Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Big Questions – Gerald Scarfe's Cartoon and 'anti-Semitism'

Zionist Cries of ‘anti-Semitism’ Rebound 
Rabbi Shochet of Lubavitch and the Animal Souls of Non Jews
Rabbi Schochet - cultivates an air of liberalism but is a prominent member of a religious sect that justifies genocide against non-Jews and Arabs and excuses child abuse.  The mask slipped as he couldn't conceal his outrage at having to deal with Jewish anti-Zionist opponents and opposition to gay marriage
Tony Greenstein - despite being outnumbered by a gaggle of Zionists made the issue of Palestinian oppression the key issue - many members of the audience came up afterwards to express their agreement

Although the actual question was 'Is Criticising Israel anti-Semitic' the debate was entirely about the cartoon of Gerald Scarfe, that was falsely accused of being 'anti-Semitic'.

On Sunday I spent the morning in Leicester courtesy of BBC1’s Big Questions.  The Sunday Times last week published a cartoon by Gerald Scarfe showing Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, with a trowel dripping in Palestinian blood cementing Palestinians into the Apartheid Wall.  Sure enough the predictable calls came that this was ‘anti-Semitic’.  It was the medieval blood libel no less! 
Letter to The Independent from 28 Jews who Reject Zionist Libel of anti-Semitism
This was a bogus and wholly artificial debate about nothing.  Even dedicated Zionists like Howard Jacobson accepts that there was nothing anti-Semitic about Scarfe’s cartoon.   And Rupert Murdoch, who as proprietor, apologised for the cartoon, presides over newspapers like the Sun which are virulently hostile to refugees, asylum seekers, Roma and any other minority they can get their hands on.  Murdoch himself has been caught using anti-Semitic comments such as ‘Why is Jewish owned press so consistently anti-Israel’.
Even ardent Zionist Howard Jacobson agrees that Gerald Scarfe's cartoon was not anti-Semitic.  To Lubavitch's aptly named Rabbi Schochet (a slaughterer in Hebrew!) it was 'pure unadulterated anti-semitism' or maybe pure unadulterated hype
As was pointed out by another member of the audience, traditional Jewish stereotypes, as per Julius Streicher’s Der Sturmer, show fat hooked nose Jews with duping the non-Jews out of their worldly wealth or debauching someone.  Scarfe’s cartoon did none of these things.  It merely told the truth is the form of a visual metaphor.  And the truth is what the main Zionist spokesperson, Rabbi Schochet and his minions wished to suppress in yesterday’s Big Questions.  It was one of the programme’s 3 debates.
Bogus Charges of ‘anti-Semitism’
Enjoying seeing Rabbi Shochet lose his cool as his bland assertions about Scarfe's cartoon being 'pure unadulterated anti-Semitism' fell as flat as a (kosher) pancake
When Zionists use the term ‘anti-Semitism’ what they really mean is ‘new anti-Semitism’ i.e. not hatred of Jews but opposition to Israel, the ‘Jewish’ State. And what is a ‘Jewish’ state but a state that gives privileges to Jews above non-Jews.  The old anti-Semitism manifested itself in things like beating up Jewish children if they walked down the wrong street in the East End of the 1930’s.  The new ‘anti-Semitism’ is manifested in opposition to the United State’s guard dog in the Middle East and the world's fourth strongest military power!

The Medieval Blood Libel

For those not aware, the Blood Libel was the invention of Christian anti-Semitism.  Every Passover and Easter, Jews were accused of kidnapping and killing non-Jewish children or babies in order that their blood could be used to bake unleavened bread (Matzot) on Passover.  It led to many hundreds if not thousands of deaths.  Its first appearance in the Middle East was in 1840 in the Damascus Affair when 13 Jews were accused of having murdered a Franciscan priest.  The French Consul and Franciscan monks whipped the population into a fury and arrested and tortured 13 Jews, 4 of whom died.  The Affair was subject to the vigorous intervention of Sir Moses Montefiore, the famous British Jewish philanthropist.  It is noticeable that the Blood Libel was only introduced to the region via French imperialism and its reactionary church.  Previously it had been unheard of in the Middle East.

The accusation that Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon was reminiscent of the blood libel is itself a libel.  If I was Gerald Scarfe I would be issuing a writ for defamation.  Unfortunately Gerald was placed under an enormous amount of pressure and forced to apologise.  

The accusations of the Zionists are based on the absurd idea that the depiction of blood in a cartoon is an anti-Semitic blood libel! A child could see that that is ludicrous.  Not so the Lubavitch Rabbi of Mill Hill synagogue, Rabbi Schochet, who was the principal Zionist spokesperson on Big Questions, arguing that it was ‘pure unadulterated anti-Semitism’.   Clearly Shochet has led a very sheltered life.

Zionist McCarthyism

What we have really seen is an exercise in McCarthyism.  An attempt to close down free speech by the Zionists.  So weak is their case that they are forced to resort to cheap, unsubstantiated jibes of ‘anti-Semitism’.  On American campuses many Zionist activists spend most of their time trying to silence opposing points of view.  So when Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon was published in a Murdoch newspaper (the idea of freedom of the press, as opposed to freedom for the proprietor is unknown to this far-right racist warmonger).

Lubavitch and Rabbi Schochet

Schochet himself is a thoroughly disingenuous fellow.  Despite an apparent aura of liberalism (which let slip over gay marriage and in his references to Jewish traitors in his tweet over the Scarfe cartoon) he is a member of the fanatically racist Lubavitch sect which believes non-Jews have animal souls  and that Jewish life is sacred when compared to non-Jews.  As the site of the former Lubavitch member and whistleblower, Shmarya Rosenberg's Failed Messiah explains, the Tanya, the foundational religious document of Lubavitch, ‘contains some of the most virulent anti-Gentile statements ever printed in the name of Judaism, and that the author of the Tanya, the first rebbe of Chabad, Schneur Zalman of Liadi, did not consider non-Jews to be fully human.’ 

In Sholom Rubashkin Prints A Tanya Rosenberg, cites how
The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot [husks] which contain no good whatever מו שכתוב בע׳ חיים שער מ״ט פרק ג׳: וכל טיבו דעבדין האומות לגרמייהו עבדין as is written in Etz Chayim, Portal 49, ch. 3, that all the good that the nations do, is done out of selfish motives. 

Since their nefesh [soul] emanates from kelipot [husks] which contain no good, it follows that any good done by them is for selfish motives. וכדאיתא בגמרא על פסוק: וחסד לאומים חטאת — שכל צדקה וחסד שאומות העולם עושין אינן אלא להתייהר כו׳

The Gemara [Babylonian Talmud] comments on the verse, “The kindness of the nations is sin”  that all the charity and kindness done by the nations of the world is only for their self-glorification

In Rabbi Schochet of the Racist Lubavitch - Big Questions Panellist and Guardian Columnist , which I posted at the time of my last acquaintance with Schochet on Big Questions, I noted how he had failed to dissociate himself from the racism of Lubavitch, to say nothing of Zionism.  I described how Lubavitch Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, who lives in Israel, had written a book, Torat HaMelech (The King’s Torah) which explicitly justified if not urged the murder of non-Jewish children and infants since they were the seed of the Jews’ historical enemy, the Amalekites.

Indeed beneath the liberal image he cultivates is a die-hard Lubavitcher, whose father and grandfather were also Lubavitch rabbis.  Perhaps this explains why he tried to persuade the London Beth Din - orthodox rabbinical court to call a halt to all conversions of non-Jews.  Since Israel's rabbis have got into the habit of not recognising some Orthodox conversions abroad (they have previously reversed conversions if the person left the State of Israel!) Shochet proposed to overcome the problems of non-recognition of conversions by putting an end to them!  What was of more concern to Shochet was the purity of the Jewish people/race and not being contaminated by non-Jews.  [London Beit Din Rejects Chabad Rabbi's Call For Worldwide Conversion Ban -Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet The beit din said it took “exception” to Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet's comments].

Lubavitch's Rabbi Shapira was not an isolated voice.  He was volubly defended in Israel by hundreds of rabbis, Lubavitch and non-Lubavitch.  In one meeting there were 250 rabbis.  Hundreds signed a letter in Shapira’s support.  It says in his book that
‘It is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation. If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder [either].'
See Max Blumenthal and ‘How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews’

Rabbi Manis Friedman - another Lubavitch Rabbi on Child Abuse and the Killing of Non-Jews 

Child abuse is not damaging.  In fact it teaches you an important lesson as to who your friends are!

Another prominent Lubavitch Rabbi, Manis Friedman from America, where Lubavitch is based, is an all-round bigot.  Whether it is women, children, Arabs or non-Jews they are each in their own way inferior – some more than others.

Friedman’s views on the indigenous population of Palestine and the Arabs are best described in an article in Ha'aretz of 9th June 2009 ‘Chabad rabbi: Jews should kill Arab men, women and children during war (see below) 

‘Child victims of sex abuse – ‘they are not damaged’’

Rabbi Manis Friedman not merely sanctions child abuse but he blames the child for the abuse. He told one such victim that they had no need to tell anyone about what had happened to them, anymore than they’d want to tell anyone about having diarrhoea!  The event itself was unimportant, what mattered was the lesson it taught.  But Rabbi Friedman was only saying aloud what Chabad (Lubavitch) believes internally.  It has a long history of  trying to cover up child and sex abuse within the Lubavitch community.  Indeed to report an incident of rape or abuse to non-Jews is itself a sin. In another instance, where a Chabad vigilante group beat up 5 Yeshiva (religious school) students, Chabad Rabbis Avrohom Osdoba, Shlomo Yehuda Segal, and Yitzchok Raitport issued a summons which talked of “the terrible sin informing on Jews to the secular courts.”  This 'terrible sin' equally applies to those who report child abuse, rape and sexual assault. See Crown Heights Beit Din Rules Vigilantes Attacked By Other Jewish Vigilantes Violated Mesira Law By Pressing Charges

See below New York Rabbi Manis Friedman Filmed Comparing Child Abuse to Diarrhoea

Chabad Lies that Rabbi Manis Friedman Is Not A Chabad Emissary
In order to escape the embarrassment of Friedman’s comments condoning child abuse, the Chabad Yeshivah Centre, headquarters for Australia and New Zealand in Melbourne, issued a statement denying that Rabbi Friedman had anything to do with them.  This was yet one more lie.  Shmarya Rosenberg, a very reliable source on the crimes and misdemeanours of Chabad, demonstrated quite easily through the use of screenshots, that Friedman was prominently advertised on the Chabad website as the Educational Director of Lubavitch House in St. Paul's, Minnesota! See Chabad: "We Vehemently Disagree" With Rabbi Manis Friedman.  Rosenberg writes about 'The massive scandal surrounding Chabad's Yeshivah Centre (which) has been national news in Australia where police have openly condemned Chabad community leadership for what we would call in the United States obstruction of justice... for their roles in the coverups of this child sexual abuse and for attempts to intimidate victims and their families.
According to followers, the late Rebbe Schneersohn was either the messiah or god or perhaps both

It would take a whole chapter to point to the madness of Lubavitch, who believe their late leader the Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, was the new Messiah.  Indeed some believe he was god himself.  Which from my perspective, being an atheist, he could of course have been!   See A Historian's Polemic Against 'The Madness of False Messianism' by David Berger , [The Forward 19.10.01] which argues that the Lubavitch sect, with its Messiah Now chants and its belief that the Rebbe was the Messiah, has effectively collapsed into Christian messianism.

For more on the genocidal anti-Arab comments of Rabbi Manis Friedman, see: Chabad rabbi to Moment: “Destroy [Muslim] holy sites”  [June 01, 2009] and also Chabad rabbi aims to clarify remarks on killing civilians  (see below)

Shmarya Rosenberg wrote that ‘I've known Manis for 25 years. I used to live around the corner from him. I heard Manis say the same thing many times. I also heard many other Chabad rabbis say it – even I said it.’ What is unusual is to have a Chabad rabbi say it for non-Chabad consumption. The theology is the theology of two people: The late Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.'

This is a very crucial point.  Chabad (Lubavitch) is a mainstream Orthodox group.  Kach is seen as belonging to the fringe.  Led by the late Rabbi Meir Kahane it was quite rightly seen, even by other Zionists, as a Jewish-Nazi group.  It called for the imprisoning of Arab males who had sexual relations with Jewish women, echoing the Nuremburg Law for the Protection of German Honour and German Blood of 1935 which outlawed sexual relations between Jews and 'Aryans' as part of the drive for 'racial hygiene' and the prevention of Rassenschande (racial defilement/pollution).


'Chabad and Kahane shared much with regard to Israeli politics and inner city Jewish community security.  The only real difference is that Kahane was theologically Zionist while Chabad is not.  By that I mean Kahane saw messianic portent in the Jewish state, while Chabad does not.
In day to day life, there is no real difference between the two positions except in religious matters. … That means Chabadniks and Kachniks can and do stand side by side in the dusty outposts and remote settlements of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). But on days like Yom HaAtzmaut, they make two minyans instead of one.’ Chabad Rabbi Tries To Clarify Remarks On Killing Muslims, Destroying Muslim Holy Places

Why do I concentrate on this Chasidic sect?  Because it is very powerful within the Jewish and Zionist community.  Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is very close to them.  The 3rd President of the Israeli state, Zalman Shazar, was a supporter.  Rabbi Schochet himself was talked about as a future Chief Rabbi. See Rabbi Schochet of the Racist Lubavitch - Big Questions Panellist and Guardian Columnist
 
Chabad however are not stupid and someone like Shochet, although a religious maniac who exhorts his congregation to chant ‘Moshiach (Messiah) Now’ in order to hasten the Messiah's arrival, itself held to be blasphemous in Jewish religion circles historically, cultivates the air of a liberal with all the rhetoric of diversity at his disposal.

New York Rabbi Manis Friedman Filmed Comparing Child Abuse to Diarrhoea





A leading rabbi has compared child sex abuse to diarrhoea and said it teaches victims an important lesson.

Rabbi Manis Friedman, a New York-based leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, was filmed making the comments in a lecture.

In it, he discusses a child abuse victim who asked him about discussing the abuse with a new girlfriend: "They ask me, 'do I have to tell her I was molested?'

"I said 'do you have to tell her you once had diarrhoea?' It's embarrassing, but it's nobody's business.
"What's wrong with him is that he mentioned it."

Friedman, who was born in Australia, suggested that the damage caused by child abuse was mainly psychological in that it results in "loss of trust".

"It's not the event itself, it's the loss of trust, the feeling of weakness or vulnerability," he explained.
However, the acclaimed Torah scholar also asserted that "being molested is the same as having teachers you don't like.'
"The event itself - 'I'm damaged from molestation' - no you're not. In fact you've learned that not every uncle is your best friend. You've learned an important lesson."
He goes on to discuss how we are all damaged people by events that occur in our lives and that such issues "are real for almost everybody", not just child abuse victims.

Manny Waks, an anti-sex abuse campaigner, has now launched a lawsuit against Friedman in the Jewish court, or Beth Din, in Sydney and Crown Heights in Brooklyn.

He says Friedman is doing "untold damage" to the entire Jewish community and that he is perpetuating a negative perception of the orthodox community in particular.

"Most concerning, he is having a direct, damaging impact on victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and their families," Waks said.
Rabbi Padwa - it is a Mesira - forbidden - to inform the Police or any non-Jew about Jewish child abuse.
The film of Friedman follows a similar video which showed Rabbi Ephraim Padwa, who leads the Charedi community in north London's Stamford Hill, telling an abuse victim not to go to the police -  ‘Child Abuse Hidden in London's Strict Orthodox Jewish Community, Claims C4's Dispatches 

 
Rabbi Padwa says that by going to the police would constitute mesira - meaning it is forbidden to report a Jew to a non-Jewish authority.



Rabbi Manis Friedman clarifies his controversial comment as quote from Torah permissible in case of self-defense.

Ha'aretz 9th June 2009 The Forward and Nathaniel Popper

Like the best Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis, Manis Friedman has won the hearts of many unaffiliated Jews with his charismatic talks about love and God; it was Friedman who helped lead Bob Dylan into a relationship with Chabad.

But Friedman, who today travels the country as a Chabad speaker, showed a less warm and cuddly side when he was asked how he thinks Jews should treat their Arab neighbors.

"The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle)," Friedman wrote in response to the question posed by Moment Magazine for its "Ask the Rabbis" feature.

Friedman argued that if Israel followed this wisdom, there would be "no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war."

"I don't believe in Western morality," he wrote. "Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention."

Friedman's use of phrasing that might seem more familiar coming from an Islamic extremist has generated a swift backlash. The editor of Moment, Nadine Epstein, said that since the piece was printed in the current issue they "have received many letters and e-mails in response to Rabbi Friedman's comments - and almost none of them have been positive."

Friedman quickly went into damage control. He released a statement to the Forward, through a Chabad spokesman, saying that his answer in Moment was "misleading" and that he does believe that "any neighbor of the Jewish people should be treated, as the Torah commands us, with respect and compassion."

But Friedman's words have generated a debate about whether there is a darker side to the cheery face that the Chabad-Lubavitch movement shows to the world in its friendly outreach to unaffiliated Jews. Mordecai Specktor, editor of the Jewish community newspaper in Friedman's hometown, St. Paul. Minnesota, said: "The public face of Lubavitch is educational programs and promoting Yiddishkeit. But I do often hear this hard line that Friedman expresses here."

"He sets things out in pretty stark terms, but I think this is what Lubavitchers believe, more or less," said Specktor, who is also the publisher of the American Jewish World.

"They are not about loving the Arabs or a two-state solution or any of that stuff. They are fundamentalists. They are our fundamentalists." 

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a regular critic of Arab extremists, said that in the Jewish community, "We are not immune to having these views. There are people in our community who have these bigoted, racist views."

But, Foxman warned, Friedman's views are not reflective of the Chabad rabbis he knows. "I am not shocked that there would be a rabbi who would have these views," Foxman said, "but I am shocked that Moment would give up all editorial discretion and good sense to publish this as representative of Chabad."

A few days after anger about the comment surfaced, Chabad headquarters released a statement saying that, "we vehemently disagree with any sentiment suggesting that Judaism allows for the wanton destruction of civilian life, even when at war."

The statement added: "In keeping with Jewish law, it is the unequivocal position of Chabad-Lubavitch that all human life is G-d given, precious, and must be treated with respect, dignity and compassion."

In Moment, Friedman's comment is listed as the Chabad response to the question "How Should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbors?" after a number of answers from rabbis representing other Jewish streams, most of which state a conciliatory attitude toward Arabs.

Epstein said that Friedman was "brave" for stating his views so clearly.

"The American Jewish community doesn't have the chance to hear opinions like this," Epstein said, "not because they are rare, but because we don't often ask Chabad and other similar groups what they think." 

The Chabad movement is generally known for its hawkish policies toward the Palestinians; the Chabad Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, rejected peace accords with the Palestinians. Rabbi Moshe Feller, the top Chabad rabbi in Minnesota, said that the rebbe taught that it is not a mitzvah to kill, but that Jews do have an obligation to act in self-defense.

"Jews as a whole, they try to save the lives of others," Feller told the Forward, "but if it's to save our lives, then we have to do what we have to do. It's a last resort."
Lubavitch Rabbi Manis Friedman - a big for all seasons
Friedman is not a fringe rabbi within the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. He was the English translator for the Chabad Rebbe, and at the rebbe's urging, he founded Beis Chana, a network of camps and schools for Jewish women. Friedman is also a popular speaker and writer on issues of love and relationships. His first book, "Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore?" was promoted with a quote from Bob Dylan, who Friedman brought to meet the rebbe.

On his blog and Facebook page, Friedman's emphasis is on his sympathetic, caring side. It was this reputation that made the comment in Moment so surprising to Steve Hunegs, director of the Jewish Community Relations Council: Minnesota and the Dakotas.

"Rabbi Friedman is a best-selling author who addresses some of the most sensitive issues of the time," Hunegs said. "I intend to call him and talk to him about this."

But Shmarya Rosenberg, a blogger and critic of Chabad who lives a few blocks from Friedman in Minnesota, says that the comment in Moment is not an aberration from his experiences with Friedman and many other Chabad rabbis.

"What he's saying is the standard normal view of a Chabadnik," Rosenberg said. "They just don't say it in public."

For his part, Friedman was quick to modify the statement that he wrote in Moment. He told the Forward that the line about killing women and children should have been in quotes; he said it is a line from the Torah, though he declined to specify from which part. Friedman also said that he was not advocating for Israel to actually kill women and children. Instead, he said, he believed that Israel should publicly say that it is willing to do these things in order to scare Palestinians and prevent war.

"If we took this policy, no one would be killed - because there would be no war," Friedman said. "The same is true of the United States."

Friedman did acknowledge, however, that in self-defense, the behavior he talked about would be permissible.

"If your children are threatened, you do whatever it takes - and you don't have to apologize," he said.
Friedman argued that he is different from Arab terrorists who have used similar language about killing Jewish civilians.

"When they say it, it's genocide, not self-defense," Friedman said. "With them, it's a religious belief - they need to rid the area of us. We're not saying that." 

Feller, the Chabad leader in Minnesota, said that the way Friedman had chosen to express himself was "radical."

"I love him," Feller said. "I brought him out here - he's magnificent. He's brought thousands back to Torah mitzvah. But he shoots from the hip sometimes." See also Chabad rabbi aims to clarify remarks on killing civilians Jewish Telegraph Agency – Ben Harris 2.6.09.

14 comments:

The Heart of Winter said...

Well done for destroying the Zionist Tony!

Jay Spinner said...

Found your blog. Watched the bbc link. The rabbi is a shit. Wanted to slap him so bad. But he rubbed you all over the floor. You and me are on the same page but you are a bad rep for the cause in that kind of media. Either get some training or lie low. We need proper spokespeople for the Palestinian people. We don't have enough. If your the best we got we are doomed.

Tony Greenstein said...

Well there are 2 contrasting opinions. Actually my own performance matters little, but I came to make one particular key point, given that there's very little time in these programmes to intervene, which is that the cry 'anti-Semitism' is used to deflect support for the Palestinians.

I also showed that Zionists regularly resort to using the holocaust as a means of intimidating their opponents whilst decrying the same as 'anti-Semitic' in their opponents.

So I was perfectly happy at my own performance, about the 4th time I appeared, given that the whole topic only had about 15-20 minutes, given the format of Big Questions.

I wasn't incidentally, notwithstanding what Jay say, purporting to speak on behalf of the Palestinians but Jews 4 Boycotting Israeli Goods and I was captioned as Brighton Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Jay Spinner said...

still think it was a terrible performance. Ppl I spoke to thought we needed someone stronger on there. Your points were shot down by the rabbi and you kept yelling. There are so many better points you could have and should have made. It's all over the blogs. I'm proud of what you do man I just think you should leave the media bit to better people. Just saying!

Anonymous said...

Tony,
What you say is bizarre. Firstly let me say I am in no way Lubavitch, or ultra-orthodox. I am however fluent in Hebrew and have had a Talmudic education. Firstly you display your own educational shortcomings. Instead of actually quoting the Tanya you rely entirely on secondary sources, like what FailedMessiah says about the Tanya, or what FailedMessiah heard someone else say. That is not academic or a valid proof of your argument.

Secondly, it is disingenuous to say because Rabbi Shochet has links to Lubavitch, his opinions are not worth anything. Can't you defeat his arguments on their merit rather than engaging in a smear campaign.

Thirdly, you seek to discredit him by saying Lubavitch is pro-child abuse. Are you mad? You take one person, who is not a representative of Lubavitch, on an 8 minute video and use this as proof? And then you point to Rabbi Padwa who also is not Lubavitch? To say that the first video actually and substantively compares child abuse to dysentery is idiotic.

Thirdly: Torat HaMelech. The author is not necessarily Lubavitch. Have you read Torat HaMelech or just that one excerpt? And then you admit that many rabbis endorsed it. You can't seem to keep your train of thought.

You were on TV and repeat the same thing you always do. Nothing new. I think it is fair to say that Rabbi Shochet did not lose his cool. He is a much better speaker than you are. He sounds more polished, reasonable and coherent. You come across as quite irrelevant, incoherent and quite irritating to listen to. Instead of addressing the cartoon, you discussed occupation etc. Because it's your only line.

You got rinsed. There is a reason you don't get asked to speak anywhere prestigious. Other pro Palestinian campaigners do, but not you. Why? Because you sound ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

I completely disagree with Jay as that so called holy man acted like the typical arrogant zio thug. Even that priest came up against their not to be reasoned with antisocial behavior and bit his tongue - as a holy man should. He was just vile and I consider myself very diplomatic but with contrary to all me types such as the zionists I doubt i could have kept cool - they seem to have a knack of getting under your skin.

Tony Greenstein said...

Well Jay is entitled to his opinion, not that it really matters. Nearly everyone who has contacted me differs from what he is saying including my local newsagent, a right reactionary, who said that I'd 'stuffed that Rabbi' and that he was only crying anti-Semitism to intimidate people.

Guess u can't please all of the people all of the time. There were plenty of other points I could have made but that was in a discussion lasting less than 20 minutes! The Zionists also had more people in the audience but the audience itself was far more sympathetic to what I said, as judged by their applause and people coming up to me afterwards.

There was one major point to get across and that this was a contrived allegation of anti-Semitism in order to deter criticism of Israel. That I achieved.

If you look the programme on i-pod it is quite clear that Schochet was in the grip of controlled anger throughout at not getting his point across.

Tony Greenstein said...

In response to my criticisms of Lubavitch and whether I was being unfair to them:

1. In the The Goy Within and Without http://tinyurl.com/bxm8f9a Chaim Gershon states that

'The Alter Rebbe's Tanya explains in more technical and expanded manner that there takes place an internal war between a person's G-dly soul and animal soul, which are respectively the struggle between his good and evil inclinations, between his Yetzer HaTov and Yetzer Hara. The previous Lubavitcher Rebbe Yosef Yitzhak explains [in a letter quoted in the back of his edition of Sefer Tehillim] that a person's animal soul and evil inclination are non-Jewish; in other words, as other footnotes therein reference, every person has to wage a daily war with his goy residing in a person's olam katan, aka his personal psyche (literally “small world”) to serve HaShem properly.'

The only question to my mind is whether that is true or not. Given that similar anti-Gentile dictums and statements appear in the Talmud, as Israel Shahk documented in Jewish Fundamentalism and the debate in places like the Jewish Chronicle about e.g. whether it is permitted to save a non-Jews life on the sabbath, which was where Shahak came in, I'm not sure what point you are making unless you are trying to deny this or pretend that the issuance of a separate bookled of Dispensations from the Talmud, in order not to antagonise goyim with these utterances is not true?

It is of no consequence whether I am quoting secondary sources since I'm not writing a Ph. D thesis, where 2ry sources are also quite acceptable.

2. You say it is disingenuous to say that because Rabbi Shochet has links to Lubavitch, his opinions are not worth anything. I'm not aware I have said his opinions are not worth anything. I've merely explained where his opinions come from. If it is a smear to hold that he is a member of a religious sect whose other members advocate Nazi-style measures against non-Jews, so be it.

3. I haven't said that Lubavitch is pro-child abuse. What I have said is that it has been party to covering it up, it seeks to minimise it, a prominent Lubavitch rabbi compares it to diarrhea and encourages a child not to report it. Do you have nothing to say about this? Manis Friedman says this on the tape. Have u listened to it?

4. I didn't say Rabbi Padwa was Lubavitch. I don't think Lubavitch is unique in this but it is an organised sect which is very powerful within Jewish Orthodoxy.

5. Torat HaMelech. You say that the author, Yitzhak Shapira, 'is not necessarily Lubavitch.' These are weasel words. He is a member of Lubavitch and has never denied reports to that effect. You ask if I've read Torat HaMelech. No I haven't. For many years I hadn't read Mein Kampf but I took it on trust that it was not the most sympathetic book to Jews that had been written. This reminds me of the old argument that Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa weren't that bad, they were just maligned and you should go there first. Well in an age of mass communications I think we can take some things as read.

It is interesting that Shapira and the other gaggle of racist Rabbis did not deny what was said. Instead they justified it.

Tony Greenstein said...

6. I suggest you read the reports of Torat Hamelech instead of trying to defend it. That one excerpt about killing children is all that is required to demonstrate this is a book of genocide. But it isn't alone. It's not an isolated instance, hence why hundreds of rabbis, Lubavitch and non-Lubavitch spoke out in support of Shapira and Torat HaMelech. Indeed criticism was a threat to the rabbis freedom of speech and their ability to undertake 'academic study' of the Torah. No you couldn't make it up.

It was not disputed in Israel that the book advocated murder of non-Jews. Shapira was even arrested after a lot of pressure was applied. Of course he wasn't prosecuted because he was an Orthodox Rabbi. If he'd been an Imam he'd be behind bars for a very long time.

Of course I could have quoted the non-Lubavitch son of a former Sephardic chief rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu Chief Rabbi of Safed who stated that '
In 2007, Eliyahu advocated mass slaughter of Palestinians in order to deter rocket fire from Gaza, while defending a ruling by his late father that Israel was permitted to indiscriminately kill civilians. “If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand,” Shmuel Eliyahu advised, adding, “And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop.” http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/rabbi-who-called-slaughter-million-palestinians-supervise-israels-red-cross

Or one could comment on the antics of those such as the Military Chief Rabbi, Brigardier General Ronzki, who advises that cruelty can be a good attribute.

or just that one excerpt? And then you admit that many rabbis endorsed it. You can't seem to keep your train of thought.

It's a matter of opinion as to whether Shochet lost his cool. He may have sounded more polished, but I spoke from the heart - hence the difference in impact.

You say that 'Instead of addressing the cartoon, you discussed occupation etc. Because it's your only line.'

Clearly you are thick as well as stupid. The whole point about the cartoon was that the attack on it as 'anti-Semitic' was a way of trying to neutralise its message. I wasn't prepared to have the terms of the debate set by Shochet and that was the point I made at the beginning. The controversy was contrived and the real issue was the oppression of the Palestinians.

Of course, as a religious Zionist you don't agree and indeed found me 'irritating'. Good, that means my message hit home.

I've spoken at many 'prestigious' and non-prestigious places. I'm not a snob. I speak to whoever listens, however rich or poor.

It would seem that you just can't help displaying your prejudices.

Anonymous said...

You see Tony, here you fall down again. You say that you are not writing a PhD thesis. That's blindingly obvious. It is totally relevant that you only cite secondary sources. The reason for this is that you are seeking to malign an entire movement based on excerpts that you read on websites. The Tanya is a complex opus that is focused upon mysticism. When you seek to translate such concepts into practical realities it is intellectually dishonest to do so without a deep understanding of the source material. For example I could say that socialism is idiotic, and have a one paragraph citation of Das Kapital. But that would be silly. Not to mention the fact that it is a text where understanding of the language is absolutely crucial.

Further, you use this myopic analysis to tell us where Rabbi Shochet's views come from. This is an example, quite frankly of Hitlerian philosopher's taking a line from the Talmud when they don't really understand it and using it to drum up hatred of Jews. It seems that your approach to academic critique is somewhat similar.

Secondly, I can think of much more lucid criticisms of Torat HaMelech than yours. You negate to mention the fact that the national religious rabbinic leadership in general distanced themselves from this text and criticised it on Jewish jurisprudential grounds. But, to take comparisons to public customary international law - the right of self-defence outlined in Art 52 UN Charter must be designed to achieve a legitimate aim. You cited Rabbi Shmuel Eliayahu stating "whatever it takes to make them stop". And you yourself admit that this was "to deter rocket fire" which you know was directed against civilians. (By the way I see your source as electronicintifada...not exactly an impartial source).

Now though this is distasteful, public international law does permit military action which bears a risk to the lives of civilians. And certainly in public international law as displayed by the decision of the International Court of Justice in the case of US vs Nicaragua the court's opinion was (against the US) that where civilians do lend material support to combatants they lose their status as non-combatants.

Shapira was not prosecuted. Correct. Because Israel allows freedom of speech. Just as secular and religious Israeli academics are allowed to speak out without fear of imprisonment. Just like the Wakf of Jerusalem is allowed to compare Jews to pigs and monkeys without being arrested. Shapira was not prosecuted because Israel's attorney-general did not a legal basis to do so. Israel's legal system is certainly not afraid to prosecute Orthodox rabbis!

You're correct you did not sound polished, you sounded stale.

You say you weren't about to allow Rabbi Shochet to set the terms of debate, but that was the subject of the debate. The entire question was about the cartoon. You know what? You can be anti-Israel and agree that the cartoon was anti-Semitic. Or is that dichotomy to complex for you to perceive?

I wasn't making a comment as to economics. What I was saying is that you are not valued by fora that put pride of place on rigorous analysis. Instead you vomit prejudicial diatribe or as you call it "speaking from the heart."

Tony Greenstein said...

No I'm not writing a Ph D thesis. There is no standard footnoting. What I'm writing are articles for a blog and one theme has been the growing, eliminationist (to use your friend Daniel Goldhagen's phrase) anti-Arab racism, especially amongst the Orthodox right.

There is no comparison between the Tanya, Talmud and Das Kapital. One is based on, as you say mystificism, faith, prejudice, tall-tales, a distorted image of reality, whereas Das Kapital is based on scientific and mathematical reasoning and analysis.

You may disagree with the latter but that's the terrain it is based on.

So there is absolutely no need to have a great understanding of these religious books, anymore than it is essential to delve into the inner logic and understanding of Houston Stewart Chamberlain's anti-Semitic tome the Foundations of the 19th Century.

All the religious books in the world add nothing to the sum of human knowledge, other than an image of how society might have been as refracted through the writings of elders and scribes.

Your suggestion of being akin to Hitlerian philosophers taking a line from the Talmud to drum up hatred of Jews is absurd and an example of the narrow tram lines of your own thought. Hitler had no philosophers nor did he need them. he was a political ideologue and activist.

I don't at all wish Jews to be persecuted because of the Talmud but for the Zionists to be castigated because they use the Talmud's injunctions against non-jews to perpetuate the murder and dispossession of today's Palestinians. As someone devoid of all understanding of others you turn this on yourself and being Jewish - your sufferings count, although they are zero, but those you inflict your talmudic injunctions upon are beyond your ken.

It is fortunate that many non-Jews in Europe at the time of Hitler extended a hand of friendship to and hid so many Jews. If they had been Israelis then they would have behaved like the Volksdeutsche - German settlers or Germans living outside Germany.

Yes it's true that I 'You negate to mention the fact that the national religious rabbinic leadership in general distanced themselves from this text and criticised it on Jewish jurisprudential grounds' perhaps because that was because so many of them supported the book! Former chief rabbis and their progeny. Hundreds of rabbis signed a letter in support.

But other rabbis took fright. Not at the principle but the tactics employed. 'They should not be saying this openly' was the commonest reaction, it will incur the wrath of America. I believe even the Nazi Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, who has called for the 'annihilation' of the Arabs, took this line. Not out of any moral repugnance but narrow tactical calculation of whether it is good for Jews.

Tony Greenstein said...

Torat HaMelech, a book of genocide which you attempt to justify, yes indeed wraps its prescriptions in the saving of (Jewish) life. It is therefore permited to murder literally millions if necessary. Your idea that it is about preventing attacks on the coloniser is no different from the Nazi justification of killing Jewish children. They will grow up to harm us. Or Nazi wiping out of civilians. What does Torat HaMelech say:

““Non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and should be killed in order to “curb their evil inclinations.” “If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder”http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2010/11/rabbi-schochet-of-racist-lubavitch-big.html

And then you say 'Shapira was not prosecuted. Correct. Because Israel allows freedom of speech. Just as secular and religious Israeli academics are allowed to speak out without fear of imprisonment.'

Sheikh Raed Salah was prosecuted for this ideas and imprisoned. Israel is in a permanent state of emergency. It can lift anyone who is a threat to that order. BUT it only lifts peacemakers, people who put their bodes in the way of bulldozers, human rights activists, those who expose their plots to assassinate civilians (the 2 Ha'aretz journalists). It has unlimited powers of detention without trial. One person was locked up for 10 years without any one being informed during the cold war for espionage.


So your sophistry about 'free speech means free speech for Jewish Nazis. A Palestinian who came out with the same would be inside a long time and you know it. And advocating the murder of a whole people or group of people isn't free speech it's an incitement to murder. But since you only use for the holocaust for propaganda purjavascript:void(0)poses you wouldn't understand that.

Anonymous said...

What would not be an impartial source to that anonymous who doth protest too much commentator? Anything zionist propaganda no doubt which peddles preposterous propaganda. No civilized human being can look into their heart with a clear conscience and support what the zionists are doing in Palestine and have been doing for over 6 decades now. How long does it think this despicable charade can go on unchallenged? By the way i am anon because when i attempt to sign in via wordpress all my text disappears so find this easiest to send comments this way.

Cindy said...

TV viewing linked to antisocial behaviors in kids. Click www.gofastek.com for more information.

Cindy
www.gofastek.com