they belong to the right club, the criticism of authority is punished without mercy and the reins of power are in the hands of a self-perpetuating élite.

Mizrachi’s extremism is another ideology of protest. It comes from same deep vat of bile, self-justification and the desire for privilege that powers both the far Right and the far Left. It is a view that spurns complexity, subtlety and thoughtfulness. It is significant that the loudest argument it can marshal in its own defence is a supposed appeal to free speech. Mizrachi is presented, like ‘Tommy Robinson’, David Irving, George Galloway and David Icke as someone who The Powerful And The Politically Correct want to silence. It is the classic “punching up” positioning: “What are you scared of? He only speaks the truth!”

This argument is transparently self-serving and hypocritical. Mizrachi was quick to join the vicious and unjustified lynch campaign against Senior Rabbi Dweck. He is happy to call for the ‘cancellation of democracy’ to suit his agenda. He believes that the ultimate arbiter of world Judaism should be the unaccountable nonagenarians of the Jerusalem-based ultra-orthodox Eda Haredis religious court. His stated positions leave one in little doubt that were his political programme to be implemented, it would result in a sort of rabbinic ISIS, a “caliphate of the gedolim”. We spent years in the UK ignoring extremist rhetoric as a sort of joke for credulous fools. Continuing to indulge it is a foolhardy strategy. 

Mizrachi has been loudly opposed throughout the Jewish community. It is gratifying to see that common decency is not dead and that so many Jews are prepared to fight to preserve civil discourse and oppose extremism and internal radicalisation. 

To quote the journalist Jenni Frazer, “British Jews know offensive bigotry when they see it.”

http://journal.quilliaminternational.com/2019/03/01/the-extremism-of-clowns-and-fools/?fbclid=IwAR2x4qFP0n1wiqvZD636xvbxMYqkFQ1fJebmB9Ms78z_HT1mWmXh83rooUQ

Why The American Yeshiva System Must Control Their Curriculum Without State Interference. These Topics Will Be Discovered On Their Own!

Fresh challenge for Charedi schools in France as government confirms teaching about LGBT people will be compulsory

French government says new relationships and sex education must be 'inclusive of all pupils'

Charedi schools face a fresh challenge as the government confirmed plans to make teaching about LGBT people a compulsory part of the new relationships and sex education (RSE) curriculum.

Intensive lobbying by strictly Orthodox groups following the Department for Education’s publication of draft RSE guidelines has failed to win a religious exemption.

Charedi leaders are already in dispute with Ofsted over demands that schools should teach LGBT awareness as part of the British values curriculum.

But RSE effectively opens up a second front. In its response to a public consultation, the DfE said on Monday: “Pupils should be able to understand the world in which they are growing up, which means understanding that some people are LGBT, that individuals and their relationships should be respected, and that the law affords them and their relationships recognition and protections.”

While parents will retain the right to withdraw children up to the age of 15 from some classes, that will apply only to the sex education component of RSE. DfE documents emphasise there is "no right to withdraw" from relationships or health education.

Schools will have some flexibility in deciding what age to introduce children to LGBT issues and be able to take account of their own religious ethos.

But Monday’s document offers no scope to ignore this subject altogether, as Charedi leaders have argued for.

Schools should ensure RSE is inclusive to all pupils, whatever their sexuality

The DfE said: “We believe that schools should ensure RSE educates pupils about the world in which they are growing up and is inclusive to all pupils, whatever their developing sexuality or identity, bearing in mind the age, development and religious backgrounds of their pupils.”

But there is a chink of light for the Charedi establishment. The RSE guidelines will have to go to Parliament for approval, leaving time for conservative religious groups to lobby MPs for amendments.

Also on Monday, a parliamentary debate, triggered by a petition supported by the Strictly Orthodox and other faith groups, considered whether the right of parental withdrawal should extend to the whole of RSE.

If that were to be adopted, then Charedi schools could simply plead a mass withdrawal by parents.

Shimon Cohen, speaking on behalf of one Strictly Orthodox group, the Torah Education Committee, found some grounds of hope.

The group, he said, was "encouraged by the government’s commitment that these matters will not have to be addressed at primary level and that at secondary level, a right to withdraw remains, with headteachers empowered to discern how these issues are addressed.

"In particular, the crucial recognition that parents are the primary teachers of their children will help to ensure that their wishes are respected. We appreciate the time and effort the government and senior officials have taken to consult with the Jewish community on this sensitive subject."

But the TEC remained wary that Ofsted would "maintain the responsibility to police the implementation of the guidelines and we will remain alert to their active role in promoting and advancing lifestyles that go against traditional Torah teachings. Much remains to be done.”

Chinuch UK, the Charedi educational umbrella group, advised schools that it would be open to them "to determine what content belongs in relationships education and what content belongs in sex education. Schools will be able to include LGBT teaching within sex education if that is what parents feel is appropriate."

The group, explaining its understanding was based on briefings with DfE officials, was satisifed that "the months of quiet and persistent diplomatic efforts... have led to a postiive outcome".

But Shraga Stern, the Stamford Hill-based campaigner who has been at the forefront of attempts to revise the guidelines, drew little comfort. " We are worse off today than we were yesterday," he said. "There is no question of us teaching about different types of familiy, not in primary schools and not in secondary schools."

He added, "This is a very sad outcome in terms of religious tolerance in this country.  The Orthodox community will now have to consider what further steps it could take to protect age-old parental rights."

Edwin Shuker, the Board of Deputies vice-president for community and education, said: “It was  a positive step that the Department for Education’s new proposed legislation will retain a measure of flexibility that will allow many different Jewish schools to act according to their ethos, although we note that the new guidance will continue to pose challenges for Strictly Orthodox secondary schools."
The Board, he said, welcomed “the focus on child safety and safeguarding for all of the protected characteristics as outlined under the Equalities Act 2010. As the new legislation comes into effect in 2020, we will continue to monitor how this affects schools in the community and how they are inspected.”

Protected characteristics include same-sex orientation and gender reassignment.

There will be unease in some schools within our community.

Rabbi David Meyer, executive director of Partnerships for Jewish Schools, said it "strongly supports the importance of teaching every child tolerance and respect and especially with regards to the all the protective characteristics including LGBT. We also recognise the importance of every school having a support system to support children that may be questioning their own sexuality." 

Pajes was "pleased to see that the DfE has taken into consideration our concerns regarding age appropriate education in  ensuring primary schools  will not be forced to teach children at a young age details of sexual relationships," he said. "There will, however, need some clarification as to what Ofsted will require be taught within relationship education."

There would also be "unease in some schools within our community regarding the requirements at secondary level," he added. "However, the determination as to is considered age appropriate should in our view be determined by the governing bodies and school leadership teams, in consultation with parents, and not legislated by government."

Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism, supported "the government initiative to make comprehensive relationship and sex education compulsory for all school children.

While responsibility remains primarily with parents, research shows this is often hit and miss and the education system needs to prepare young people for the complexities of modern living."

Rabbi Debbie Young-Somers, Reform Judaism's community educator, welcomed "this new compulsory focus on mental health, diverse relationships and keeping safe online, reflecting Reform Jewish values and practices. It is right that all children and young people have the opportunity to build resilience and understanding of these crucial issues and many of our Progressive and cross-communal Jewish schools already do much of this work."

https://www.thejc.com/education/education-news/fresh-challenge-for-charedi-schools-as-government-confirms-teaching-about-lgbt-people-will-be-compulsory-1.480655?fbclid=IwAR2i70mNmMZJGOpookbSN3JkTlF1zltz49D8dqBy07ROAndEtNp9ErQ44eM

Obsession with the problems on the left blinds a person to deep moral flaws on the right."

"Furthermore, obsession blinds a person to other flaws in the community that require redress.  Those who exclusively find fault with the left or the right obviously fail to appreciate the complexity of most questions in which each side has problems and weaknesses. One good example is R. Gordimer’s sharing links to several glowing hespedim for Rav Yisrael Belsky. A reader of his post will not discover that R. Belsky publically defended a confessed sexual abuser and accused the parents of the victim, who later had to move out of Lakewood, of mesirah for going to the police. Obsession with the problems on the left blinds a person to deep moral flaws on the right."

MORE:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/obsessing-about-open-orthodoxy/

We Dare Not Ignore the Context: A Reply to Rabbi Yitzchak Blau 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-dare-not-ignore-the-context-a-reply-to-rabbi-yitzchak-blau/

 

There is another factor that needs to be analyzed when considering the extent of general knowledge to which one allows himself to be exposed. Our ability to efficiently utilize the wisdom of the scientific process is dependent upon a basic familiarity with the fundamentals of math, science, and foreign languages augmented by reading comprehension and writing proficiency....

"I am distressed that students are taught to belittle the discoveries of science..."

I Thought the Greeks Lost

by Dovid Landesman

 Published November 2010 -  Rabbi Landesman has since passed away. Yehi Zichro Boruch.

For many years, the Torah Umesorah Annual Dinner was scheduled for the week of Chanukah. One year, R. Gedaliah Schorr zt’l, rosh yeshiva of Torah Vodaath, and at the time, the only member of the organization’s Rabbinic Advisory Board who spoke unaccented and fluent English, was invited to give the keynote address. The master of ceremonies, when introducing Rav Schorr, decided to use the opportunity to offer his take on the educational needs of the country. In his lengthy remarks, he challenged Torah Vodaath to open a college and “show how it should be done.” When it was finally his turn to speak, Rav Schorr stood silently at the podium for a moment, a pensive expression on his face. He then turned toward the m.c. with an enormous smile and said: “You know, I was under the impression that we defeated the Greeks!”

 (He was among other rabbis that signed a letter in 1946 approving the opening of a Yeshiva College under the auspices of Torah Vodaath - Moreover, one needed a Bachelors degree from a recognized university to meet the entrance requirements for the proposed American Hebrew Theological University. Rav Shraga Feivel passed away before he would be able to realize the opening of AHTU. P.M.)

Click On Images to Enlarge:The photos are add-ons by me.

In 1946, America's Top Non-Hasidic Haredi Rabbis Wanted To Form A Jewish University – For The First Time Ever: ENTIRE PLANS WITH THE NY BOARD OF REGENTS APPROVAL BELOW:

The relationship between am Yisrael and Greece has always been somewhat equivocal. Greece is counted as one of the four nations [along with Bavel, Persia and Rome/Edom] who have subjected Israel to exile, yet throughout the period when we were subservient to Greece, we were never physically absent from the land of Israel. Moreover, the initial acceptance of Greek domination was passive. Alexander the Great was crossing Eretz Yisrael on his way to battle the Persians for world domination when Shimon ha-Tzaddik – kohen gadol and leader of the sanhedrin – reached a political agreement with him to insure that Yerushalayim was not “accidentally” destroyed by the Greek legions as they made their way east. The physical conditions of exile under the Greeks were benign until the period of the Chashmonaim when the Jews revolted against their rule; a revolt that was in great part a reaction to the assimilation of Greek values by a significant portion of the Jewish population.

On one hand, Greek culture is seen as particularly depraved. The worship of beauty – especially of the human form – and the emphasis on aesthetics [art and literature] is considered to be the embodiment of the triumph of the physical over the spiritual. The proclivity towards homosexual behavior, the lack of elementary tzniut at public events, the vivid descriptions of intimacy among multiple gods in a series of classic fables – all of these would seem to point to a culture that is the absolute antithesis of Judaism. Thus, it is surprising to find that Greek language is considered to be second only to lashon ha-kodesh in its intrinsic holiness. I would expect that Chazal would have us avoid such cultural assimilation at all cost.

Yaft Elokim l’Yeffet v’yishkon b’ahalei Shem – God granted beauty to Yeffet so that it might dwell in the tents of Shem. The simple explanation would suggest that there is an entire area of Divine wisdom – the beauty of Yeffet – which was made accessible to Shem through the good offices of Yavan [Greece], the scion of Yeffet. Beauty has intrinsic value, for we find Chazal (Shabbat 131a) interpreting the verse zeh keli v’anvehu – this is my God and I shall beautify Him (Shemot 15:2) as indicating that in performing a mitzvah, one should do so in the most aesthetically pleasing manner possible. Given the clear link between the obsession with aesthetics in Greek life and the excesses of Greek culture, one might expect this to be less than important.

In building the mishkan, Moshe was commanded to specifically utilize the craftsmanship of Betzalel because he was blessed with extraordinary artistic talents in a wide variety of fields. Betzalel is considered to be “filled with wisdom” because he knew how to sew, weave and embroider magnificent tapestries – skills that as far as I know, no contemporary yeshiva has ever encouraged! True, these were undoubtedly inherent rather than learned qualities – I would be very surprised to discover that Betzalel had been enrolled as a student of the Ramses School of Design prior to yetziyat Mitzrayim – but they are nevertheless talents that are not usually considered to be part of Torah nor are they – or related fields like music or architecture – part of the yeshiva curriculum.

In general, Judaism does not seem to completely reject the absorption of values from outside sources. Chazal declare chachmah bagoyim, ta’amin – recognize that the nations are in possession of wisdom; i.e., there are valuable fields of knowledge that are accessible without recourse to Torah. This would not a priori mean that these fields of knowledge are unavailable to one who has never been exposed to secular studies. In theory, one could utilize his natural talents and eventually achieve the same results. As far as I know, there is not even an illusion to the healing properties of Vitamin E in Torah shebichtav or sheb’aal peh. Nevertheless, even if I had never been exposed to the scientific process of observation and experimentation through which all pharmacology is established, I could in time determine the medicinal value of Aloe vera on my own. Similarly, the complex nano-technology which allows for the manufacture of microscopic devices is ultimately a result of the scientific process that could theoretically be developed without relying on the instruction of others. Obviously, however, it is more efficient to utilize the publicized findings of others rather than repeat experiments by yourself. But is this determination the totality of what Chazal had in mind when they spoke of chochmah bagoyim?

I would posit that chochmah bagoyim ta’amin means that we should accept that this chochmah is valid even though it comes from non-Torah sources. These fields of knowledge do not depend upon Divinely revealed wisdom accessible only through Torah; they are a byproduct of the Divine gifts of intelligence and creativity with which all mankind was imbued and which everyone can develop to the extent that his potential allows. If you decide that you will ignore scientific breakthroughs because they are not rooted in Torah and instead engage in your own research and experimentation so as to be sure that your life is al taharat ha-kodesh, then know that you will be guilty of a grievous amount of unnecessary bittul Torah.

I am distressed that students are taught to belittle the discoveries of science, claiming that we have no need for it since hafoch bah, hafoch bah, d’kulo bah – study it (Torah), study it, for everything all [knowledge] is in it. I have often heard students – and quite a few rebbis – point to the mathematical and medical genius of the Chazon Ish as proof that there is no need to teach our children a core curriculum of general studies. Glibly, they claim: “Look how much the Chazon Ish knew without ever having gone to college!” My invariable reply is that the Chazon Ish also achieved an incredible level of mastery in all fields of Torah despite [or perhaps because of] the fact that he never attended a yeshiva!

There is another factor that needs to be analyzed when considering the extent of general knowledge to which one allows himself to be exposed. Our ability to efficiently utilize the wisdom of the scientific process is dependent upon a basic familiarity with the fundamentals of math, science, and foreign languages augmented by reading comprehension and writing proficiency. Most of these areas of knowledge are not included in the basic cheder curriculum in Eretz Yisrael. I wonder whether the excesses that the scientific method is judged to have brought to society have led to a rejection of the notion that there still is wisdom among the goyim.

Casey Stengel once wisely commented that “nostalgia aint what it used to be.” Nonetheless, I think that it is worthwhile to look back and see if we can determine why the yeshivot a few decades ago were apparently more successful in producing talmidim who saw no contradiction in straddling the divide between Torah study and general education.

Forty or fifty years ago, parents expected the yeshivot – at least the non-chassidic mosdot – to provide their children with a decent secular education, for the majority of them intended that their sons continue with professional studies after they graduated high school. To be sure there were a number of students who did not do so – if I recall correctly, approximately 30% of the beit midrash bachurim in Torah Vodaath did not attend college – but as a general rule, this was the expected path.

For the most part, talmidim learned two sedarim in the yeshiva and then attended college from about 5:30-10:30 two or four nights a week. Many then continued onto graduate studies in a variety of fields, including law, accounting, business, medicine, engineering, psychology and the sciences. For the most part, and there were of course exceptions, they remained bnei Torah and have built homes that are paradigms of Torah and chessed. I would say without hesitation that in the overwhelming majority of cases, their homes are more strictly observant than those of their parents. Their immersion in the world of general knowledge did not erode their level of observance.

Did Rav Schorr see them as casualties of Greek culture? I obviously cannot speak for him, but can only convey the impressions I have based on what I heard from him. Rav Schorr also served as head of Beit Medrash Elyon in Spring Valley – which was a parallel institution to Lakewood – but he made the bachurim in Torah Vodaath feel that we were no less bnei Torah than the students there. He stressed that the primary responsibility we had was to establish our own identity as bnei Torah. Some talmidim learned all day, others learned less while still others were kovea itim for a defined period based on the time they had. But we were all equal, for Torah was the mirror which we looked at when we wanted to see our image.

The yeshivot – and roshei yeshivot – were able to convey to the talmidim a sense of proportion. General knowledge was never glorified but neither was it disparaged. The atmosphere in the yeshiva’s beit midrash was eclectic; one year my morning seder chavruta was the son [and eventual successor to] a prominent chassidic rebbe while my afternoon chavruta was destined to become the chairman of the psychology department at a well known local university. While the latter did not wear the same garb as the former, there was very little difference in their world views. The fact that they chose different “career” paths did not translate itself into a parting of their ways. The talmidim felt that we shared a similar commitment to Torah despite our diverse backgrounds and aspirations which created a ruach within the yeshiva that helped us when we were outside its doors.

Certain behaviors were considered to be “conduct unbecoming” a Torah Vodaath boy and this self-imposed and accepted code was a great source of support during the times we found ourselves on the college campus. We did not need a va’ad harabbanim to set these standards for us; the roshei yeshiva – especially Rav Schorr and Rav Pam zt’l – made us feel that they trusted us to do what was right. Perhaps the atmosphere on college campuses was somewhat less hostile than it is today. Personally, I doubt that the yetzer hara is stronger than it was then; it is the methodology that has changed.

Today a bachur who leaves the beit midrash to study or work is burdened by a sense of guilt; either because he is led to feel that he must be a failure because he does not have sufficient motivation to continue or because he lacks the mesirat nefesh (or deep pockets) to survive the economic rough spots. That leaves him with few choices. He can either plod on and increase his discomfort and sense of frustration, masking it behind a false sense of accomplishment and satisfaction, or he can break away – partially or completely. Without a sense of accomplishment or identification with the yeshiva, the student seeks those signs of success in the world of general studies. This is an unnecessary tragedy that is the basic ingredient that allows the contemporary Greeks their victory. Rejected in his own world, he seeks acceptance and recognition elsewhere.

At what point does a focus on the absorption of general knowledge and culture lead us to the point, in Rav Schorr’s words, of providing the Greeks with a belated victory and at what point does it fit into the rubric of chachmah bagoyim ta’amin? Can we establish a quantifiable amount of general knowledge desirable or is it a moving target that depends upon the era and location of the community? At what point do we risk becoming assimilated rather than acculturated?

I’m not sure whether there are clear parameters that can be drawn. In one community in which I lived one of the local roshei yeshiva would prepare his shiurim while listening to Bach and Beethoven. I doubt that the people there would have been as understanding if he had done so to the music of the Beatles. Unquestionably lines have to be drawn; just as there are chochmot that we can draw upon to enhance our Jewish lives, there are those that can be misused and become destructive and dangerous. The trick, and challenge, is to develop the skills to differentiate between them.

The Greeks succeeded because they were able to convince the Jews that adherence to Torat Moshe was primitive and uncultured. The contemporary fallout from the yeshivot suffer from a similar damaged self-image. Distanced for many reasons from the spiritual light of Torah – as expressed by commitment to Torah study – which they cannot appreciate and which brings them little satisfaction, they are easy victims for seduction by the neon lights of the outside world. The antidote, however, is not to lock them behind high walls and deny them the benefits of general knowledge; that would be self-defeating as well as increasingly unfeasible in a technology driven world.

At the very least schools, mechanchim, mechanchot as well as parents must be sure to reinforce the sense of self-worth of each and every talmid – reassuring them that they all have their own portion in Torah – portions that are of equal import provided that they are the paths that are right for each child’s potential and ability. Chanoch lanoar al pi darko – instruct the child according to his path – based on the road that he can follow, not on a one size fits all course of study. For some students that might be defined as spending years in a kollel mastering many blatt gemara, for others it might be applying the lessons of Choshen Mishpat that they have been taught in yeshiva in their businesses or medical practices. Yaft Elokim l’Yeffet – the outside world has considerable beauty. It can be threatening when glorified as an end unto itself or it can be enriching when it is properly brought l’ohalei Shem – to dwell within the tents of Shem.

[Rabbi Dovid Landesman resides in Ramat Beit Shemesh where he comments on the foibles of life in Israel. His collection of essays, There Are No Basketball Courts in Heaven is available in Jewish bookstores and his new book, Food for Thought – No Hechsher Required, will be published b’ezrat Hashem this winter.]

The NY Board Of Regents Files are add-ons by me to Rabbi Landesman's essay.

In 1946, America's Top Non-Hasidic Haredi Rabbis Wanted To Form A Jewish University – For The First Time Ever, Here's Proof:

 

 Download NY Board of Regents

Download NY Board of Regents 2

I Do Not Want To See Government Intervention In The Curriculum of Private Schools in General and Yeshivas in Particular. Rav Shraga Feivel ZT"L Said That He Believed In --- "Capitalism For Yeshivas, The Free Markets Should Determine Which Schools The Parents Will Send Their Children To." --- Of Course, There Is No Shortage Of Idiot Parents!

Rabbi David Bleich on the Conversion Crisis - Considered by Most Jewish Scholars as a Posek of the Greatest Stature

The questions posed with regard to problematic contemporary conversions are threefold in nature:

Rabbi Bleich

  (1) Is it permissible for rabbinical courts to accept prospective candidates for conversion when it appears that application is made, not out of religious conviction, but as a matter of convenience, e.g., to facilitate marriage with a Jewish partner?

 (2) Is a conversion of convenience, i.e., one undertaken for marriage or other ulterior motive in which the petitioner obviously has no intention of abiding by the precepts of Judaism, a valid one?

 (3) Granting the validity and propriety of the conversion itself, is it permissible for the convert to enter into marriage with a Jewish spouse with whom the convert has consorted prior to conversion?

PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ESSAY:
http://judaismconversion.org/pdf/THE_CONVERSION_CRISIS.pdf

Let me be clear once again, this is about the rabbinical organizations and the various rabbis that conduct fraudulent conversions and has nothing to do with any individuals whatsoever. 

 CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE:

Book Format: Yoreh De’ah, no. 157
https://books.google.com/books?id=Y4SPB17NkzAC&pg=PA284&lpg=PA284&dq=Yoreh+De%E2%80%99ah,+no.+157&source=bl&ots=GKHuVb-twz&sig=ACfU3U0u-kTPQWsSrtvJ00JqSFCQefnDAg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQxpXW8M3gAhVmllQKHYKxDLAQ6AEwBnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Yoreh%20De%E2%80%99ah%2C%20no.%20157&f=false

Hazmanas are a waste of time --- Take your legitimate grievances to Court!

Brooklyn yeshiva agrees to pay $2.1M to victims of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko's child sex abuse

 NEW YORK DAILY NEWS 

Oct 27, 2016 | 4:02 PM 
 

A Brooklyn yeshiva quietly became the first Orthodox Jewish school to compensate students who claim they were molested by a teacher when it agreed to pay more than $2 million to two boys and their families in 2014 — and now it may be the first Orthodox school to default on a settlement with sex abuse victims.

Yeshiva-Mesivta Torah Temimah, a prominent Orthodox school on Brooklyn's Ocean Parkway, agreed to pay one former student $900,000 and the other $1.35 million in a settlement reached in October 2014.

The agreements were originally confidential, but they became public earlier this month after lawyers for the boys filed papers in Brooklyn Supreme Court that said the school failed to make payments due earlier this year.

"This is the first time the public has known about these payments," said sex-abuse expert Marci Hamilton, a lawyer and a distinguished scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. "This is the first settlement with a yeshiva that has been publicly disclosed. I was surprised as anybody to see this.

This is a sizeable settlement."......

MUCH MORE:
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/brooklyn-yeshiva-pay-2-1m-child-sex-abuse-settlement-article-1.2847753

Brooklyn yeshiva settles with sexual assault accusers for $2.1M

October 23, 2016 | 5:42am | Updated

A prominent Orthodox Jewish school in Brooklyn agreed to pay an unprecedented $2.1 million to two former students who charged their teacher — accused serial molester Rabbi Joel Kolko — of sexually assaulting them, The Post has learned.

Kolko’s case marks the first time a New York yeshiva has paid off victims of sex abuse, experts said.

“This is unheard of. I am not aware of any other settlements,” said Rabbi Yosef Blau, a spiritual adviser at Yeshiva University in Manhattan and longtime victims advocate.

Secret settlements between Yeshiva Torah Temimah on Ocean Parkway and two boys — 6 years old when molested — were filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court a week ago when the yeshiva failed to make payments.

Lawyers for the two plaintiffs filed a judgment for $1 million — the total the yeshiva still owes both boys for the trauma they suffered.

Both lawsuits alleged the yeshiva and its leader, Rabbi Lipa Margulies, knew for decades that Kolko was molesting students, but chose to keep him on as an elementary teacher and “give him unfettered access to young children.”

Kolko allegedly had boys sit on his lap and fondled their genitals.

For 25 years, the yeshiva received “multiple credible allegations of pedophilia” against Kolko. It covered them up and even threatened families who dared to complain, the suits charged.

Kolko, now 70, got a controversial deal from then-Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes in May 2012: He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of child endangerment and did not have to go to jail or register as a sex offender.

MORE:
https://nypost.com/2016/10/23/brooklyn-yeshiva-settles-with-sexual-assault-victims-for-2-1m/

Hershel Schachter - You don't have the guts and decency to admit publicly, for the integrity of the Process, that your convert to Judaism is a fraud!

With Husband Jared in-tow, Ivanka arrives at the 55th annual Munich Security Conference in Germany, on Saturday

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6712027/Ivanka-Trump-leads-way-Munich-Security-Conference.html

Are we meant to stand aside and watch while the institutions that have enabled abusers are allowed to remain as they are without suffering the appropriate repercussions for their malfeasance?

The Child Victims Act was signed into law by Gov. Cuomo on Feb. 14

For the Sake of Our Children

It is impossible to properly describe the horrors unleashed on the victims of child sexual abuse. Those horrors will likely haunt the victims for the rest of their lives. 

Unfortunately, some sectors of the Jewish community have turned a blind eye to these victims. This attitude is seemingly apparent in a statement issued by the Agudath Israel of America, which noted the organization’s disapproval of the recent passage of the Child Victims Act in the New York State Legislature.

Signed into law by Gov. Cuomo on Feb. 14, the Child Victims Act raised the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse crimes from age 23 to 55 in civil cases. The statute of limitations for bringing a suit against a public or private institution that hired an abuser will also be moved from age 23 to 55. In addition, under the new law, criminal charges may be brought against an abuser until the victim reaches the age of 28.

The Agudah’s primary concern with the Child Victims Act is that “the unprecedented ability to revive decades-old claims in civil suits could jeopardize the ongoing viability of schools, houses of worship that sponsor youth programs, summer camps and other institutions that are the very lifeblood of communities like ours.”

The new law may turn out to be a dilemma for Yeshiva University. In 2013, a lawsuit of $680 million was brought against the university for its alleged enabling of multiple child abusers in Yeshiva University High School for Boys over the course of several decades. The suit was struck down by a federal judge because “the statutes of limitations have expired.” The enactment of the Child Victims Act would potentially allow the victims to revivify their suit against the university.

The Agudah’s statement misses a crucial point. The jeopardization of institutions that have enabled abusers will be beneficial for the Jewish people in the long-run. With the enactment of the Child Victims Act into law, these institutions will be more introspective with regard to their employment policies. They will be more reluctant to hire an individual with a spotty record out of concern for future civil lawsuits against them. In addition, if some institutions are sued out of existence, other institutions will surely fill their place and fulfill their functions for the Jewish community, this time without enabling sexual abusers.

The defenders of the Agudah’s statement may counter my argument with the following question: “What about an institution that changed its leadership over the course of several decades? Did the abuse not occur under different management? How can one be enabled to sue the current management of an institution for the misconduct of their predecessors?”

I sympathize with this argument. Children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers. However, why don’t we ask the converse of the Agudah’s argument: What about an institution that has not substantially changed its leadership over the past few decades? Why should a childhood victim of sexual abuse — who for whatever reason, be it trauma or fear, waited to report the abuse — be restricted from bringing a suit against the enablers of his abuser? 

For this reason, the law is restricted to the introduction of a lawsuit to court, and not of the adjudication thereof. Adjudication is fully up to the judges’ or juries’ discretions. This requires a certain level of confidence among the masses that the judicial system will recognize the difference between an institution that is currently comprised of enablers versus one that is not. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, what is the alternative? 

Are we meant to stand aside and watch while the institutions that have enabled abusers are allowed to remain as they are without suffering the appropriate repercussions for their malfeasance? It is, therefore, absolutely necessary for us to enthusiastically support the passage of the Child Victims Act, for the sake of the Jewish people, for the sake of our children.

https://yucommentator.org/2019/02/for-the-sake-of-our-children/

"It is well known that these accusing parents just hate rabbis and don't really care about their children's welfare at all, and would destroy their own kids and drag their families through the mud just for the sake of making rabbis look bad", according to Rosenblum's sources in the ultra-orthodox Jewish community.

Jonathan, even the Goyim are ashamed of you!

Monday, June 15, 2009 - UOJ CLASSICS

 

Ultra-Religious Catholic Journalist Interviews Three Priests About The Catholic Church's Involvement Of Child Sexual Abuse!

by John O'Futzyutz

When I sat down with these three American priests who are well versed in the English language, I was really taken in by their knowledge of Scripture as it relates to the "in-topic" of today, child molestation by the Catholic clergy. The focus quickly shifted to their "older cousins", the Jews, particularly rabbis, for reasons unknown to them, covered up child sexual abuse in their Hebrew schools, summer camps, and houses of worship.

Now I know these three priests well, they would have no reason to change the subject; they are smart, they grew up in orthodox Catholic homes, and clearly believe the Pope as the infallible messenger of god and the other two parts of god's cosmic makeup, Spirit and Son. The pope would never, for example, apologize for child-abuse by thousands of priests, if he was not really sorry. He is so sorry that he moved the "Lipa Margulies" of the Church, Cardinal Bernard Law, to the Vatican, as one of the pope's right hand people. In matter of fact, my Catholic antennae was pricked by this bold decision, borrowing this phrase with permission from my friend, a Jewish journalist in the Jerusalem Post, Jonathan Rosenblum.

The English speaking priests certainly convinced me that they have no reason at all to go against the pope's unambiguous message; if you are ever in doubt about the sexual proclivities of a priest, or about a Cardinal moving priests around from parish to parish; rather than call the police, send him to Rome, they have a great job for him with a lot of different multi-colored hats and shmattes. If you are dumb enough to get caught, deny that any priest ever molested a child, if pressed really hard by an "Enlightened one", say, "yeah, we found out about one who slipped through our fingers, and no we do not sweep or sell rugs, we are not merchants -- but if another child molester does exist, the police may be called, maybe, and only if he is retired, dead, homeless, hard of hearing, does not have a cellphone, and wears a yarmulke".

So that's that, the Pope Hador speaks, the priests listen, we know all that, right?

Wondering what was going on with the Jews, now that I got the alleged priest problem out of the way, I contacted my fellow Yale schoolmate, Jonathan Rosenblum, who I understand became the drugged mouthpiece for ultra-orthodox Jews, especially in Israel.

Jonathan tells me a very similar kind of strange goings-on in the Ramat Bet Shemesh town, a suburb of Jerusalem. He spoke as well to three rabbis (something the Jews and Catholics have in common the number three as in Trinity, as in upsherin, as in moving on Tuesday - yom shlishi (ki tov twice plus one on yom rishon) three portions of cholent at kiddush, three main dishes at Pesach hotels, three dunks in the mikve, 3 deserts at the Agudah Convention, 3 crooked rabbis for a bais din tribunal, shnayim mikra v'echad targum =3, minimum donation to Margo's mezumen slush fund for Kolko =$3000, 3 Fressers needed for a mezumen at birkat hamazon) --- in that town, and was assured that these parents who claim to have had their child molested in a Hebrew school, was a bunch of cholent poop. Why would these English speaking rabbis lie? What do they have to gain? They care only about the well-being of their congregants and the Jewish community, just like the English speaking rabbis in the U.S.A. They even remember that they asked people to leave town, they can't be sure why, but probably because they molested someone. They even invited an Ohel employee, Dr. Schulman, to address the community on how to mitigate damages from families whose children were allegedly abused by rabbis in schools.

"In 1996, the Village Voice ["A Child's at Stake," by Adam Fifield and Michael Lesher] reported that an Ohel advisory board member, Susan Schulman, commented that she always deferred to rabbinic advice before making a child-abuse report, although she acknowledged that she 'could be arrested' for doing so." [Emphasis added.] This is what's coming to Ramat Bet Shemesh!

And this quote really tickled my fancy; "It is well known that these accusing parents just hate rabbis and don't really care about their children's welfare at all, and would destroy their own kids and drag their families through the mud just for the sake of making rabbis look bad", according to Rosenblum's sources in the ultra-orthodox Jewish community.

In matter of fact Jonathan said, the Jewish pope, so to speak, the greatest rabbi of the generation (96 years young and even remembers his name without a teleprompter), who is schooled in every single area of humanity, decreed that only if rabbis believe child molestation took place, after many meetings by the local rabbis, and a unanimous decision by all the rabbis and zonas in town, and the child is screened by their handpicked Orthodox therapists, with a degree or not, then if none of these people ever used a cell-phone without a hechsher, or shopped in a store without a kosher certificate on all the women's clothing, or sat on a bus where women and men are not separated by a shower curtain, then one may be permitted to go to a shomer Shabbos police station, where every police person eats Rubashkin glatt kosher meat that is not cooked in a Heinemann Kitchen Aid kosher Yom-Tov oven and whose wives do not wear wigs from India.

Now, Jonathan and I go back a long way; I felt ashamed that I would have to ask him this question, but a good journalist must be thorough.

"Jonathan, and when you met with the alleged molested children and their parents, what exactly did they tell you?"

"Well John", he said, "after taking to the three rabbis, why would I need to talk to the victims and their parents?"

In fact Rosenblum permitted me to use his quote in the Jerusalem Post as the new "gospel" for the Jewish community.....

"The rabbis' preference for working behind the scenes derives not from a desire to sweep problems under the rug, but from a considered philosophy about what is best for victims, their families and the community. What is best for victims he said, the knowledge that incidents will be publicized can keep victims or their parents from coming forward. In addition, publicity can lead to hysteria in which parents become convinced that their children are at great risk in school.

Now, even me being a "Goy" knows this is the new lying Shafran-Schick-Salomon limerick coming from the Torah Giants of America, certainly expected to make a huge splash to the English and Yiddish speaking members of the Jewish community worldwide. Perhaps it may even wind up in a radio commercial.

Jonathan, even the Goyim are ashamed of you!

READ 121 comments:

http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2009/06/ultra-religious-catholic-journalist.html

I Had To Prevail To Get The Victims Of Abuse To Tell Their Stories. The Court Ruled In My Favor...And Here We Are!

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - UOJ ARCHIVES

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters!

http://www.eff.org/cases/hersh-v-cohen
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/13


July 14th, 2010

New York - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) this week served a motion to quash dragnet subpoenas that put privacy and anonymity at risk for the operators of dozens of Internet blogs and potentially hundreds of commenters.

The subpoenas stem from a state lawsuit filed by New York residents Miriam and Michael Hersh alleging a conspiracy to interfere with their business interests. Issued to Google and Yahoo, the subpoenas demand the identities of users of ten email accounts, operators of 30 blogs and a website that had featured discussions of the plaintiffs among other matters, and the identities of everyone who had ever commented on those sites.

"The First Amendment protects individuals' right to speak anonymously and forces litigants to justify any attempts to unmask anonymous critics," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Litigants cannot forcibly identify entire communities of online speakers -- which include many speakers who no one would claim did anything wrong -- simply because the litigants are curious."

In the motion served on Monday, EFF urged the Supreme Court for Kings County, New York, to quash the subpoenas for failing to satisfy the requirements imposed by the First Amendment, as well as the requirements imposed by New York state law and the federal Stored Communications Act.

"Overbroad subpoenas targeting anonymous speakers without cause naturally creates a chilling effect that may discourage others from exercising their constitutional rights to participate in conversations that take place online," said Zimmerman. "We are asking the court to enforce these reasonable safeguards so that the rights of innocent speakers do not become collateral damage in a dispute between others."

Ron Lazebnik and the Samuelson-Glushko Intellectual Property & Information Law Clinic at Fordham University School of Law assisted EFF in the serving of this motion.

For the full motion to quash & court granting request:
https://www.eff.org/document/motion-quash-0
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/hersh_v_cohen/uoj-order-012111.pdf
https://www.eff.org/cases/hersh-v-cohen

http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2010/07/eff-urges-court-to-block-dragnet.html