Sen. McCain, Will You Denounce and Reject?

James "F*** the Jews" Baker to endorse McCain.

More on Obama on Israel

As my single commenter correctly stated, the maker of the statements in my prior post was Barack Obama -- but not just the Barack Obama of 2007 and 2008 trying to position himself as a national candidate, but the Barack Obama of 2004, running for the U.S. Senate. And the statements, taken together, are probably the most any pro-Israel voter can ask for from a national candidate. It's basically the Bush position, with some wrinkles. Granted, he may have had his eye on the presidency back in 2004 and he was running for a statewide position in a state with a significant Jewish population. So I guess he could have been lying.

So if we were to assume the worst about Obama -- that he will take any position at any time to satisfy a particular constituency he is trying to attract (a view I disagree with) -- let's look at his record as a state senator. State legislators operate in relative obscurity and Obama's district included a strong Nation of Islam constituency. If any anti-Israel sentiment was latent in his political philosophy, it would surely have emerged in his state senate days, right? Well, unfortunately I haven't seen any thorough reporting on his record on Israel in the Illinois State Senate. However, the one vote that has been reported on is his co-sponsorship of a bill authorizing the state to invest in Israel Bonds. Given the well-publicized effort among many groups to divest pension funds from Israel, Obama's movement in the opposite direction while representing a district likely at best indifferent and at worst hostile to such a move is notable. Aside from that, I am not aware of any legislative action taken by Barack Obama that can be characterized as anti-Israel. If anyone has any information in this regard, leave it in comments.

So what is this assumption that Obama is should "scare" us on Israel issues based on?

That some of his supporters, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, are not strong supporters of Israel? Why don't we hear a similar objection to John McCain, who himself suggested sending Jim Baker (!) as a Middle East emissary?

Or the fact that his reverend harbors eccentric anti-semitic views? As someone who has heard many, many pulpit rabbis say very, very, um, eccentric things about people of other races or religious beliefs, let me just say that Orthodox Jews should think twice before imputing the views of religious leaders to their congregants. See this post, for example, which quotes a local pulpit rabbi with a statement that can only be described as racist. I think the best response to the Reverend Wright issue came from Obama himself yesterday in a talk he gave in Cleveland, basically characterizing Wright as an old uncle who says crazy things sometimes. The unstated point being, in the words of the JTA, "HEY, DON’T ANY OF YOU HAVE AN UNCLE WHO SAYS SHVARTZA?" (Yes. And an aunt, a grandfather and two neighbors.)

In short, there isn't any compelling reason to think that Obama will be any worse than Clinton or McCain on Israel.

Mi Amar Et Zeh?

On the nature of the threat Israel faces: "American policy should recognize the enormous threat that Israel faces and should be supportive of the need for Israel to make its own determinations about how it can best secure itself. ...If I was worried that my child getting on the school bus might be blown up, I would be interested in taking whatever steps were necessary to eliminate that threat[.]"

On targeted assassinations: Only Israel "is in the best position to make judgments about what steps are necessary. ... I can't say that if there was some mechanism for the United States to kill (Osama) bin Laden and his capture was impossible, then I don't think anybody in the United States would object to exercising that option."

On the security fence: "[I]t has worked in the short term. I don't think that people in Israel themselves think that the fence is an optimal or a long-term solution to their security threat. My hope is that, having stopped the immediate rash of suicide bombings, that it becomes a short-term means to refocus attention on dialogue and rebuilding on the future and that hostilities lessen even if they are not entirely eliminated."

Local Rabbi on Tomorrow's Democratic Primary

The choice between Hillary and Obama is "as clear as black and white."

Bobble-Head Hillary

Watch this clip from last night's debate. Specifically, watch her head (and make sure not to fall into a trance while doing so). What is up with her? Some sort of yoga-based anger management excercise to prevent her from lunging for Russert's throat? Any other ideas?

The Curious Case of Rav Soloveitchik, Rabbi Louis Bernstein and the 1985 RCA Convention

Can anyone imagine the leading rabbi of the Conservative movement giving the keynote address at the Rabbinical Council of America's annual convention? Well, that is exactly what happened in 1985. That year, the head of the RCA, Rabbi Louis Bernstein invited Conservative Rabbinical Assembly leader Rabbi Alexander Shapiro to address their annual convention at the Homowack in upstate New York. Not only that, earlier that year, Rabbi Bernstein spoke at the RA's convention in Miami.

Predictably, the Mo'etzes Gedolei Hatorah objected (see page 24-25 here), and according to the New York Times, "letters were sent to the wives of several rabbis imploring them not to let their husbands attend the convention."

In response, Rabbi Bernstein made a surprising claim:

Before agreeing to the convention exchange, Rabbi Bernstein said, he cleared the matter with Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, the 82-year-old Torah sage at Yeshiva University, one of the most widely respected Orthodox leaders.

The reason it is surprising is that Rav Soloveitchik was opposed to interdenominational dialogue and cooperation with respect halakhic matters (as opposed to matters relating to issues of Jewish survival and defense), and the topic of Rabbi Shapiro's address was "recognition of Conservative ritual procedures" and a "call for a joint beth din, or rabbinical court, in the United States." These are the precisely the kinds of topic Rav Soloveitchik held should not be the subject of interdenominational cooperation.

It could be that Rav Soloveitchik was not made fully aware of the situation. By 1985, Rav Soloveitchik was very ill and was no longer actively giving shiurim. It is also possible that while Rav Soloveitchik opposed cooperation with other denominations -- such as the creation of joint religious courts -- he had no problem with giving a Conservative rabbi a time at the podium.

My admittedly armchair analysis is that this represented some sort of watershed in Orthodox politics. These events are unimaginable today. While left-wing Modern Orthodox institutions like YCT might interact with Conservative rabbis and scholars, the mainstream Modern Orthodox represented by the RCA would not. But it's not just a matter of substance, it’s a matter of conviction and self-confidence. Just check out the stridency of Rabbi Bernstein's defense of his invitation to Rabbi Shapiro:

Rabbi Bernstein said he would not be pressured by the ''right wing'' of Orthodoxy. ''For us, the only guidelines must be what is right, and not what the right says,'' Rabbi Bernstein argued.

Can anyone imagine an Modern Orthodox leader use such language regarding the right wing today?

Would Someone Please Buy the New York Times a Jewish Calendar?

From today's Times:

Judge Mukasey did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment, and a Giuliani campaign spokeswoman declined to comment.

Of course, the reason Mukasey "did not respond" is because he is Orthodox and was likely contacted on Succos, and therefore couldn't access his phone or email. Although I don't for sure that William Rashbaum, the author of the story, is Jewish (although I assume he is), given Rashbaum's long career as a reporter on the local New York beat, I find it surprising that he didn't understand why Mukasey didn't respond.

Confusing Our Jewish Youth (In Song!)

Here are the first two songs on the new London Girls Choir album, "Pulling Strings".

Song 1 ("Pulling Strings"):

"Its not because of my hard work That I did well again,
Its the One who is and th one who was and the one who will remain"

Song 2 ("I CAN!"):

"If I think I can then I'll try
if I keep trying than I'II see that I can!"

TV With Tzitzis

Check this out. It's a new cable channel called TJC (The Jewish Channel) devoted to, you guessed it, Jewish content. Here is a short promo film posted at the site which should be watched for no other reason than the downright awesome-ness of the backup track (a Brooklyn-based singer named Leah Siegal).



The idea of a Jewish cable channel has appeal, but the execution of the ideae can potentially end in disaster (a Jew version of BET with lots of Seinfeld reruns, Howard Stern and Barrry Manilow, for example is a truly nightmarish thought). Thankfully, TJC seems to be going about it in the right way. The content described on the website thus far looks very interesting: an entire lineup of fiction and documentary films -- most of which I never heard of before -- focused on Jewish history and culture. Some of the films look truly fascinating -- there is one called Paradise Camp about Jews who were lured to Theresienstadt by Nazi propaganda falsely describing the place as some sort of safe haven:

The extent to which Nazis went to lie to the Jews and to the general public is astonishing. Turning the camp into the equivalent of a film set, the Nazis applied a fresh coat of paint to the buildings, cleaned the streets, and brought in ample props to depict life at a concentration camp as if it were Heaven on Earth. Paradise Camp shows clips from the dumbfounding and fascinating propaganda film that resulted, where little old women knit, a small boy waters a garden with an oversized water barrel, and everyone wears a lazy smile and a healthy layer of fat.

Until now, all of these films were effectively available only to film aficionados who attend film festivals or small, arthouse cinemas in New York City or the like. If nothing else, TJC will accomplish something by bringing a wealth of high quality content to an audience who will appeciate it and create a market, however modest, for films that might otherwise not get made.

The AG Who Won't Roll on Shabbos

The man who in all likelihood will replace Alberto Gonzales as our next Attorney General will be klapping al cheit this shabbos, shaking lulav and esrog next week, and dancing with the Torah the next. That's right: Judge Michael Mukasey is an Orthodox Jew.

So why hasn't this fact gotten more attention? Although Mukasey's nomination was first reported on Sunday, I first heard about Mukasey's religious observance has today, though solely from Jewish media sources. And none of the Orthodox people I mentioned this to were aware of this fact either.

I think the fact no big deal is being made of Mukasey's religion is a big deal. Only a month ago there was much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth about what Noah Feldman's article would mean for Orthodox people in the modern world. At the time, I noted that I thought that this was an overreaction. Thankfully, and for now at least, the media's reaction to the Mukasey nomination shows that I was right.

Professor Heilman? Where Are You?

A NYT Metro Section article regarding non-Orthodox Jewish congregations in decline, broad proclamations regarding demographic trends among American Jewry and...something's missing: a painfully obvious quote regarding the "slide to the right" from Professor Samuel Heilman.

In the past, quoting Professor Samuel Heilman was de riguer for New York Times articles like this one. I always imagined his number on the speed dial of every NYT religion reporter (and every writer with the Jewish Week and the Forward, for that matter) with the word JEW next to it which would give the reporter the ability to choose from an array of pre-recorded stock quotes to suit any situation. So why no quote in today's article? Does the Grey Lady take its cues from the Canonist and Krum?

Welcome Aboard

Welcome aboard, Hot Dog Benjamin. Be nice.

The World Jewish Congress: The Tantruming Child of the Jewish Organizational World

While I used the word "farce" with regard to the WJC a few months ago, that word doesn't do justice to the latest goings on at that once venerable institution.

On Monday, we learned that the WJC filed suit against its former officer, Rabbi Israel Singer, arising from his alleged failure to return frequent flyer miles earned by Singer during his tenure at the WJC and a variety of WJC-owned goods. The lawsuit seeks approximately $27,300. Given the cost of legal services in New York, it's hard to see how this suit is a wise use of donor dollars. It's also hard to square this move with the pledge by the WJC president Ron Lauder that the WJC was intent on moving on.

On Tuesday, however, we learned that Ron Lauder, was unaware of the lawsuit despite having taken office two months ago:

The decision to take action against Singer was made last February, four months before Lauder was elected to head the organization, officials said.

Lauder had been informed that lawyers had been hired before he came to office to prepare a lawsuit, but was never subsequently advised that they were going to file the lawsuit, or consulted on the issue, the officials said.

The explanation is telling regarding the course of events at the WJC over the past several months. The anonymous officials quoted in the article assert that the decision to file the suit was made in February, before Singer was even fired. Which means that the WJC decided to sue one of its top officials for refusing to return goods retained after his terminated, before he was even terminated!

Today we learned that Lauder now remembers the suit being discussed, "but said that he did not know of the timing and was not reached on the day it was filed."

The lawsuit is the brainchild of outgoing secretary general, Stephen Herbits, who appears intent on running the WJC like his personal fiefdom despite the fact that a successor to Herbits has already been named. Even Singer nemesis Isi Liebler expressed shock at the filing of the lawsuit:

"This is exactly why I feel that Herbits should have left the organization the day after the elections as he undertook to do," said Isi Leibler, a former WJC vice president. "My concerns are what other initiatives he may take without informing his president or executive," he said.

So I guess until Herbits leaves, we can continue to expect the WJC to embarrass itself, like lashing out against other Jewish organizations with the word "World" in its title:

Meanwhile, a letter sent recently by the WJC's legal counsel in New York suspends the World Zionist Organization from the WJC, officials said.

And the rest of the Jewish world will wait for him to leave and ignore what happens in the interim, sort of like when you ignore the things your crazy uncle might say when he's drunk or off his meds:

A WZO spokesman said Tuesday the WJC was going through turmoil, adding that WZO was convinced any problems will be straightened out after September 10 with the new WJC leadership.

The War on Kaparos

Last week's discussion of kaparos in R' Gerson Tannenbaum's My Machberes column has already been discussed on several blogs. Let me just a focus on a few interesting points in the column:

1. R' Tannenbaum provides some background regarding the controversy surrounding the kaparos ritual by quoting R' Yosef Caro's well-known statement in the Shulchan Aruch that "…the practice should be prevented." More surprising is the following statement:

The Shulchan Aruch – Code of Jewish Law, authored by Rabbi Yosef Karo, zt”l (1488-1575) (reverently referred to as the Mechaber) in the first edition, refers to the custom of kapparos as “foolishness”...

What statement is R' Tannenbaum referring to? Where does R' Caro refer to kapparos as "foolishness"? R' Tannenbaum is actually talking about the text of the heading of Siman 605, which refers to kaparos as a "minhag shel shtus" in an early edition. How do I know this? Because I am a regular reader of On the main line, who posted about it about a month ago. So, is R' Tannenbaum a reader of a, how shall I say, somewhat "maskilic" blog? Or am I just underestimating the breadth of knowledge of Charedi rabbis? (Or overestimating bloggers?)

2. Has PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) become the conscience of Orthodoxy? That appears to be the case, at least in this instance. According to the article, it was a letter from PETA to the NYC health commission raising issues regarding the conduct of kaparos in Brooklyn that led to a July 2007 meeting of Orthodox leaders to discuss greater scrutiny of kaparos centers.

3. How sad is it that I find the following sentence encouraging?

The meeting of the rabbis, roshei yeshiva, and Chassidishe rebbes took place in the Novominsker Beis Medrash. Participants, in alphabetic order, were: Rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld, Matesdorfer Rav; Rabbi Moshe Elefant, representing the Orthodox Union; Rabbi Eliyahu Fischer, Rosh Kollel Ger of Boro Park; Rabbi Yosef Frankel, Vyelopoler Rebbe; Rabbi Shraga Feivel Hager, Kosover Rebbe; Rabbi Yisroel Heller, of the Beth Din of Crown Heights; Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetzky, Rosh Yeshiva Philadelphia; Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler, Rosh Yeshiva Beis Medrash Govoha of Lakewood; Rabbi Shmuel Lefkowitz, representing Agudath Israel; Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, Novominsker Rebbe; Rabbi Yehoshua Rubin representing Bobov; Rabbi Aaron Shechter, Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin; Rabbi Menachem Mendel Teitelbaum, Williamsburg Satmar Rav; Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Orthodox Union Executive Vice-President; Rabbi Moshe Menachem Weiss, Boro Park Pupa Dayan; and Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel, Agudath Israel Vice- President.

More on Political Correctness: Jews Can Do It To!

To those commenters that asserted in response to my previous post that political correctness doesn't protect Jews, explain this:

The upscale chain store Delia’s, which peddles trendy clothing to teens, included in its line of accessories a kaffiyeh — the traditional head covering of Muslim men — under the name “peace scarf.”

Naomi Davis of Lawrence was rattled when she discovered the item last week while flipping through a catalog. “I called customer service and I said, ‘I’m really very offended by an item that you’re selling,’” Davis said. She found out that she wasn’t alone when the customer service representative told her, “‘Oh yes, we’ve gotten hundreds of calls which is why we took it off our web site. We didn’t mean to offend anyone. We didn’t mean for it to be a political statement.’”

What happened next should come as no surprise to those that follow the PC wars:

The item, renamed ‘euro scarf,’ is listed online as ‘no longer available,’ although the picture remained as of Monday, along with the phrase ‘Peace Scarf,’ itself. ... In the statement Delia’s apologized and stressed that it does not support terrorism.

End of story? I'm afraid not. For some, apparently, an apology and removal of the item wasn't enough:

Davis, told by customer service that the company would continue to offer the kaffiyehs for sale under a different name, said she explained that, in her opinion, “it doesn’t matter what you call it, it’s still a symbol of the intifada.” Will she continue to patronize Delia’s? “Absolutely not,” she said, “I have two teenage daughters, which is who they market to, and they will not be shopping there.”

I agree that calling a keffiyeh a "peace scarf" is an inappropriate political statement for a retailer to make, especially a retailer that expects to make sales in the Jewish community. The name clearly suggests an association between the item and Palestinian nationalism and is making a positive judgment about the movement by associating it with peace. But to object to its sale at all? The keffiyeh has been a traditional garb of millions of Arabs. While it may also be the garb of Hamas, the scarf is not inherently associated with terrorism. If you're offended by the item, don't buy it. But don't insist that the rest of the world see things the same way you do.

Feldman, Schwach and Tipping Points

Ezzie raises a very interesting question about whether the Schwach editorial constitutes some sort of tipping point with respect anti-Orthodox rhetoric here:Surely the slew of letters to be printed next will include both of the following:

Letters demanding an apology from (or the firing of) Mr. Schatz for his bigoted piece, and defenders of Mr. Schatz for "telling the truth" about "those Jews". It simply opens up the flood of anti-Semitic or anti-Orthodox views, disguised as concern for the welfare of the community. I was discussing "The Tipping Point" with The Half-Heretic over the weekend, and this is the type of action that is exactly what the book is referring to. By breaking this little window, and allowing Schatz to publish such a thing, it allows anyone else to start saying the same type of thing. Kudos to OM for calling him on it.

I have heard others suggest that Feldman's article was actually the tipping point. Frankly, I am not concerned about a "tipping point" resulting in a public outpouring of pent up anti-Orthodox vitriol. And the reason is simple: political correctness. Political correctness has become so entrenched in mainstream American culture that any sort of criticism of minorities finds little sympathy among media and politicians. PC serves as a bulwark against this become a true tipping point.

The most recent evidence of this is the "Orthodox Majority" ads in the recent school board elections in the Five Towns. While those ads certainly expressed the sentiments of many in the community, the ads found little sympathy outside the community and were met with denunciations by local politicians. Ultimately, the ads may have led to an Orthodox sweep of those elections. An even better example is Islam after 9/11. The actions of 19 Muslims made Islam a target orders of magnitude larger than Orthodox Judaism. Yet we all remember Bush admonishing the country in the days after 9/11 about not making judgments about Islam or its adherents. And although Islam has had a rough patch publicity-wise since, it's still considered bad form to criticize the tenets of the religion.

The irony in all this is the fact that many Orthodox Jews have a grand time skewering political correctness and denouncing it as censorship and as anathema to clear, honest thinking. See here and here for examples. Yet some of these self same Jews will no doubt echo PC rhetoric in efforts to publicly defend Orthodoxy or at least enjoy the protection that PC-ness will provide.

Although too often taken to extremes, my view has always been that political correctness is about basic, "kindergarten" values like empathy and respect for others. If an Asian person tells me that he finds the term "Oriental" offensive, who am I to argue? Being able to put ourselves in someone else's shoes isn't a bad thing. It's what makes us human. And if there is any good that comes out of Feldman and Schwach's essays, it's reminding our community of that lesson.