Letters to the Editor, August 4, 2021: Polls apart

Eliezrie is over-reacting. Polls are capable of reporting an incredible amount of misinformation, ignorance and downright stupidity. To cite some examples: 45% of the US population believed that former US president Barack Obama was a Muslim; 60% do not believe in evolution. A Roper poll in 1991 revealed that four million Americans believed that they had been abducted by extra-terrestrial aliens. In a famous sidewalk poll by comedian Jay Leno, 55% of the students at UCLA (a top US university) did not know whether Canada was to the north or the south of California.

The response of many in the polls is a woke-inspired Pavlovian knee-jerk. Most of the responders in this poll probably could not have described the features of an apartheid state or given a single true example of how Israel is supposedly one. If asked, even a greater percentage would probably have responded that the USA is an apartheid state. Only 25% in that poll regarding Israel should be viewed as a substantial victory.

The recent Pew research shows increasing alienation of young Jewish Americans toward Israel, to the point that two out of five (40%) Jews agree with the statement that the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is similar to racism in America. This is a direct effect of the “progressives” in the Democratic Party who equate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with racism in America (“Tests Ahead,” July 21). In this narrative, American Jews are regarded as part of the “racist white” establishment and the Palestinians are equated with African-Americans, Hispanics and Moslems.

Some years ago, a comprehensive Commentary magazine study on American Jewry revealed that a major raison d’etre of American Jews is “to belong and be accepted by their neighbors.” Today, young American Jews are driven mainly by tikun olam and social justice issues. They are determined to join the battle against “racism in America.” However, in their idealistic eagerness, their Jewish identity and support of Israel are severely compromised. This seems to be due not only to the mainstreaming of the progressives, but also due to the effect of the politically correct narrative of the media on gullible young American Jews. It’s a losing battle.

Paradoxically, the best remaining hope may be – antisemitism. Historically, antisemitism played a large role in saving Jewry from assimilation. More than that, antisemitism gave birth to Zionism, which ultimately established the State of Israel. Something to think about.

It has long been reported that many Arabs started fleeing their homes in 1948 as Arab leaders were threatening to go to war to prevent the UN Partition Plan from going into effect. Indeed, in 1970, the Beirut Institute for Palestinian Studies published a paper stating that “68% of the Palestinian refugees left their homes without ever seeing a Jewish soldier or hearing a shot fired.”

This is the state of the Jewish people and if we cannot even keep this little piece of Land as God intended it to be and to which He returned us to build and settle for the Jewish people, what are we doing here? What is she doing here, although she does say she brought him here to further his career.

What she and others are asking for are generations of non-Jews picking at bits of our religion to suit themselves. I say no. Do we not have enough problems surrounded by terrorists looking to destroy us that we have to do it to ourselves?

Although the August 2 Jerusalem Post headline was “I’m still in heaven: Artem Dolgopyat wins gold,” the leading article was actually “Champion can’t get married here, says mother.” That article, placed directly to the left of the large photo, is what English readers would see first.

I believe this was bad judgment, enabling the “State vs Religion” discussion to mar and even overshadow the good news of winning the gold medal – perhaps the greatest achievement by an Israeli athlete in our history.

I agree that Artem’s problem of getting married in Israel should be brought to the notice of the public, but this article, in my opinion, should have been placed on another page.

Regarding “Biden named historian Deborah Lipstadt as Envoy to Combat Antisemitism” (July 31), it should be noted that Lipstadt for years has been a very public supporter of the New Israel Fund (NIF), one of the major anti-Israel organizations today. As former Bill Clinton adviser Hank Sheinkopf said, “Those who stand with NIF are standing against Israel.”

NIF gave $3 million to B’Tselem, as well as grants other similar anti-Israel organizations such Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Human Rights Defenders and Breaking the Silence and NIF is on record as opposing laws in 35 US states that prevent corporations from discriminating against the Jewish people of Israel.

As a historian, Lipstadt obviously cares very much about the dead Jews of Europe but as a vocal supporter of the NIF obviously, she apparently disdains the living Jews of Israel.

I do not need to debate with him the validity of his arguments, and to demonstrate the basic misconceptions upon which they are founded, as fundamentally he simply believes that “religion” is man-made and must adapt to accord with what he regards is the prevalent permissive view of what is right and what is wrong, and it is not for me to convert him. My objection is that he does not say that Israel should discard all religious features and adopt the American rigid division of state and religion, in which belief is a private affair. Rather he accepts that Israel needs to keep religious content and thus is forced to promote changing the religion. This is a prescription for an internal dispute that can destroy everything that Israel stands for, and I hope is not what he wants.

We have a typical example of this approach in the attack on Rabbi Amar in the High Court for stating that homosexuality (not those who practice it) is an “abomination,” which seeks to subject his repetition of the words of the Torah to some concept of secular law. Whatever may be one’s belief, it cannot be illegal for a rabbi to perform his duty and to teach in a sermon on a Sabbath what the Torah says, unless we follow Elazar Stern and say that the law he legislates, and not the Torah, tells the rabbinate what it is to believe and practice and teach.

There are major problems on how to reconcile normative Judaism with the requirements of the state, but the introduction of the Reform approach is not the answer. This is a matter of such importance and complexity that it should not be left to politicians to decide.

The Rabbinate appears to operate under two main principles: (1) It is always preferable to apply the most draconian interpretation rather than seeking a less stringent halachically acceptable alternative. (2) Elimination of all options except strict Orthodox observance will bring more people into the fold.

Just the opposite is true. Application of unnecessarily harsh rules drives away people who are searching for a meaningful spiritual life. Seeking to make Halacha work for each individual, showing appreciation for people who have taken the first tentative steps toward a Jewish way of life, is the best way to convince them to continue their journey. It is this philosophy of inclusivity that has made Chabad-Lubavitch such a vibrant movement.

For millennia, halachic issues have been decided through good faith argument and rational discourse. Neither Hillel nor Shammai accused the other of seeking to destroy the Jewish people by attempting to create a Reform movement. Hillel’s successful approach was characterized by the attribute of hessed (kindness), while Shammai’s was distinguished by the attribute of gevurah (might), which tends toward severity.

We need a rabbinate that operates with sensitivity toward the needs of individuals, rather than seeking simply to maintain its grip on power. The fact that alternative organizations are springing up – organizations whose purpose is to apply halacha humanely – suggests that the rabbinate’s proclivity to apply a Shammai-like approach to fundamental questions of Jewish life is unacceptable.

I had read a few reviews of this so-called reality show and had felt not only sickened but also angered by the antisemitic and anti-Jewish sentiments apparently portrayed in it. But Isaacs writes it as it is, and all kudos to her. Rubbish is rubbish.

To quote Isaacs, “Why do we indeed need to come together about this affront to Judaism? Well, as her young son says, ‘Because I am a Jew.’”

I too wish to say, “I am a Jew.”

Regarding “Jewish athletes and Olympic games” (August 2), the refusal to compete with Jews/Israelis is hardly new in Jewish Olympic history.

In the infamous 1936 Berlin Summer Games used by Hitler and Goebbels to project a picture of a burgeoning Germany to the world made no bones about its disdain for Jewish or non-Aryan participants.

Although the most publicized snub came from Hitler’s purported refusal to recognize the win of African-American Jesse Owens, there was a consistent exclusion of Jewish participation throughout.

In fact the two Jewish members of the US Running Team, Mark Glickman and Sam Stoller, who came with Jesse Owens, were pulled at the very last minute from their race and replaced by the other two members of the team apparently because they were Jews.

Goebbels tried to whitewash the antisemitism, which was already rampant in Germany, by removing blatant anti-Jewish signage from the view of the press and even allowed a German athlete whose father was Jewish to compete. When she won, she gave the Nazi salute.

We should remember that the Olympics, touted for fairness and good sportsmanship, have a history of not living up those ideals when it comes to Jewish athletes.

The writer offered this as a counterpoint to Tibi’s recent experience in the Knesset, when he endured a “disgusting lack of respect” from MK Itamar Ben-Gvir (Religious Zionists), who called him a terrorist. Over the years, she said, Tibi has suffered “a number of racial slurs,” thereby implying that Ben-Gvir had called Tibi a terrorist because he is an Arab.

But a critical piece of the story had been left out and it provides a completely different slant. Tibi, as it happens, may have been a gynecologist, but he also served for six years as a political adviser to arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat. Tibi wasn’t known to be advising Arafat to renounce terrorism (which Arafat never did), but rather on how to handle matters for political advantage. Tibi has publicly praised “martyrs” as “the symbol of the homeland.”

If Ben-Gvir refused to extend Tibi respect, it is most certainly for this reason, not due to racism.

Greer Fay Cashman rightly highlights the totally unacceptable behavior of Otzma Yehudit head Ben-Gvir, who refused to correctly address Deputy Speaker MK Ahmad Tibi, a member of the Joint List, instead calling Tibi a terrorist.

It is nothing short of a tragedy that, prior to the last election, past prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was responsible for orchestrating a deal between Ben-Gvir and Smotrich’s Religious Zionist Party securing Ben-Gvir’s place in the Knesset.

Ben-Gvir’s racist behavior is intolerable, especially in the parliament of the Jewish state. He might well have taken as an example the appalling behavior of the opposition in the opening session of the current Knesset, a deplorable and a sad reflection of the level to which some of our so-called parliamentarians have sunk.