Amusing, And Then Again, Not So Much

You’d think it was a Purim joke. But, no, “Operation Schtickle Pioneer” is a thing.

At least in one person’s mind.

Did you know that a Jewish cabal is planning to make “large areas of public property… [into] extension[s] of private Jewish households,” and that concerned citizens are, as a result, “under siege by members of religious groups backed by the Agudath Israel of America”?

Neither did I. But one anonymous New Jersey activist, the baal habayis of a new website, knows better. He informs us that the Agudah has “instructed its followers to start taking over areas within 1.5 hours of Manhattan in an attempt to ‘convert’ them to the Hasidic way of life.”

And that the national Orthodox organization has named its nefarious plot, yes, “Operation Schtickle [sic] Pioneer.”

A moment’s thought and a bit of imagination yield the realization that that Mr. NoEruv is referring to the scandalous practice of putting pieces of plastic piping on some utility poles to serve as lechis for eruvim. Indeed, he christened his site “NoEruv.” And he has a warning for us plotters: “We have you and know how you operate.”

Confused? Let us, as the Chinese saying goes, feing ohn fun der unfaing, or start at the beginning.

That would be Agudath Israel 93rd national convention, which took place in 2015. At one of the many sessions during the multi-day event, long-time Agudath Israel Vice President for Community Services Rabbi Shmuel Lefkowitz addressed the topic of the Orthodox community’s “Growing Pains” – the unaffordability of housing born of the tzibbur’s growth.

Rabbi Lefkowitz made a radical (well, to some) suggestion, namely that people who were raised in places like Borough Park, Flatbush, Manhattan or Lakewood consider living in somewhat off-the-beaten-track locales. He didn’t go quite so far as I once did when I suggested establishing Satmarer in Sioux City, moving Telshers to Tuskegee and Y.U.ers to Wyoming. More modestly, he simply asked his listeners to consider buying homes in outlying boroughs and suburbs in New York and New Jersey.

And he said, several times, without a hint of ominousness, “You can be a shtickel pioneer.”

Thus – under the direction, presumably, of the Elders of Zion – was born “Operation Schtickle Pioneer.”

Our anonymous anti-eruvite managed to mangle, if only in his heady head, an innocent endorsement of Jews’ setting their homestead horizons a bit beyond their comfort zones into a nefarious plot by scheming rabbis to “instruct their followers on how to convert townships in New Jersey.”

The would-be lechi-liquidator is understandably frustrated. Several weeks ago, the township of Mahwah, New Jersey, which had halted the building of an eruv, reached a settlement that included not only the resumption of the eruv-building but also the town’s pledge to not interfere in its maintenance and upkeep, and to provide a police escort for any such work (as vandals had previously torn down lechis).

It also agreed to pay the Bergen Rockland Eruv Association at least $10,000 in legal fees.

For its part, the Eruv Association agreed to switch the white PVC pipes it had been using for elements that better blend in with the utility poles.

The settlement was the result of a lawsuit last October by then-State Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino, charging the town with violating the rights of religious Jews. Then-Mahwah Mayor Bill Laforet and then-New Jersey Governor Chris Christie supported the suit.

All of which apparently made Mr. NoEruv unhappy. He insists that the Constitution’s First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of an official religion for the U.S., thereby forbids the erection of eruvim on public property.

But the Mahwah eruv opponents didn’t stand a chance in court, as those supporting the ordinance forbidding the eruv clearly aimed to prevent Orthodox Jews from moving to the town – rendering the question not one of establishing a religion but rather one of preventing citizens’ free exercise thereof, the other part of the Establishment Clause.

In any event, it’s pretty clear that more important to Mr. NoEruv than any Constitutional issue is the sneaky way Jews are bent, as he sees it, on… taking over and “converting” others.

I can’t know the mind of Mr. NoEruv, so I can’t opine on its state. But I’m not sure what’s more disturbing: That a man would so dislike religious Jews that he would intentionally misrepresent an innocuous statement as something devious, or that a man might actually believe that the statement is in fact devious.

Either way, and amusing as his imagined plot may be, people like Mr. NoEruv are no joke.

© Hamodia 2018

 

Surveying Some Surveys

The imbalance itself didn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been observing the political scene in recent years, but the degree to which Democrats’ support for Israel has dropped and Republicans’ has risen, as revealed by a recent Pew Research Center survey, was striking.

A mere 27% of the 1503 respondents who identified themselves as Democrats told the pollsters they sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians, and 25% said their sympathies lie with the Palestinians.

Among self-identified Republicans, those numbers were 79% and 6%, respectively.

In 1978, 49% of Republicans and 44% of Democrats sympathized with Israel over the Palestinians. And in earlier years, it was the Democratic party that was perceived as the most supportive of Israel, and the Republican as a less reliable friend. Times, and parties, change.

Vital, though, for all of us who care about Israel to remember is that political parties, as has been asserted repeatedly in this space, are not sports teams. It would be mindless, in fact counterproductive, for Jews to become “fans” and brand either party as “pro” or “anti” Israel, and unthinkingly vote accordingly.

For what the poll reveals is just that the pool of Americans who are less sympathetic, or hostile, to Israel has gravitated to the Democratic party – not that Democrats in Congress, or Democratic candidates, are in sync with those misguided citizens.

Of course, that gravitation is worrisome in itself. But we must remind ourselves that some of Israel’s most stalwart and ardent supporters in Congress are Democrats, and that Congress as a body is unmistakably friendly to Israel and supportive of her security needs.

Resolutions and legislation favoring Israel routinely pass both houses of Congress with little to no opposition. And among the 18 states that have passed laws against the BDS movement, nine are blue, nine are red.

The Pew survey, moreover, shows that sympathy for Israel remains greater than that for the Palestinians among men, women, whites, blacks, Hispanics, the educated, the uneducated, Protestants, Catholics and even (if at a disturbingly slim margin) Democrats.

More concerning to me than the Pew survey, though, are the results of another recent one, from Nashville-based LifeWay Research, which found that, while 77% of older evangelicals – the largest identifiable strongly pro-Israel group –say they support the existence, security and prosperity of Israel, the percentage drops to 58 percent among younger evangelicals, those 18 to 34.

“For the most part,” said Scott McConnell, who directs that research center, “younger evangelicals are indifferent about Israel.” That’s not good news.

And more disturbing still is yet another recent survey, this one conducted by sociologist Steven M. Cohen and social researcher Jack Ukeles, of 3000 respondents in the Bay Area.

They found that a mere 11% of Jews ages 18-34 said they were “very attached to Israel.” Even more alarming was their finding that only 30% of American Jews in that age cohort said that they sympathized more with Israel than with the Palestinians. And, most startling of all, that only 40% of those surveyed said they were even “comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state.”

Now, the Bay Area isn’t exactly representative of the nation. Were Northern California (my home for 7 years a few decades ago) a state unto itself, its capital would be either San Francisco or Berkeley, whose latitudinarian reputations are legend.

But an earlier study of the broader Jewish geographical scene, the 2013 Pew survey of American Jews nationwide, yielded a similarly worrisome portrait of young respondents’ feelings. It, too, found that less than a third of young Jews it asked sympathized more with Israel than the Palestinians.

If such young Jewish Americans’ attitude don’t mature, and evangelical support for Israel wanes in tandem, the tight connection between the U.S. and Israel could, chalilah, be threatened.

There is, though, a silver lining to that ominous cloud: Us.

That is to say, the Orthodox community. We are deeply committed to Israel’s security, and we are poised to become a formidable social and political force on the American scene.

Orthodox Jews already represent more than a quarter of American Jews 17 years and younger. Within the past two generations, according to Professor Cohen, the Orthodox percentage of the American Jewish population has already more than quadrupled.  And the trend is, baruch Hashem, continuing.

Our young generation, both in its embrace of Torah u’mitzvos and its support for its brothers and sisters in Israel, is the converse of the one the Pew study described. And will be playing a pivotal role in maintaining a continued strong bond between American Jewry and Israel.

© 2018 Hamodia

Habeas Corpus for Horses?

Over the years, thanks to some creative, unusual talmidim I was privileged to teach when I was a mesivta Rebbe, I have had an assortment of pets (the animal sort). Each of several Purims, my shiur would give my wife and me, in addition to mishloach manos, a living gift.

We thereby became the proud caretakers, at various points, of a goat, an iguana and a tarantula. In addition to the tropical fish we’ve always kept, and the occasional hamster or mouse one or another of our children cared for.

I honestly appreciated each of the creatures; they evoked in me amazement over the variety and abilities of Hashem’s creations. Likewise, the birds and squirrels outside our dining room window during breakfast are an endless source of beauty (and, even sweeter, needn’t be fed). My wife is particularly partial to the graceful deer that sometimes venture from nearby woods to visit.

But animals are animals. Not, as some increasingly assert, beings less sentient than us but no less worthy of being treated as human.

The more than two thirds of American households that own pets spend more than $60 billion on their care each year, up sharply in recent years. People give dogs birthday presents and have their portraits taken by professional photographers. According to at least one study, many Americans grow more concerned when they see a dog in pain than when they see an adult human suffering.

That’s bad enough, but the law, too, is being enlisted to obscure the bright line between the animal and the human spheres.

Last year, the Illinois legislature passed a law that would force courts to give “parents” joint custody of pets in divorce cases. “It sort of starts treating your animal more like children,” says an unembarrassed Illinois State Senator Linda Holmes, the bill’s sponsor.

The nonprofit Nonhuman Rights Project promotes the idea that animals should be entitled to the right to not be unlawfully detained without a judge’s order. Habeas corpus for horses.

New York University law professor Richard Epstein sees the implications, and skeptically observes that “We kill millions of animals a day for food. If they have the right to bodily liberty, it’s basically a holocaust.”

Shades of the 2002 book that made precisely that case. It bears a truly obscene title: “Eternal Treblinka.”

And then there is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals founder and president Ingrid Newkirk’s declaration a few years back that “Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses,” and her infamous aphorism “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”

We are required by halachah to protect animals from needless harm or unnecessary suffering when they are put to our service or killed for food. But that is a far bark from assigning them “rights.”

We who have been gifted with the Torah, as well as all people who are the product of societies influenced by Torah truths, have no problem distinguishing between animals and human beings.

But some secularists reason that, since animals have mental abilities, if limited ones, they should be treated like human infants.

If such people’s minds are open even a crack, though, they should be able to realize that considering animals qualitatively different from humans isn’t “speciesism” but a truth born of observable facts.

Yes, animals think and communicate. But conceiving or conveying abstract but important concepts like “right” and “wrong” and “responsibility” and “wantonness” – is something quintessentially, and pointedly, human.

Humans, moreover, have what philosophy calls moral agency, the ability to choose to act even against instinct.

And something else.

In a recent conversation with an eldercare professional, I pointed out something she had never considered.

Seen through a secular lens, biological species are “interested” only in preserving their own lives and those of their progeny; their behavior (consciously or not) serves the biological goal of the species’ perseverance. The previous generation has no value; it has served its purpose. Animals care only for their young, not for their parents.

Humans, though, at least in normal circumstances, feel an obligation to care for those to whom they owe their lives.

It will have to be seen whether or not such compelling distinctions will put brakes on the misguided idea of a smooth animal-human continuum. And, if it doesn’t, whether those who see animals as human (and vice versa, the inevitable other side of that counterfeit coin) will be able to enlist lawmakers in their goals.

More than we might imagine will hang on it.

© 2018 Hamodia

Poland Isn’t Denmark

 Poland has a point.

The country’s legislature passed a controversial bill last week aimed at quashing the use of the phrase “Polish death camps” for Nazi extermination enterprises built and operated by the Third Reich across Poland. The bill, which Polish President Andrzej Duda later signed into law, also bans referring to “the Polish Nation” as “responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes,” on penalty of fines or a maximum three-year jail term.

Poland was indeed an occupied country during that dark time. In addition to murdering 3,000,000 Jews, the Germans also killed between two and three million non-Jewish Polish civilians.

More than 6,700 Poles, moreover – more than citizens of any other nationality – have been honored as “Righteous Among the Nations” by Yad Vashem for their bravery in resisting the Nazis.

So one can understand how using “Polish” as the adjective modifying “death camps” might rankle Poles today. “Nazi death camps in Poland” is a more accurate description of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor.

But Poland, all said and done, was not Denmark. The Danes, whose country was also occupied by the Nazis, famously refused to give up their Jews to the Nazis. When, in 1941, Danish authorities were told by their German overlords that a roundup of the country’s Jews was imminent, they immediately informed the Jewish community and, with the help of the citizenry, hid many Jews and spirited many more to safety in Sweden.

By contrast, and with all due and richly deserved recognition of the risky heroism of thousands of Poles during World War II, Jew-hatred was no German import to their land.

Religion-based anti-Semitism was entrenched in Polish society well before the Nazis invaded Poland. There were blood libels and widespread promotion of the stereotype of Jews as disloyal and worse. By 1939, hostility towards Jews was a mainstay of the country’s popular right-wing political forces.

My father, a”h, recalled being warned by his parents in their Polish town of Ruzhan to not venture outside around Pesach-time. Church sermons, he wrote in his memoir, “spurred our Gentile neighbors to try to kill Jews.” He and his siblings would peek through the window to see angry townspeople marching with banners, looking for victims.

Polish-born historian Jan Grabowski notes that approximately 250,000 Jews fled the liquidated ghettos in 1942 and 1943, yet only 35,000 survived the war.  His conclusion: more than 200,000 Polish Jews were betrayed by their countrymen to the Germans or the Polish police beholden to them.

“We will under no circumstances,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in reaction to the new Polish law, “accept any attempt to rewrite history.”

Yad Vashem decried the legislation too, as did a U.S. Congressional taskforce on combatting anti-Semitism, which said that the law “could have a chilling effect on dialogue, scholarship, and accountability in Poland about the Holocaust.”

Polish leaders and media expressed dismay over the Israeli and American reaction. Poles, understandably, don’t like to be tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism, neither in their past nor in their present.

A 2017 survey by the Polish Center for Research on Prejudice showed that more than 55 percent of Poles were “annoyed” by talk of Polish participation in crimes against Jews.

Telling, though, were some expressions of that dismay and annoyance.

Like those on a program that aired last week on a mainstream Polish television channel, TVP2.

The program was hosted by Marcin Jerzy Wolski, and his guest was Polish commentator and author Rafal Aleksander Ziemkiewicz. Shortly before the program, Mr. Ziemkiewicz posted a thought on social media:

“For many years I have convinced my people that we must support Israel. Today, because of a few scabby or greedy people, I feel like an idiot.” “Scab” is a Polish slur for “Jew.”

The posting was later deleted, but first thoughts are often the most revealing ones.

Then, on the program itself, Mr. Ziemkiewicz offered further wisdom.

“If we look at the percentage of involvement of countries that took part,” he suggested, “Jews also were part of their own destruction.”

Mr. Wolski emphatically agreed. “Using this terminology, linguistically,” he offered, “we could say these were not German or Polish camps, but were Jewish camps. After all, who dealt with the crematoria?”

Got that? Since Jews were forced on penalty of death to burn their relatives’ remains, their prisons were “Jewish death camps.”

It has to make one think. What in the world could so pervert a human mind to equate collaborators with victims? To compare those abetting evil with those who suffered its horrible designs?

Only one answer readily comes to mind.

© 2018 Hamodia

Statement of Agudath Israel of America on Polish Holocaust Law

February 2, 2018

 

Statement of Agudath Israel of America on Polish Holocaust Law

 

The thousands of Polish citizens who courageously hid and aided Jews during the Holocaust are legend, and deserving of the deepest admiration.

But, according to eyewitnesses and historians, many thousands of Jews who fled liquidated ghettos in 1942 – 1943 were handed over by other Polish citizens to the Germans or those beholden to them.

To attempt to legislate a ban on speaking that truth is a betrayal, too, of those victims of the Nazis, and of history itself.

# # #

 

Remember The Pueblo

On your next vacation in Pyongyang, be sure to visit the Victorious Fatherland Liberation War Museum, formerly known as the USS Pueblo.

The Pueblo is the only American vessel being held by a foreign country. It has been in North Korea for, as of last week, fifty years.

The ship’s story is well recalled by many of us of a certain age – I became bar mitzvah the previous year – but is unknown to many post boomers. It is, however, a saga with significant implications for contemporary geopolitics.

The two separate and very different Koreas emerged from World War II, when the north of the peninsula was occupied by the Soviet Union, and its south by the U.S. North Korea made repeated incursions into South Korea. The North took on a radical Marxist identity; the South, a Western capitalist one.

On January 17, 1968, the North launched what is known as the Blue House Raid, in which a 31-man detachment from the Korean People’s Army snuck across the demilitarized zone between the two countries on a mission to infiltrate the South Korean President’s official residence, the “Blue House,” and to, in the words of the insurgents’ general, “Cut off Park Chung-hee’s head!”

The North Koreans were spotted and a firefight ensued. Most of the North Koreans were killed or captured, but 27 South Koreans and three American soldiers perished and 69, including three Americans, were wounded.

At that same time, the Pueblo, which had been converted to a spy ship, was in international waters off the coast of North Korea. In a communications lapse that today would be unthinkable, the ship’s captain, Lloyd M. Bucher, and his 83-man crew knew nothing of North Korea’s most recent attack on the South.

Less than a week after the Blue House attack, the Pueblo was accosted by North Korean navy vessels and air support. The American vessel was fired upon and one crewman was killed. The vessel was not equipped to respond militarily to such an attack and, on January 23, North Korean forces boarded the Pueblo.

The North Koreans claimed the American ship had violated its territorial waters, and held its captain and crew captive. In order to force “confessions” from the captives, it severely mistreated them as well.

Captain Bucher repeatedly refused to cooperate.  But he was beaten and deprived of sleep, and shown the example of a suspected South Korean spy – a unconscious man hanging from the ceiling by his hands and who had been beaten so severely his bones showed through his skin. The torture victim had bitten through his lower lip and one of his eyes had been put out. Captain Bucher was told that his crew would be killed, beginning with the youngest and working up. The captain decided at that point to sign a confession.

The forced confession was signed on February 15 and the humili­ation inflicted on the U.S. was exploited for all its worth, complete with propaganda photos of the “repentant” crew. The sham became clear when, in one photo, the crew members displayed a rude gesture (which they told their captors was a Hawaiian “good luck” sign). Captain Bucher also punned on an English word to change a salute to the North Koreans into an insult of them. When the captors realized that their propaganda had been undermined, they beat the captives even more harshly than before.

Eleven months after the Pueblo’s capture, its captain and the surviving members of its crew were freed, when the U.S., after lengthy negotiations with the North Koreans, provided a written apology and admission that the Pueblo had been spying, and an assurance that the U.S. would not spy in the future. The apology, however, was preceded by an oral statement that it was done only to secure the captives’ release.

And so, North Korea’s current animosity toward the U.S. is nothing new; it is, in fact, central to its identity and its leaders’ self-justification. The country’s leader today, Kim Jong-un, needs to stir that cauldron of hatred even more than did his father, Kim Jong-Il, or his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, who led North Korea when the Pueblo was captured.

And he has nuclear weapons.

Last week, two days after the 50th anniversary of the Pueblo’s capture and after countless recent provocations of South Korea, the North suddenly announced that “all Koreans at home and abroad” should make a “breakthrough” for unification, “promot[ing] contact, travel, cooperation between North and South Korea.” And it added that Pyongyang will “smash” all challenges to the two Koreas’ reunification.

Nations’ alliances and enmities come and go. Some animosities, though, run so deep they seem immutable.

That’s a lesson to be learned from visiting a ship-turned-museum in Pyongyang.

© 2018 Hamodia