Tropper-Gate and Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Blog?

A group of leading Chareidi Rabbonim have recently specifically banned Chareidi blogs and forums. (see above notice). It seemed odd when this poster went up around town, because these rabbonim had already banned the use of the internet itself. So what's this with the chareidi blogs?

Sure enough, under pressure from this latest sub-ban, several erstwhile chareidi internet sites have apparently now closed down. Although the majority have simply ignored it.

For those who like to link the dots (such as Frum Follies), in order to see a more complete picture, you can note that the Rabbi Leib Tropper conversion-for-sex scandal was breaking simultaneously to the issuing of this rabbinical decree against chareidi internet sites.

The Rabbi Tropper tapes of sexually intimate discussions were initially sent, presumably by Shannon Orand, the blonde in-process-convert, to these self-same chareidi blogs, for onward distribution.

Shutting up the blogs may have been a ruse to shut up the Tropper scandal.

The rabbis who signed the sub-ban on chareidi blogs include no less than ten of the same rabbis who signed up on the haskama for Rabbi Tropper’s Eternal Jewish Family conversion agency. (see http://www.eternaljewishfamily.org/images/uploads/proc.pdf )

Even if you’re not the conspiracy sort, the Agudas Yisrael organization itself was clearly behind both the anti-blog cherem and EJF.

If these two simultaneous events - the exposure of Rabbi Tropper and the call to shut down the blogs - were indeed intentionally linked, then, rather like the original –Gate scandal, an attempted cynical cover-up by the Agudah of Rabbi Tropper’s indiscretions (an affair which is becoming known as Tropper-Gate on the blogs they tried to shut down), may become an even bigger scandal than the scandal itself.

P.S. For those with longer memories, the same team who brought us the Blog Ban and the Eternal Jewish Family, also brought us the cherem on Rabbi Natan Slifkin's scholarly books about science and Judaism. That cherem was initiated by none other than Rabbi Tropper himself, and backed by the 'usual signatories'.

More about that angle on Rabbi Slifkin's blog . Perhaps Rabbi Tropper's own blog (what?!) had Rabbi Troppers response to R.Slifkin's article.

It's hard to tell, as Rabbi Tropper's blog seems to have been removed.

So I suppose the Blog Cherem was at least partially effective.

Rav Melamed vs. Ehud Barak: Conscientious Objection or Insubordination?

In the current dispute between Ehud Barak, Minister of Defence, and Rav Eliezer Melamed the Head of Har Bracha Hesder Yeshiva, it is very unclear in the press reports what either Ehud Barak or Rav Melamed’s objectives are.

It does seem that Ehud Barak’s insistence that there be "no insubordination" in the Israeli army is eminently reasonable. No other army in the world permits insubordination – the refusal to obey a lawful order from a superior.

Nor can Rav Melamed reasonably expect a Minister of Defence to permit insubordination, which could undermine the effectiveness of the IDF in implementing its critical missions. An army doesn’t work by asking the regular soldier which combat missions he will or will not choose to carry out.

On the other hand,. Ehus Barak surely recognizes and appreciates the important, indeed critical, role of National Religious soldiers in the armed forces (some 25% of Israel’s crack combat troops) – and of the highly motivated Hesder Yeshivot in particular.

Both Ehud Barak and Rav Melamed passionately support the need for Israel’s army to effectively protect and promote Israel’s national defence – and neither of these men wish to compromise that in any way manner or form.

Israel does, however, recognize the concept of Conscientious Objection. Conscientious objection is the legal right of a civilian to object to serving in a combat force. In Germany today, for example, some 50% of conscripts refuse to participate in the army, and are therefore required to perform civilian community service instead. In Israel, the Israeli Arabs (with the exceptions of Druse and Bedouin) and the Chareidim are effectively considered Conscientious Objectors and are thus exempted (or deferred) by law from serving in the Army.

Now whereas most Western Countries have a tradition of accepting genuine conscientious objection to joining the armed forces as legitimate, this is always prior to joining up. Once the soldier is in uniform, he loses his right to conscientiously object to obeying specific lawful orders.

Of course, it was set down in the Nurenburg trials that “I was just obeying orders” does not take away a soldiers requirement to refuse to obey unlawful or unjust orders, such as deliberately massacring civilians.

Another related concept to Conscientious Objection is Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience or Non-Cooperation was popularized by Mahatma Gandhi in the successful Indian struggle against the British regime. Gandhi famously made salt from sea water and burned his ID card, both of which were illegal acts under British colonial law.

Gandhi did not claim these acts were legal. He was a lawyer, and knew full well they were not. And indeed, he was willing to pay the price called for in the law – and was imprisoned by the British regime on several occasions.

Civil Disobedience involves breaking the law, because the person wishes to expose a legal system or a regime, or even a specific law, as being corrupt and unjust. The law is recognized as being the law – but it is not recognized as legitimate.

Here in Israel, civil disobedience was used during the Gush Katif demonstrations. I myself broke the law against a public gathering in Netivot – and I was willing in principle (though not enthusiastic) to be arrested for that. My objection was not with the ‘regime’ itself – it was with the legitimacy of the Evacuation Orders (Disengagement) policy of the Government. My breaking the law (along with some 50,000 fellow demonstrators who ended up surrounded in a siege by the army at Kfar Maimon) was part of that political struggle.

To return to the current dispute, I believe Ehud Barak’s objective is to use the army to implement evacuations of Jewish homes, villages and towns in Yehuda, Shomron and the Golan – such as may be called for in a “Peace” Agreement with the Palestinians or Syrians.

Whereas Rav Melamed’s actual objective is to prevent Jewish settlements being destroyed by this or future Israeli Governments.

A tactic in achieving this objective, is to make the Israeli army incapable of implementing such a policy. A tool in this, is for enough soldiers to refuse orders to implement evacuation laws, so as to make the evacuation unachievable.

This was attempted also in the anti-Gush Katif struggle, in a campaign called “Siruv Pekuda” – refusal to obey orders. Much hyped, this campaign was ultimately unsuccessful, as almost all soldiers turned up for their duties, and obeyed the disengagement expulsion orders at Gush Katif.

Rather than try this again through attempts to indoctrinate soldiers to disobey their commanders orders (insubordination), as Rav Melamed seems to be working on, I propose an alternative would be to change the law itself.

A law which permitted soldiers to refuse commands to (specifically) evacuate Jewish civilian population, would render the act of disobeying those orders legal, and therefore not insubordination.

A sort of right to Conscientious Objection, but granted to loyal serving members of the forces, in a specific defined circumstance.

If enough soldiers would conscientiously object in this legally permitted manner, then a Minister of Defence could face the possibility of not being able to implement another Gush Katif, or worse.

Once so defined by the law, there is no reasonable fear by the army itself of the same (or other) soldiers disobeying orders in their regular combat duties or training, such as when fighting against a regular enemy. That insubordination would rightly remain an illegal and punishable act, an act of desertion or treason.

Neither the Ministry of Defence, nor the study halls of the hesder yeshivot, are the appropriate battleground over a Jewish soldier’s legitimate right to object to their being cynically employed to destroy Jewish homes, villages and towns.

This is an immediate matter for the Knesset legislators.

Barak vs R.Melamed

Does the Army Need the Dati Leumi – or the Dati Leumi Need the Army?

Over 25% of combat troops in the Israel Defence Forces are now National Religious (Dati Leumi).

Many of these participate in the Hesder Yeshiva program, which was established in 1953 by the Keren BeYavne Yeshiva. The Hesder program typically last five years, of which some 16 months is army training and active service, while the remainder is spent in religious studies in over 40 yeshivot around the country.

On the one hand, this program is the flag-ship of the National Religious camp – combining torah studies with fulfilling the practical mitzva of defending the Jewish people and the Jewish State – paid for by the Ministry of Defence.

On the other hand, many of the Army's finest and most motivated troops are from the Dati Leumi camp in general, and from the Hesder Yeshivot in particular. Israel's military cemeteries attest to the awesome heroism of so many of of these young men in the battlefield. And the most astounding kidush Hashem.

It is a proven win-win project both for the Israeli Army, and for the National Religious movement..

However, the recent head-line-grabbing clash between Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, Rosh Yeshiva of the Har Bracha Hesder Yeshiva, pits the doctrine of military discipline against the authority of the Torah and Rabbonim. The dispute seems to be about whether soldiers can protest evacuating some small outposts which have been deemed as illegal by the Israeli Government.

This issue of 'refusal' was much debated prior to and following the Gush Katif evacuation. The Dati Leumi almost unanimously held that the destruction & evacuation of Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and retreat of the IDF to be forbidden by halacha and (in addition) politically and strategically against the interests of the State of Israel. The question then was therefore "Should Soldiers Refuse Orders to Evacuate Gush Katif?".

The bottom line was that, regardless of the stated opinions of some rabbonim calling for troops to refuse orders, almost no soldiers actually refused to implement the evacuation orders at Gush Katif. Even the religious soldiers turned out for duty, and even dragged their own families and friends from the homes and synagogues.

Most Israelis agree that the rabbis' grim assessment of the Gush Katif evacuation proved accurate - even an understatement of the disasterous results of the Gush Katif evacuation. With 9000 residents still (four and a half years later) without replacement homes, a social welfare disaster, the Coup D'Etat which brought Hamas to power in Gaza, and the subsequent raining of missiles into Israeli cities - there is little doubt that Gush Katif was a gastly strategic mistake.

However, this does not mean that there is more support today for the idea that troops should have disobeyed orders. Anyone acquainted with the Israeli Army will recognise that its strength against our enemies is dependent upon the shared commitment of its soldiers, including a commitment to carry out orders - however stupid or inappropriate the soldier may, individually, think these orders are.

With the current Israeli Government having openly called for the establishment of a Palestinian State, and now frozen all new building in the whole of Yehuda and Shomron (West Bank) except East Jerusalem for the next ten months, it should be assumed that Ehud Barak (a strong proponent of a "Peace" Agreement with a Palestinian State) is preparing for the next show-down.

Any "Peace" Agreement envisaged would require the Israeli Government to evacuate many Jewish towns and villages. Probably far more than the Gush Katif evacuation (9000 people).

Arguably around 100,000 residents of Yehuda and Shomron would need to be forcibly moved into pre-1949 Israel.  

The Army will be ordered to implement this mission.

Although apparently this dispute between Ehud Barak and Rav Eliezer Melamed is over a soldier's right to wave a protest banner against destroying small-time outposts, this is merely the pretext.

Barak is now making sure that, when (chas veshalom) the Government signs on those orders for the evacuation of Yehuda, Shomron, the Golan...who knows where else... the Army will deliver the goods, without protest, and without insubordination.

Rav Melamed is sticking to his principles, and therefore threatening the larger Mission.

The question is, if the price of this Mission would be the Hesder Yeshiva Program itself, who would be willing to pay it?

A Yorkshireman's Advice to Netanyahu

"Owt for Now't"

There is an old Yorkshire expression (where I was born)  "if ever tha does owt for now't, allus do it for thisen" – which for those with limited knowledge of the Yorkshire dialect means "if you ever do something for nothing, always do it for yourself."

Yorkshiremen are a pretty dour and ungiving lot – but many of us can associate with the feeling that giving away an asset, for nothing, and with no apparent side-benefits to us, is a bad deal.

Israel made this fundemental error in the Oslo Peace Negotiations – where Israel handed over substantive assets (land, weapons, autonomy) to the PLO, in exchange for nothing (a piece of paper with some promises which the PLO had already broken by the time the signatures were written and the peace prizes distributed) – and to no apparent benefit for Israel (over a thousand victims of terror,a shot prime minister, internal political upheaval).

The same deal was hoisted upon Israel by Ariel Sharon. Sharon gave "owt for nowt", which he called "Disengagement". Forcefully evacuating Gush Katif's 9000 residents, the destruction of  22 bustling villages and the closure of billions of dollars of thriving businesses – was not even claimed by Sharon to be in return for anything. In Yorkshire terms, he was very upfront it was for Nowt, but mumbled it was "fer thisen" – in our interests anyway. A Hamas Coup in Gaza City, and thousands of missiles on Israel's population later, it's impossible to see anything which was to our benefit in that.

Benjamin (Bibi)  Netanyahu had a consistent message, throughout the Oslo "Peace" Process, and against Ariel Sharon's "Disengagement" from Gaza, which Bibi called "Reciprocity". You deliver, we'll deliver. But no more "Owt for Nowt" with Bibi Netanyahu.

It is therefore discouraging that Netanyahu's first major policy implementation is to freeze all new Jewish building in Yehuda and Shomron.

This is not for any quid-pro-quo with the Palestinians. Nor does it seem to be to Israel's benefit in any other way. It sets a precedent that everything the 'other side' of the 1949 borders, except for Jerusalem, is on the table. No "settlement blocks" (a central pillar of all Israeli negotiations till now regarding the West Bank). No movement towards Israel's positions by the Palestinians. No apparent "rewards" from Obama's administration (who dismissed it as "too little"). Nothing. Gornisht. Nada. Nowt.

After 20 years of preaching 'reciprocity' (however we might feel about that) – what the-bloomin'-'eck has happened to Bibi Netanyahu?

  

Is Turkey Kosher?

Is Turkey Kosher?

There is well known dispute about the fact that Jews eat Turkey, although there is no “masorah” (ancient tradition) that it is a kosher bird.

I am currently in Ankara, Turkey.

As I arrived at the gates of a major manufacturer here, I was told by the security guard that I would have to remove my kippa (skull-cap) before I would be permitted to enter the premises.

I had also been told to remove my kippa when I visited the Mausoleum of Ataturk in Ankara.

There has been a recent spate of extremely anti-Israeli, and even anti-Semitic rhetoric by Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which included the public verbal abuse of Israel’s President Shimon Peres at the Davos World Economic Summit, and by Turkish TV, which screened a series about Israel/Palestine, which included gross scenes of Israeli soldiers murdering cute children in cold blood. Meanwhile, the Turkish Government has embraced Iran, Syria, Kurds and the Armenians – while canceling a joint army exercise with NATO because it included Israel.

Stories abound of frightened Jews in Istanbul, which has suffered several devastating bombing attacks in recent years, including on two synagogues – and who are apparently now considering increased emigration from this ancient Jewish center, to Israel.

The thought crossed my mind, for just a moment, that I should protest the command to take off my kippa – as an anti-Semitic and racist directive.

However, a second perspective on the event led me to think again.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was the iconoclast founder of the Turkish Republic in the early 1900’s – a true revolutionary, who overthrew the Ottoman characteristics of Turkey, and replaced a new modern, Western, Secular republic. Out went the Sultan, off came the traditional fez, away went Arabic script, and dozens of other ages old traditions were scrapped – and generally even banned.

Today’s leader Erdogan has made some steps to bring back more Islamic behavior to this avowedly secular state. But not really got very far.

Erdogan’s AKP party tried to revoke the longstanding ban on religious girls wearing headscarves on University Campuses. They argued that by banning scarves, the effect was to forbid religious girls from obtaining a university education; a pretty compelling argument, methinks. However, this was defeated – and the ban on headscarves remains.

Both Ataturk’s mausoleum and the manufacturer I visited are bastions of Turkish secularism.

The reason I was asked to remove my kippa is because these places ban all religious head-gear. This is not aimed at the Jewish Kippa, but at the Moslem Taqiyah skullcap and the women’s hijab headscarves. It is not anti-Jewish – it is anti-Islamic.

I’m not sure that makes it any better, in the broader view of things, but I took off my kippa without further ado, while forcing a smile to the guards.

It’s easy to confuse signals – and get one’s wires twisted.

Like you thought, from the title, picure and first line, that this article was about kashrus and turkey meat.

“When we were slaves in Israel….”

Slavery is alive and flourishing right here in Israel....

You thought that slavery was abolished. Right?

US educated readers will recall that the 13th Amendment to the American Constitution reads: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

My History teacher in England told us about William Wilberforce and the Slave Act of 1807, which outlawed the slave trade in the British Empire.

In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensured many freedoms, and it outlaws slavery explicitly: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”.

Yet, today slavery is common throughout the world, and expresses itself in the human trafficking and trading of women for sex, men for manual labour and children for both.

The main categories of the estimated 30 million slaves are bonded labour/debt bondage (18.1 million), forced labour (7.6 million), and trafficked slaves (2.7 million).

According to researcher Siddharth Kara, the profits generated worldwide by all forms of slavery in 2007 was $91.2 billion. That is second only to drug trafficking in terms of global, criminal, illicit enterprises.

Israel was highlighted in the 2005 American State Report on Trafficking in Persons demoted Israel from its previous non-flattering grading (with 42 other countries) as a Tier 2 country, i.e. a country not yet meeting the minimum standards required to fight human trafficking, to the even lower grading of "Tier 2 Watch List".

This report provided the momentum in the Kenesset for the upgrading of anti-slavery legislation – and on October 9 2006 the Israeli Parliament (finally) passed a comprehensive anti-trafficking law.

According to Kav HaOved, the Workers Right NGO in Israel, foreign workers are still regularly brought to Israel by involuntary means, and they are abused on arrival by their employers (usually manpower contractors) who confiscate their passports, set “supervisors” (foreign thugs) over them to beat them, threaten recriminations upon their families “back home”, and enforce severe and violent discipline. They have very few recognizable labour rights, and have very limited means of recourse to the law, without risk of being imprisoned and expelled themselves - or simply being beaten up by their "supervisors".

In addition, there were some 3000 women operating as involuntary prostitutes in Israel; legislation passed in 2000 and some enforcement has apparently reduced these numbers – although some Women’s Rights groups have claimed that the legislation has simply driven the illegal trade further underground.

According to the Israeli Government : “ Illegal foreign workers come to Israel from Romania, Ghana, Nigeria, Colombia, the Philippines, Turkey, Ukraine Russia, and other former Soviet countries, in all from sixty-seven countries worldwide.


Problems of illegal workers are mainly related to exploitation - terms of employment; living conditions; social benefits that fall short of accepted levels; denial of workers' freedom and/or holding them as hostages; and, in extreme cases, trade in these workers, in contravention of accepted moral norms and mores.

Israel regards illegal foreign workers mainly as victims and the focus of its policy is to treat the causes of victimization, rather than the results…. In order to stem illegal immigration, and above all "white slavery"….

The good news is that The Histadrut Labor Federation executive has announced this week it will accept foreign workers into the union; the executive decided to change the organization's bylaws to allow migrant workers to join its ranks.

With the strength of the Histadrut, and the sympathetic and motivated approach of the Israeli Government, now apparently behind bringing basic rights to foreign laborers, hopefully the practice of slavery really will now finally be abolished – at least in Israel.

Meantime, next time you read about the “illegal foreign workers”, and be tempted to toast their “good riddance” – spare a thought for the thousands of enslaved laborers right under your nose, right here in Israel, probably building a house near you (and perhaps built the house you’re living in), and the involuntary/enslaved prostitutes who are discretely engaged in ‘business’ on your town’s side streets….

Israel Protects Kids Better – A Breakthrough in Haifa Court

A woman aged over thirty, recalled for the first time during therapy that she was sexually abused as a child by her father, and a Haifa court has now found the father guilty of child sex crimes, all these years later.

Expert witnesses explained to the court that ‘forgetting’ a trauma is a common self-protection response in abuse victims a condition called dissociative amnesia. This is symptomatic in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Our brains apparently have an ‘erase’ button, which can delete painful memories, as a means of preserving functionality. I suppose it’s a bit like a doctor’s decision to sever a gangrenous limb, to save a patient’s life. As a post-traumatic response, the brain shuts down some memory, and otherwise continues functioning normally.

The reason this case is an important precedent is:

1. The long time (20 years) between the abuse events and the court case;

2. The long period during which the events were forgotten by the victim;

3. The reliance on one witness’s testimony, backed by psychologists and experts.

In the USA there is a debate about the “Markey Bill”, the Child Victims Act, in the New York State Legislature (its lead sponsor is Queens Assemblywoman Marge Markey). The bill would allow victims of childhood sexual abuse recourse toward obtaining justice against their abusers by providing a one-year “window” in which to file a civil lawsuit at any age, and would extend the statute of limitations for pressing criminal charges from age 23 to 28.

Here in Israel, the Statute of Limitations did not apply to this case (except for some allegations which took place prior to 1986 – for reasons which are not clear to me).

As a result of this legal precedent, victims/survivors of child abuse can see justice done, even decades later, which is a major contributor to their eventual healing; and pedophiles can be taken off the streets, even decades after their crimes.

There’s now no get-out-clause for abusing kids.

Israel’s kids are safer for this precedent-setting court ruling.

Jewish Dog Story

[This is lifted from UOJ comments section, by Dr Bungalow Hundt; I have a Jewish dog called Sheleg].

Morty visits Dr. Saul, the veterinarian, and says, "My dog has a problem."


Dr. Saul says, "So, tell me about the dog and the problem."

"It's a Jewish dog. His name is Irving and he can talk" says Morty.

"He can talk?" the doubting doctor asks.

"Watch this! Morty points to the dog and commands: " Irving, Fetch!"

Irving , the dog, begins to walk toward the door, then turns around and says: "So why are you talking to me like that? You always order me around like I'm nothing. And you only call me when you want something. And then you make me sleep on the floor, with my arthritis. You give me this fahkahkta food with all the salt and fat, and you tell me it's a special diet. It tastes like dreck! YOU should eat it yourself! And do you ever take me for a decent walk? NO, it's out of the house, a short pish, and right back home. Maybe, if I could stretch out a little, the sciatica wouldn't kill me so much! I should roll over and play dead for real for all you care!"

Dr. Saul is amazed, "This is remarkable! So, what's the problem?" Morty says, "He has a hearing problem! I said 'Fetch,' not 'Kvetch'.

Will Motty Borger’s Suicide Make Any Difference?

Motty & Mali Borger had been married for just two days when Motti “fell” from a seventh-floor balcony at the Avenue Plaza Hotel on 13^th Avenue at 47^th Street in Brooklyn, NY.

It is reported that Motty had disclosed to his new bride that he was a victim of sex abuse, and that when she was asleep, he went to the balcony and threw himself off.

I have no idea as to the veracity of the reports about the background to the Motty Borger case. We should clearly leave the investigation to the police and relevant authorities, while encouraging anyone with information related to the case to report it immediately to the police. 

What is certain, is that the effects of child-abuse often have long term impact upon the victims/survivors, resulting in severe psychological, psychiatric and physical illness even decades later; and there are many cases in which abuse victims have tragically resorted to suicide.

Indeed there is initial research which indicates that the abuse as a child even results in genetic changes which results in this increased propensity for suicide.

In addition to the ‘regular’ linkage between abuse and suicide, victims of abuse in the Jewish orthodox  community face additional pressures and trauma.

An important article was written since Motty’s tragedy, by Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz and Dr Benzion Twerski, which encourages abuse victims/survivors to seek therapeutic help and intervention. Effectively, a call for past victims to come out-of-the-closet and seek professional help. 

While absolutely true, this article is confined to advising past victims to seek out therapy; it does not touch on the related and still contentious issue of victims reporting child abuse cases to the state authorities. An especially severe problem in Jewish orthodox communities.

Orthodox children who have been sexually abused are more likely to lack the ‘vocabulary’ (not just literally the words, but also the concepts) to express to an adult what has happened to them - than the equivalent movie-watching, internet-viewing non-orthodox kids. In particular, pedophilia is a concept that is unlikely to have been explained to an orthodox child, nor the blamelessness of a pedophile’s victims. An overwhelming emotional and moral confusion can numb child sex abuse victims, literally, for decades – indeed the majority of victims never disclose.

And if the child does report to an adult, such as their parent or teacher, that orthodox adult is, unfortunately, less likely to take such a complaint from a child sufficiently seriously – as  awareness of the nature and consequences of child abuse is still relatively scarce. The adults are less likely to believe their child, or if they do, their concerns about the reputation of the child (shidduch) and of the child’s family (shainda), the presumed saintliness of the alleged perpetrator (who is usually a close acquaintance of the victim, and a member of the same orthodox community), and a reticence to disclose any ‘private’ or sexual matters, even at the best of times – will all be factors in not reporting the child’s claims further.

And even if the adult does understand and take the child’s claims seriously, and report the allegation onwards, orthodox adults will habitually report the matter to their rabbi, rather than directly to the police.

Perhaps the leading halachik authority for Chareidi ultra-orthodox Jews, Rav Shalom Yosef Elyashiv, issued a ground breaking psak (legal opinion) in 2003/5764. This psak required that rabbonim first ascertain the veracity of the claims of abuse. The psak says that if there is halachik proof that the claims are indeed true, and that the perpetrator is uncontrollable from assaulting others in future, then the matter should be referred to the police.

However, if there are not ‘reglaim ledavar’ (grounds for suspicion) and the allegations are a figment of the alleged victim’s imagination, then the case should not be passed over to the authorities/police; Rav Elyashiv cautions that reporting someone to the police can put the alleged perpetrator in a position of “chosing death over life”.

(A particularly ironic conclusion in light of Motty’s fate).

The Rav Elyashiv psak has been helpful in highlighting to rabbonim and communities, the need for proven cases of pedophilia to be referred on to the police/state authorities. Whereas, for generations, such a handing-over of Jews to gentiles/secular authorities was forbidden as “masira” (betrayal).

However, this psak clearly places the religious authorities in the driving seat to decide where on the scale between “no grounds for suspicion” (which should not be reported) to “halachik proof” that the perpetrator is known to be guilty and is not controllable in future (which does require reporting). There is a gapingly wide range of grey between these two cases – where most child abuse allegations are situated.

Rabbonim have therefore been given a highly inappropriate, illegal, task and responsibility of investigating allegations of pedophilia.

Rabbonim have been required to address allegations of child abuse, apparently as if it were an alleged civil offense (along with business law, marital and ritual matters – areas in which Batei Din/Rabbinical Courts, are fully qualified and entitled to rule), rather than as an allegation of criminal assault (such as murder or rape – which no responsible Bet Din would/should involve themselves in).

Rabbonim therefore claim competence, jurisdiction and control of a criminal investigation, including interviewing the parties, while applying halachik concepts of witnesses (for example, as a generality, neither children nor women are valid witnesses in a Bet Din/Rabbinical Court, and two valid witnesses are required as proof of an event) in order to determine the guilt/innocence of the alleged perpetrator.

Furthermore, Rabbonim balance a wider range of interests than solely the rooting out of the guilty and protection of their victims; they also have wider community interests to protect and their concerns about damage control can weigh heavily against the pure pursuit of justice.

In practice, Rav Elyashiv’s psak, while a break-through in requiring some Jewish pedophiles to be ‘handed over’ by rabbonim to the state authorities, is otherwise not practically helpful to those working with child abuse cases.

In order to bridge this gap between this halachik position , on the one hand, and the statutory reporting requirements (whereby a suspicion of child abuse is legally required to be reported to the police/authorities – and not to do so is a felony) together with the ethical standards of professional conduct (which prohibit involvement in a child abuse accusation prior to mandatory reporting), on the other, there have been various attempts to create bridging arrangements.

In the USA, some “Task Forces” have been established, or are in the process of being established, in some orthodox communities, whose job is to liaise between the community leadership and the state authorities in cases of alleged child abuse.

Here in Ramat Bet Shemesh, there has been a first-ever meeting between local rabbonim and the police and state child protection services, to attempt to establish cooperation on child abuse allegations.

Recently, there are an increasing number of rabbonim (such as Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Yakov Blau and Rav Chaim Soloveichik), who have publicly stated that this offense needs to be re-categorised by rabbonim as criminal assault, and so the standard response to any allegations of child abuse must be to immediately refer to the state authorities - who are the sole legally authorized and qualified party to investigate such complaints; to judge, convict and sentence criminals; and to subsequently enforce tracking, therapy and supervision of post-incarcerated pedophiles.

“In instances of sexual abuse of children, students, campers etc., or spousal abuse… The Jewish community does not have the ability to investigate these types of cases. Wherever there are raglayim ladavar that there seems to be a problem, the proper government agencies should be contacted to investigate.” Rabbi Hershel Schachter, 2007.

Only the police can investigate crime suspects and take pedophiles off our streets.

   

In addition to the law-and-order role of the police, the process of reporting to police/authorities also enables professional therapists to legally and ethically administer the therapy which Rabbi Horowitz and Dr Twerski have called for. Furthermore, in most states, victims of child abuse are also entitled to state subsidized therapy, which can make the costs of this critical therapy affordable to all victims.

Furthermore, with the active encouragement, blessing and support of their rabbi and community, immediately reporting child abuse allegations to the appropriate authorities would give validation to the traumatized child – a critical part of the healing process.

Unfortunately it has sometimes been the opposite response, of rejection and even harassment of child abuse victims and those who aid them, by their own communities, which generates a second trauma for the victim, and which, tragically, increases the chances of future suicides.

Veyehi zichron baruch. May Motty’s memory be for a blessing.

 --------------------------

Motty's funeral: 

Pedophiles in Priestly Clothing

Illustrative Photo 

Case study: The Irish Catholic Church and Pedophile Clerics

There is a most amazing report now available on-line, which documents the performance of the Catholic Church in Dublin, Ireland in responding to complaints of clerical sex abuse of children.

The Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation was established to report on the handling by Church and State authorities of a representative sample of allegations and suspicions of child sexual abuse against clerics operating under the aegis of the Archdiocese of Dublin over the period 1975 to 2004.

It follows parallel reports by the Attorney General for Massachusetts about sex abuse in the Catholic Church in Boston, and the Ryan Report about Children’s Homes in Ireland.

The investigative committee worked through over 100,000 pages of records and documentation, and was delayed by a senior priest suing the commission in order to impede their work. The investigation cost the tax payer over 3 million euros. It was completed in July 2009.

It’s a damning report of denial, cover-up and protecting the Church - at the expense of children.  

The Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.

In 1994 the controversy and drama surrounding the exposure of the Fr Brendan Smyth case in 1994 brought clerical child sexual abuse to public attention. At that point, the response to the public outcry by officials from the Church was that they were on a ‘learning curve’ about the existence and nature of sex abuse in the Church. A claim the Commission found to be false and duplicitous.

The Commission lists numerous specific cases of alleged child abuse and details the formidable qualifications, in law and social work, held by leading members of the diocese who had been informed of the allegations. In addition:

The taking out of insurance [in 1987] was an act proving knowledge of child sexual abuse as a potential major cost to the Archdiocese and is inconsistent with the view that Archdiocesan officials were still „on a learning curve‟ at a much later date, or were lacking in an appreciation of the phenomenon of clerical child sex abuse.

  

Consistent with other reports about the phenomenon of child abuse, the report confirms the relatively low number of children/adults lodging a complaint, for each act of child abuse found to have been perpetrated.

For example, one priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis during the currency of his ministry which lasted for over 25 years. [Yet] the total number of documented complaints recorded against those two priests is just over 70.

And the commission found one solitary case of a clearly fabricated complaint against a cleric.

It is noteworthy that, whereas the statistic of three cases of girls are sexually abused for every two abused boys, in the general population, this commission discovered: Substantially more of the complaints against clerics relate to boys – the ratio is 2.3 boys to 1 girl.

There are even substantiated concerns that pedophile clerics cooperated with each other for the purpose of  carrying out sexual acts with children. For example

When Fr Loannes was being investigated for the abuse of a young boy, Fr Boland, who was not a priest in the diocese at the time, turned up at the young boy’s home offering comfort and took the opportunity to abuse the young boy himself.

The Commission was also required to break through an ages-deep tradition and culture of secrecy in the Catholic Church.

Most officials in the Archdiocese were greatly exercised by the provisions of canon law which deal with secrecy. It was often spoken of as a reason for not informing the Gardaí [Irish police] about known criminal offences.

……As can be seen clearly from the case histories, there is no doubt that the reaction of Church authorities to reports of clerical child sexual abuse … was to ensure that as few people as possible knew of the individual priest’s problem. There was little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child or for the welfare of other children who might come into contact with the priest. Complainants were often met with denial, arrogance and cover-up and with incompetence and incomprehension in some cases. Suspicions were rarely acted on. Typically complainants were not told that other instances of child sexual abuse by their abuser had been proved or admitted. The attitude to individual complainants was overbearing and in some cases underhand.

The acts of secrecy including reshuffling the cards, by posting alleged pedophiles to new diocese, without informing the authorities there of the background of the cleric.

Interestingly, the report also touches on the ‘inappropriate’ contacts between “devout” members of the Gardai/Police with members of the Church; which seems to have amounted to unofficial complicity by some police officers with protecting members and the institution of the Church.

The report does have some happier news, which is that since the recent exposure of clerical sex abuse of children by clerics, improvements have been made, including that all allegations of such abuse are now systematically referred by Catholic Church officials to the Police, who presumably have ceased to be complicit in Church policy of covering up crimes. .

Overall, the Commission’s Report makes remarkably gripping, and distressing, reading.

Its lessons should be read, learned and acted upon, even outside of the cloisters of the Dublin Archdiocese.

------------------------------------------------
Full report available:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

Shalit Deal Catastrophic?

As the Israeli Government, on the one hand, and Hamas leaders on the other, edge towards a deal to return Gilad Shalit to Israel (apparently via Egypt), many question the price to be paid for his release.

Israel has historically been willing to release many hundreds of convicted, imprisoned terrorists in exchange for  each Israeli hostage/captive. The reports in the press present a similar deal is in the offing for Shalit.

There is an excellent (IMHO) article on the halachik views regarding such deals at: http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48959406.html

From a strategic and military point of view, Rami Igra, who served as head of the Mossad's Prisoners and MIAs department, spoke to Israel National Radio:

Right to Demonstrate?

For the second Shabbat running, a large crowd demonstrated against the desecration of Shabbat at Intel, which employs some two dozen Jewish workers in Jerusalem on the Sabbath.

There are mutual allegations of violence; the police have arrested demonstrators for damaging property; whereas the demonstration's organizers, the Eida Chareidit, have accused the police of wanton violence. The alleged use of illegal means by the demonstrators has evoked stinging criticism by the secular press, and embarrassment amongst some erstwhile chareidi supporters.

There is apparently nothing new about Intel's practice of employing Jews on Shabbat (Intel claim to have been doing this, with the relevant government approvals, for over ten years), so the timing of the row has attracted some criticism; there are those who accuse the demonstrators of seeking out artificial 'causes' to rally their forces for political motives (the chareidi candidate lost the last Jerusalem election for mayor), rather than because of any significant changes on the ground at Intel.

People have a democratic right to demonstrate (subject to police authorization etc); it is also accepted that many demonstrations (ever been to a demo?!) cross into illegal actions, and there are accepted consequences to this (legal process, bad PR, etc). And rallying the masses, even on an artificial pretext, is part of the democratic process in every free country.

And yes, demonstrations do generate strong emotions from supporters and opponents.

If there were no response, no-one would bother to demonstrate!

So, the demonstrators have every right to demonstrate against Intel for Shabbat desecration.

Whether this demonstration against Intel is smart, is the right thing to do, is good-for-the-Jews, however, is an entirely different matter.

Intel Israel, is the largest private employer in the country today - with 6,600 employees in its development and production facilities in Haifa, Jerusalem, Kiryat Gat, Petach Tikva, Yakum and Yokneam. Intel began operating in Israel in 1974 with five employees. Today export sales from Intel Israel are around $1.6 Billion. Intel therefore provides parnassah (livelihood) directly for 6600 families and for thousands of others who are suppliers/service providers to Intel.    

The Israel + Intel partnership is a flagship of the Israeli high-tec sector.

My main concern against these demonstrations is that they may frighten Intel and other big investors & job-providers away from Jerusalem, and even away from Israel. Govermnent, municipalities and the local business sector fought hard to bring Intel to Israel (there are many competitive locations around the world) and to successfully build up their presence here.

If there could be a way to eradicate Shabbat desecration (such as by using non-Jewish labour), while retaining good relations with "the hand that feeds us" then this would be far 'smarter' for klal yisrael than raucus high-profile public demonstrations- whatever their political agenda.

Mazal Tov to the Children of Israel

Three year old Michal arrived at the hospital unconscious after having suffered extreme physical abuse at the hands of her uncle. During her three years she was severely beaten, burned and sexually abused. Michal died in the hospital after five months in a coma. During her three years of torture, nobody knew what was happening. Nobody heard anything. Nobody saw anything. Not family, not neighbors, not friends. Nobody said a word. As a result of this case, the Israel National Council for the Child initiated legislation – the Mandatory Reporting Law – requiring the reporting of any suspicion of abuse to the police or social services.

(From the Israel National Council for the Child).

Mazaltov Kids. The Mandatory Reporting Law for Child Abuse celebrates its 20th Anniversary.

The Mandatory Reporting Law (1989) in Israel is stricter than equivalent child-protection legislation in many other countries.

For example, in many States in the USA, only professionals are required to report suspicions of child abuse to the statutory authorities; whereas here in Israel, every citizen is legally required to report a suspicion of child abuse.

I understand that the penalty for non-compliance in Israel is 3 months imprisonment for a regular citizen, and six months imprisonment for a professional.

The definition of "suspicion" is rather ambiguous ("basis lechashash"), which can be a two-edged sword. On the one hand a non-compliant party could argue that without "sufficient" evidence, they were not obligated to comply. However, the authorities could argue that even a whiff of suspicion renders a citizen obligated to report – and punishable if he doesn't.

The only legally authorized parties to accept a report of child abuse in Israel are the Child Protection Officer of the Social Services and/or the Police. The difference between the two is that the mandate of the Child Protection Officer is to serve the best interests of the child, whereas the police are mandated to prevent crimes and arrest perpetrators. They are not necessarily the same function, for example the social services can elect that for them to report the complaint on to the police is not best for the child. However, that is THEIR decision, and not the citizen's!

In short, whether you are a kid, a neighbor or family, or a school principle, social worker, doctor or rabbi, who reckons something abusive might be going on  – you are obligated to report your concerns directly to either the Child Protection Officer of the City Social Services Dept (ask for "pkidat tzaad") or call your local police department. "Miyad"- immediately.    

So, Mazaltov to the Children of the State of Israel - on the 20^th Anniversary of having your protection  instituted in the law.

Jewish Press Carries Our Review of "Tempest in the Temple"

This week's Jewish Press, the largest independent Jewish newspaper in the USA, has published Tzedek-Tzedek's review of "Tempest in the Temple".

Hopefully this is another nail in the coffin of "Denial; Blame The Victim; Circle the Wagons" - which has been a characteristic response to child abuse in some Jewish communities.

http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/41425

Why You Didn't Know Maj.Hasan is a Palestinian Terrorist

If his name was Major Smith, you probably wouldn't know he was a Muslim.

But he was called Major Nidal Malik Hasan, so everyone knew within minutes that the murderer of 13 US soldiers in Fort Hood Army Base, is a Muslim. That he was shouting the terrorist/jihad war-cry "Allah Akbar" while murdering his victims, was also something of a give-away.

However, senior US Army officers are downplaying the significance of Hasan's Muslim faith, including Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey who cautioned against linking the murders to the perpetrator's faith "We need to be very careful about that...the speculation could lead to backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers" adding "our diversity gives us strength".

Americans I spoke with this week were unaware that Maj. Hasan is not simply a Muslim, or even "a Jordanian" (as has occasionally been reported) ... but that he is a Palestinian.

This is because neither the Army, nor the Government, nor the US Press have described Hasan as a "Palestinian". Much less "A Palestinian Terrorist".

Hasan's parents emigrated from a Palestinian village in the West Bank to Virginia, and to this day Hasan (although he was born in Virginia) described himself on the Mosque register where he attended as being "Palestinian". Hasan's brother Anas Hasan returned from the USA to Ramallah in the West Bank, where he now lives with various cousins.

The US Army are bending-over-backwards to avoid acknowledging that Hasan is a Palestinian terrorist, pointing instead to the work-related stress Hasan was under giving therapy to traumatized soldiers, and Hasan's personal concerns about being posted to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The US Forces and Government have a lot to lose by calling a spade a spade in this case.

It is a major blow to US Army prestige that a Palestinian terrorist has successfully infiltrated the US Forces, and then carried out an effective terror attack upon US troops, in a US Military Base, on US soil. We are not talking putting a bomb on a bus, a train or in a restaurant. Fort Hood Army Base is no "soft target" by any definition. And the resultant kudos to the terrorists is (regretfully) enormous.

Hasan's attack on Fort Hood is sort-of the US Army's 9/11.

Furthermore, behind Gen. Casey's absurd plea not to draw a link between this attack, to the Muslim origins of the perpetrator, is also a concern about the consequences of setting new criteria for re-screening every Ahmed, Mohammed and Hasan as a potential security risk. As a 5th column. As a potential traitor...will cause ripples throughout the armed forces.

Indeed, right to the very top.

Even the US Commander-in-Chief.

President Barack Hussain Obama.

No-one would suggest that Obama is a 5th Column. Or has dual loyalties. Or that Barack Hussain Obama's policies of 'engagement' with Iran, Syria and their ilk, the worlds most extreme Islamisists, may compromise US security.

But the process of re-screening the President of the USA, according to a new security risk profile arising from the Hasan attack, could be, urrr…awkward.

It would be so much more convenient if Major Hasan had been called Smith.

When Does Reporting Become Ratting?

From Goldstone to Child Abuse

Every child knows that his decision to report alleged misdemeanors by his fellows in the school-ground to an adult, carries with it a risk of being labeled, and often treated, as a ratter or sneak.

Retired South African judge Richard Goldstone, who has put his name behind the deeply critical Goldstone Report about the Gaza “Cast Lead” campaign, is Jewish and even has “deep ties” to Israel. Goldstone has served as a trustee of the Hebrew University and a president emeritus of World ORT, the Jewish organization that is a leader in vocational training and education.

Goldstone describes himself as a Zionist, and says that he was motivated to head the UN Human Rights investigative committee on Gaza as means of helping Israel: “I was driven particularly because I thought the outcome might, in a small way, assist the peace process,” he told the Forward.

In the Jerusalem Post. Goldstone says: "My first wish and hope is that there would be open inquiry in Israel," and his daughter Nicole Goldstone to Israel’s Army Radiothat: he was doing the best thing for everyone, including Israel," she said. "He is honest, tells things how he sees them and wants to uncover the truth."

Meantime, on the street in Israel, Richard Goldstone is arguably the second most unpopular man on the planet, closely following Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran.

Other examples of where this moral confusion exists include corporations who dissuade staff from reporting corruption or abuse allegations to outside bodies, which have themselves initiated “whistle blowers” protection programs – where the Government can protect the reporting party against being harassed by his employer.

Universities in the US under-reported sex crimes on their campuses for decades, in order to retain better-than-deserved reputations and continue the flow of fee-paying students.

The Catholic Church systematically covered up sex-abuse by clergymen for generations, until 2003 when the tip-of-the-iceberg was revealed in Boston, setting of a domino effect of scandals throughout the Catholic world.

In the Jewish community, there is a halacha forbidding the reporting or handing-over of a Jew (“moiser”) to the non-Jewish authorities. Like many rules, this one has its exceptions.

Indeed I myself have been accused of this, in my work advocating for victims of child abuse.

In almost all circumstances where people report allegations further up the food-chain there is a moral conflict between protecting innocent parties from alleged abuse, and the requirements of loyalty to a ‘club’ – such as a community or even country (in the case of Goldstone).

In my opinion, the litmus test is to answer “What are you reporting to Who?”

When a kid reports that a fellow in the schoolyard miscalled a ball, to the leader of the in-school mafia – then the kid should expect to be unpopular.

The Jew who reported an alleged misdemeanor in the community to the Czar’s representatives, would likely be guilty of “Moiser” and the community could exact consequences.

When Goldstone accepted the position to head the UN Human Rights Council’s investigative committee into the Gaza Cast Lead operation, he was aware of the rabidly anti-Israel history of the misnamed Human Rights Council and of the biased mandate he was required to report under. Goldstone knew that any criticism he reported - particularly coming from a Jew - would be cynically used by Israel’s enemies to weaken Israel and attack it.

Goldstone is correctly despised on the streets of Israel.

However, when a kid reports that a fellow is selling drugs to other kids on the school grounds, to the school authorities, then this is an appropriate, even courageous step to take.

When an employee reports corporate corruption to external supervising bodies, this is also highly appropriate, and the employee deserves the support and protection of the authorities to enable him to do this.

And when allegations of child abuse are made within a Jewish community in Israel, the USA or any other democratic liberal society (where the system of justice is reasonable and fair), in order to protect the victims and potential victims, and to assure justice is done with the alleged perpetrator – it is appropriate and praiseworthy to report these to the social services and/or to the police.

But I leave the question open about the role of blogs – when does reporting on a blog become ratting?

Shaking Your Baby to Death

Anyone who has been a parent, or who has cared for other people’s babies, knows how frustrating it can be when the baby cries…and cries…and cries…oh, my goodness, and CRIES...

An average baby cries for 2-3 HOURS each day. And 20-30% of babies cry considerably more than that.

“Stop crying! Stop it will you! Oh STOP IT!”

Add to the situation the carer's physical and emotional exhaustion, and also the exhaustion of regular baby-care techniques (feeding, changing, cuddling…you name it) - and many carers have, in desperation, shaken their baby.

Sometimes, this shaking actually seems to work – as the baby might indeed stop crying and become passive, sleepy, subdued after being shaken. So the initial shaking in anger/frustration can even become a “technique” for stopping the baby from crying.

Whether from just one shaking episode (typically even less than 20 seconds) or from several shakings, the damage to the baby’s brain can be devastating. People are literally shaking their babies to death – or to irreversible brain damage.

Shaken Baby Syndrome (which is a subcategory of Abusive Head Trauma) is estimated to be responsible for 300 deaths and 1200 cases of severe brain damage a year in the USA. According to the Israeli National Council for the Child, they estimate 15 babies die each year in Israel; the NCC is therefore currently launching a nationwide awareness campaign to reduce this human catastrophe here in Israel.

According to the The National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, the medical effects of shaking babies are: "Approximately 25 percent of all SBS/AHT victims die as a result of their injuries. Of those who survive 80% suffer permanent disability such as severe brain damage, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, behavioral disorders and impaired motor and cognitive skills."

Their practical advice is: “It is important to note that SBS is preventable. Shaking occurs frequently when a frustrated care giver loses control with an inconsolable crying baby. It is important to realize just saying "don't shake a baby" is not enough. A plan of action or suggestions to deal with the situation need to be offered. Parents and other care providers need assurance that allowing a baby to cry is okay if all their needs have been met. The care provider should address their stress level and try stress management.

"Parents should share the message of the dangers of shaking with all who care for their infant or child, including spouses, their own parents, siblings, day care providers and others. Parents need to let those caring for the infant know that it is okay to call for help when needed.”

If you have a baby, or are a carer for someone else’s baby, please review: www.dontshake.org

You can also call the Israeli National Council for the Child helpline (call during regular office hours, it's not 24/7): 02-6780605.

If you are concerned about any changes in your baby’s health, including symptoms which may be Shaken Baby Syndrome – call your Pediatrician or Emergency Response service immediately.

DON’T SHAKE – GET HELP!!!

THEY CAN RUN BUT...

Gaydamak, Chen and Fanan – Abuse & Corruption Roundup...

There were key milestone positive developments in three scandals in Israel this past week.

Israeli-Russian-French Billionaire, and latterly a candidate for Mayor of Jerusalem, Arcadi Gaydamak, was found guilty in absentia by a French court, of illegally trafficking arms to Angola and sentenced to 6 years in prison. Gaydamak recently left Israel, leaving a deposit, and an open charge sheet for laundering hundreds of millions of shekels behind him. Gaydamak is believed to be in Russia.

“Rabbi” Elior Chen, the spiritual leader of an ultra-Orthodox sect in Jerusalem suspected of severe child abuse, arrived in Israel this week after being extradited from Brazil. Chen and several of his followers allegedly used knives, hammers and other instruments to abuse children as young as 3 and 4 years old – reportedly one of the most horrific child abuse cases in recent times.

And the mysterious suicide of Moni Fanan, a celebrity manager of the Maccabi Basketball football team, has led to police investigation into an illegal banking and investments operation involving Fanan and the disgraced London financier Nicholas Levene. The case resembles the Meydoff scam, with a ‘club’ of people who invested via Fanan and Levene in a scheme which netted the greedy ‘investors’ with double figure returns. Until the money dried up, and Fanan hanged himself. Both Israeli tax authorities and the UK Serious Fraud Squad are investigating. “Disappeared” money is reportedly around $20m in Fanan’s case, and over $200m in Levene’s.

These three multinational cases are showing that, though tardy, the forces of law and order in Israel, in cooperation with those of other nations, can eventually track down and catch abusers and fraudsters. The criminals can run, but - all being well - they cannot hide.

Tempest in the Temple

Tempest In the Temple – Jewish Communities & Child Sex Scandals

Brandeis University Press; Edited by Amy Neustein

"I couldn't put it down", "reads like a Dan Brown novel…", etc hardly sound like descriptions of a Brandeis University Publication, an academic analysis of Jewish Communities & Child Sex Scandals.

Tempest in the Temple is the first-ever comprehensive book on this painful & controversial subject, and as such is 'important' in every sense.

The most immediate factor I found with Tempest in the Temple was how very readable ("user friendly")  it is, even to the layman such as myself. With each chapter by a different expert contributor, and written from a different professional angle, on this pretty hair-raising subject, the book itself was compelling to read.

Each of the nine chapters addresses an 'angle' on the topic. Some are direct stories, narratives, such as Loel Weiss and Mark Itzkovitz' "Unholy Waters". This chapter tells the story of how a temple's beloved and veteran chazzan/cantor being accused of repeatedly raping a mentally handicapped girl – and the dramatic stage-by-stage response of the temple as an organization, and its key officers. To me, the most impressive detail is the responsible steps taken - including by the rabbi who did not personally believe the accusations were even true, until the chazzan himself confessed in court – including their immediately reporting the suspicions to the police, working closely to support the whole community through the trauma, whilst dealing with the long legal battles which ensued…

Another powerful narrative is "The Fugitive and the Forgotten" by Michael Lesher (who has recently written an article for this blog), an attorney specializing in child protection, in which he describes his role in the case of alleged multiple child attacker, Rabbi Avrohom Mondrowitz. Mondrowitz was indicted by a Brooklyn grand jury on child sex charges in 1985 and fled from the USA to Israel. In spite of some 25 years of stalling by various authorities in the USA and Israel, and many genuine legal obstacles, Mondrowitz was finally arrested in Israel in 2007 and is now in custody pending extradition to the USA.

I found one of the most striking details in the account was that only non-Jewish victims had come forward to testify against Mondrowitz in the 1980's, whereas today Jewish victims (who were allegedly by far the majority) are coming forward, some quarter-century later, in order that the Mondrowitz will finally face justice.

Rabbi Mark Dratch, founder of JSAFE, writes "A Community of Co-Enablers" – a halachik treatise addressing the response of many orthodox communities – "Why Are Jews Ignoring Traditional Jewish Law by Protecting the Abuser?" For example, R.Dratch addresses Loshen Hora (derogatory/slanderous speech), Mesirah (betrayal of Jews to non-Jewish authorities) and Hillul Hashem (the desecration of G-d's name) – being the three main halachik justifications used to cover-up, deny or evade mandatory reporting of child abuse cases in orthodox communities. I found R.Dratch's conclusions about practical, positive steps communities should take to better protect their children, to be particularly constructive and helpful.

Amy Neustein showed editorial flair, by inviting Barbara Blaine, founder of SNAP (Survivor Networks of those Abused by Priests) to tell her personal story of "How I Challenged the Catholic Church Hierarchy to Atone for their Sins against Me and Other Abuse Victims". The story starts with one victim of rape, at the hands of a Catholic Priest  - the author – who initiated a survivors support group, which grew to 9000 members, in over 60 cities, and culminated in the exposure and arrest of dozens of molesting priests in Boston in 2002 – and legal proceedings against hundreds of Catholic clerics throughout the USA. Civil damages cases have cost the Catholic Church over $1 Billion.

The exposure of the systemic protection and enablement of pedophile Catholic Clerics by the Church, generated an awareness which has begun the process of examining some parallel policies within Jewish communities – and, incidentally, has led to the writing of Tempest in the Temple.

Psychiatrist, Michelle Friedman, delves into the unique factors of a Rabbi's role, and asks "What Makes A Rabbi Violate Sexual Boundaries And What Can Be Done About It?". Although the focus is upon rabbis, and indeed Friedman is director of pastoral counseling at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinic School in New York, the observations about blurring and then progressing to abusing of professional boundaries is also applicable in many other spheres of life – the manager and his secretary, the professor and his students, the sports coach and the kids….

Robert Weiss, a clinical social worker and the executive director of the Sexual Recovery Institute in Los Angeles, explains more about the criminology of sex abusers in general, including a helpful explanation of commonly used terminology (eg. what is the difference between a pedophile and a child molester?). Weiss categorises sexual offenders in three groups: The Dedicated or Fixated Child Offender  (adult loner who hangs out with kids and transitions the kids from social to sexual relationships – although Weiss doesn't mention him as an example, from biographical reports, I observe that Michael Jackson seems to have fitted this category); The Situational or Regressed Child Offender (a 'normal guy' who redirects his adult sexual frustrations onto children); and The Sexually Addicted Offender (compulsive, addictive sexual behavior which can include illegal and abusive sexual activities). Weiss highlights the first category as being the least likely to respond positively to available therapy – and holds out positive hopes for enabling the second two categories of offenders to lead offense-free lives.

Dr Joyanna Silberg and Stephanie Dallam, both of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence in Baltimore, in their joint article "Out of the Jewish Closet" examine the   scope and nature of child abuse in orthodox communities, particularly drawing on their experience in Baltimore. For generations, sex abuse was treated as a taboo subject or concern in these communities; in the past few years significant progress has been made in removing the taboo status and honestly assessing and addressing the issue. The first formal study of the extent of child sex abuse in Jewish orthodox communities has been published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, in 2007, which surveyed orthodox women, and reports that around one-in-four of the orthodox women who responded to the survey reported they had suffered sex abuse as a child. This mirrors similar studies in the general population (see my posting "So How Common is Sex Abuse.."). The Baltimore Jewish Times has also taken a leading role in bringing awareness of the scale and gravity of the problem ("murder of the soul") to the general public.  The authors also describe the process of increasing awareness in the non-Jewish world, over the past century, and the various backlash movements, which includes moves to discredit the testimony of abuse survivors. The differentials of the orthodox community to the general population are also highlighted. The chapter concludes on a forward looking, positive note, highlighting programs in Baltimore and in Los Angeles which are uniting communities in a shared objective of "promoting healing and prevention".

The two chapters "Straying the Course" by Erica Brown and "Justice Interrupted" by Amy Neustein and Michael Lesher describe, document and assess some of the past failings of Jewish communities in appropriately handling and preventing child abuse, and propose some practical steps for detecting and responding to such cases.

Brown focuses on abuse by rabbis or other authoritative moral figures, observing that, whereas there can be distinctions drawn between private morality and public functionality, a rabbi (or priest) have elected to pursue a career which sets them up as specifically moral role models. Therefore standards are set higher, and private failings become a betrayal of their professional persona. Brown suggests therefore that regular assessments/evaluations of the rabbi by the lay leadership should be standard procedure in communities (as is standard in many workplaces).

Neustein and Lesher's "Justice Interrupted" reviews the case of Rabbi Solomon Hafner who was "cleared" of abuse charges by the Bobov Bet Din (religious court) while the alleged victim was chased out of town; they also explore the Mondrowitz case and Rabbi Yehuda Kolko.In all three cases, the DA, Charles "Joe" Hynes seems to have participated in whitewashing, or obfuscating, due apparently to political considerations. Neustein and Lesher examine the legalities of Hynes behavior and that of the rabbinical courts, and bring federal civil law to challenge the legitimacy of these policies.

Conclusion: Tempest in the Temple is a pioneering book, offering a broad range of highly readable, thorough, balanced, professional studies and first hand accounts concerning the chosen subject matter of Jewish Communities and Child Sex Scandals. It is my recommendation that Tempest in the Temple should be read particularly by those involved in Jewish community life, including Jewish social services, education, congregational management. and rabbinical training.  

 

(Tempest in the Temple can be ordered on-line directly from Brandeis University Press )     

The Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem?

In the darkest times of The Cold War (1959) Tom Lehrer's black humour song went:

For if the bomb that drops on you
Gets your friends and neighbours too,
There'll be nobody left behind to grieve….

We will all go together when we go,
All suffused with an incandescent glow.

Have you ever wondered why the Palestinians are not Israel's allies when it comes to opposing the nuclear weapons program in Iran? After all, as Tom so memorably sang "We will all go together when we go".

A nuclear holocaust visited upon me and my family, here in Israel, will also get my neighbors, Ahmed and his family, living in a West Bank/Judea village just five minutes drive from my front door.

Iran is solely developing nuclear weapons to bomb Israel with, and this would also be the Final Solution for the Palestinian Problem.

There is no contradication between destroying Israel together with Arab Palestine  - and all the occupants of our region, both Jews and Arabs together "all suffused with an incandescent glow" – with the Iranian + Palestinian objective of "liberating Palestine".

How is this, you may ask – surely the destruction of Palestine is the polar opposite of what the Palestinians and Iranians want? Why else would they have sacrificed so much for the claims to "an independent Palestinian State, living in peace side by side with Israel"?

However, my friend, you and almost the entire world have mistaken the Palestinians' and their supporters' (such as Iran) true objectives.

They have sacrificed a lot, it is true, for their objectives. Palestinians have given their children to two intifadas (over 5000 Palestinian 'martyrs'). But their objective is NOT a peaceful Palestinian State, living side by side in peace with Israel.

Their objective is, and always has been, the destruction of the State of Israel, and the annihalation of the Jews/Israelis. Yes, some Palesatinians have sometimes voiced support for a partial Palestinian State, but only within the context of this being a tactical step towards that final goal.

And if you doubt me, then consider: why do the Palestinians support an Iranian Bomb?

They support it, because an Iranian Bomb, dropped on Israel will achieve their objective. The destruction of Israel and the annihalation of the Six Million Jews/Israelis. And the simultaneous and glorious martyrdom of two million Palestinians. What greater fulfillment could any devout Moslem aspire to – what could be even more glorious than sacrificing just five thousand of their own children - than the sacrifice of two million? If you believe this is far fetched, recall a world just fifty years ago, where two superpowers faced off, armed with thousands of nuclear bombs, apparently each willing to sacrifice the whole planet and all of its inhabitants for their ideals.

We will all go together when we go,
All suffused with an incandescent glow.

------------ 

P.S. Those culturally impoverished souls who are unfamiliar with Tom Lehrer's brilliantly ironic song can watch & hear him sing it: