Volume 53 Number 55
                    Produced: Thu Jan  4  5:21:37 EST 2007

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

"Impostors" in hasidic garb
         [Eitan Fiorino]
"Impostors" in Hassidic Garb and Murder
         [Orrin Tilevitz]
Neturei Karta
         [Sammy Finkelman]
A radical but sane proposal: murder (5)
         [Ari Trachtenberg, Mark and Anne Goldin, Norman Miller, Akiva
Miller, SBA]


From: Eitan Fiorino <AFiorino@...>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:11:03 -0500
Subject: Re: "Impostors" in hasidic garb

Perets Mett wrote: 

> Satmar does not hold rallies calling for the destruction of Israel.
> They **do** have an anti-Zionist philosophy as spelt out in Vayoel
> Moshe. Just because the Zionists cannot tolerate that philosophy does
> make it any less valid.
> What is more, I see plenty of criticism of Israel by all sorts of
> Jewish leftist groups, which is expected to be tolerated in the name
> of democracy, but somehow the shita of Satmar has no place in this
> same democracy.
> Talk of double standards.

Actually in my experience most American MO religious Zionists are
shockingly intolerant of any even remotely leftist views.  I have heard
and read many vitriolic and rancorous tirades by otherwise normal,
rational, reasonable people when an opinion on Israeli politics just
barely to the left of Attila the Hun is offered out in discussion.  I
personally know of one physical assault and more than one threatened
physical assaults that have occurred because members of MO shuls in the
NY area have either expressed left-leaning opinions or have invited
speakers from left-leaning Israeli organizations.  I don't see leftist
criticisms of Israel "tolerated in the name of democracy" even when the
criticisms are spot-on correct.  I find there is equal opportunity
expression of belligerence and thuggism against all opinions dissenting
from the Zionist status quo.



From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:35:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: "Impostors" in Hassidic Garb and Murder

Perets Mett writes:
> What is more, I see plenty of criticism of Israel by all sorts of 
> Jewish leftist groups, which is expected to be tolerated in the name of
> democracy, but somehow the shita of Satmar has no place in this same
> democracy.  Talk of double standards.

"Democracy" is a red herring.  The question we're debating is whether
Satmar's actions or nonactions are within halacha and even if they are,
whether they are morally justified..  We have limited expectations as to
Jewish leftist groups' compliance with halacha and what we view as moral
norms, and generally we are not disappointed.  Some of us would at least
like to hold religiously observant Jews to a higher standard.

ER Sherer writes about Neturei Karta:

> Under the Constitution of the United States, this would come within
> the definition of TREASON as "adhering to the enemy".

Once again, it would be helpful if those who post definitive statements
of law would first take the trouble to look them up.  Under Article III,
sec. 3 of the Constitution, "Treason against the United States, shall
consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act,
or on Confession in open Court."  See also 18 USC Sec. 2381.  In other
words, "adhering to the enemy" is insufficient; one must also "give them
Aid and Comfort", which is defined as an overt act BEYOND MERE SPEECH.
See, e.g., what the Court said in Tomoya Kawakita v. U. S., 343 U.S. 717
(1952), which seems to be the most recent treason case to make its way
to the Supreme Court and so likely is the most recent such case to be
prosecuted. There, the overt acts were cruelty to American GIs in Japan
during WWII.  Since then we've seen plenty of people in the U.S. do just
what the NK fellows did, i.e., talk, and to my knowledge, none was
prosecuted for treason.

Charles Chi Halevi proposes that we (I'm not sure who) kill all the
NK-niks and gentiles who attended the Iran conference on the theory that
(1) they all want to kill the Jews, (2) that makes each of them a
"rodef" and the Talmud says "haba lehorgecha, hashkem lehorgo" (one who
comes to kill you, kill him first), and (3) this principle takes
precedence over dina demalchutecha dina, the commandment to follow
secular law.  First, I was unaware that any of the NK-niks advocated
killing Jews, but even if they did, I believe - I could be wrong - that
a "rodef" must be preparing to commit an overt act; again, I don't
believe talk counts.  But if Charles is correct, then his advocating
killing the NK-niks likewise makes him a rodef, which means they have
every right to kill him.  Second, the Talmud uses the phrase "mutar
lehatzilo benafsho" - it is PERMMISSIBLE to save (the would-be murderer
from sin) by killing him.  Secular law forbidding an act is trumped by
halacha requiring the act but not, AFIK, by halacha merely permitting
it, so I believe Charles is wrong on that count as well; secular law
trumps.  Third, while in general speech is constitutionally protected,
solicitation to commit murder is a crime in, I would guess, all
U.S. jurisdictions.  See, e.g., 18 Pa.C.S.  902.  I'm not sure if
Charles has crossed that line (or if he's even in the U.S.), but it's
something he might want to think about.


From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 07 00:51:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Neturei Karta

Shayna Goldmeier in a message with a different header:

SG> The neturei karta are putting jewish lives in danger by legitimizing
SG> what the arabs want to do to us, that is an issur Di'oraysa.

But are they really doing that?

I mean I don't think this is even like people who took seats in the
Soviet parliament - I don't know if there is one person in the world now
who takes what they did seriously - at least as representing anybody -
except maybe the people who invited them. (And there..are the people in
Iran really thinking of making them into religious Jewish leaders?  Now
Putin, at least picked Lubavichers.)

I think the intent of the Iranians indeed could be quite evil, and maybe
the intentions of those who went there, but I don't know about the
practical effects. Perhaps the Iranians are so crazy that maybe they
didn't get the better of the deal.

SG> There is NO defense for the NK - none at all!  If they hold Zionism
SG> is wrong - fine.  But to go on international tv during a war, to 
SG> go to Iran for a holocaust denial conference, is sakanos nefashos 
SG> for the rest of us jews and is assur lgamri!

I don't know if it sakanos nefashos but it is at the least extremely
distasteful. I really don't know the words for this. I just don't know
the words.

But - Dan Lekaf Zchus.

Now the defense they had - I saw letters to the editor in the Jewish
Press from people who had heard evidentaly defenses made - is that they
were mitigating possible evil. Their defense apparently would translate
into something like they were flattering Rashoim (wicked people) and
that's sometimes recommended. In other words: If they give them the idea
that they are their friends - well, then, maybe they won't issue a call
to kill all the Jews, and maybe they won't want to do it at all, while
otherwise they will at least persecute Jews in Iran - they tended to
cite that point as their defense apparently, although I don't think
their presence at this conference was needed for that.

But they could argue it's a good thing, they want some kind of
endotrsement from Jews,and maybe even a good thing taht it is relighious
looking Jews.

But when somebody does that- flatters evil people - that's in order to
get something or to have something not happen. You would think maybe
this just simply goes too far.

The suspicion therefore arises that these people have no red line -
nothing beyond which they would say, no they won't, and I'm not sure
what the evidence is for or against that proposition.

There is no defense at face value of what they did. If somebody thinks
that there should not be Jewish rule in Israel in the current day - all
right let's say - but why would they then want to pick the worst rulers?
Did Jews anywhere in history want to have bad rulers over them? If they
need to swear loyalty to something else - why not advocate that Israel
join the United States, or become a British colony again, or some other
kind of trust territory, or be ruled by the King of Jordan?

Why Arafat and now Iran? Why do they go look there?

It makes them look like tools of these people, which maybe they are. I
mean who paid for the trip? Who gave them honor? Is that what they
wanted? To go on stage?

What they say just cannot be taken at face value as representing their
beliefs. But at a second level, as I said, maybe they have a defense.

The defense being they think that if they give them the idea that they
are their friends - well, then, maybe they won't issue a call to kill
all the Jews. And that it also would make a practical difference. (and
then, remember, their ideology would lead them to expect Israel to be
destroyed, so they would want to insure against the worst.)

Now you could say, who cares what Iran says? Does it matter? Or, would
the NK prevent anything, or even try? But we could say they would
prevent that in spite of themselves, so that maybe what they did wasn't
so bad anyway, although maybe ytheir intentions were evil.

And we have to note: Isn't Iran trying to weaken the sense of horror
that people have about proposals to kill a lot of Jews?

Of course it could be argued that what the NK did only made the whole
thing look more ridiculous and phony, and cause it not to serve that
purpose. And they after all, at least, did not deliver any papers there.

One thing: When somebody flatters evil people - that's obviously in
order to get something done or to have something not happen. You would
think maybe this just simply goes too far. You would think that having
this conference not happen would be sort of the thing they would want to
get in exchange for loyalty to Iran, and not something which they would
lend their presence in order to get something else. You would think
there would be such a feeling of revulsion at it, thatthey just simply
wouldn't take part. They wouldn't try to make any rational calculations.

The question arises: Are they making any calculations? The suspicion
arises that these people have no red line - nothing beyond which they
would say, no they won't play ball with them any more.

In the meantime there is a demonstration proposed. I saw the following

"A loud, legal, and lawful protest against the Neturei Karta's
attendance at the Holocaust deniers conference, will be Sunday January 7
MONSEY N.Y. For bus info -- from Brooklyn please call and RSVP (212)

These people, at least, owe other Jews an explanation. I would hope that
it would take the tone of demanding they explain themselves. I think the
minimum effect might be that this episode won't repeat itself, or
somethinbg similiar.


From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:37:52 -0500
Subject: A radical but sane proposal: murder

From: Charles Chi Halevi <c.halevi@...>
> Since the G'mara (Talmud) clearly states that - ha'ba li'hargicha,
> hashkem u'dihargo - if you know someone is coming to kill you, you
> should arise early and kill him first - shouldn't we apply this
> principle to such vermin as those Jews and Gentiles who participated
> in the Iranian conference that denied the Holocaust...

Though I appreciate the need for a completely free medium of
intellectual discourse, I find this statement quite chilling in that it
seems to be a public call for individual murder along the lines of
Pinchas's work (it is entirely possible and hoped that I am misreading
the elusive "tone" of the e-mail).

Are you suggesting that if I see one of the Neturei Karta who attended
the conference in my neighborhood that I should murder him?

In today's world, these kinds of decisions must be done on a national
level in the context of an international war on Iran (which I support)
 ...  I doubt either civil law or halacha would permit any individual
action on this matter.

Ari Trachtenberg,                                      Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten                    mailto:<trachten@...>

From: Mark and Anne Goldin <goldinfamily@...>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:24:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: A radical but sane proposal: murder

While I share the negative feelings of others in this group about the
NK, I do not think it is prudent or appropriate to be advocating this
type of violent approach, nor do I think messages like this should even
be circulated.

Mark Goldin

From: Norman Miller <nm1921@...>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:18:20 -0500
Subject: Re: A radical but sane proposal: murder

Charles Chi Halevi, quoting the Talmud and with an assist from a writer
of science-fiction, proposes that we carry out some preemptive measures
and kill our enemies before they kill us.  He had in mind those who
participated in the recent Teheran conference.  He calls it a 'radical'

Frankly, I don't see what's so radical about it or so novel.  Readers of
Mail-Jewish remember the so-called Historikerstreit when, in 1980, the
German historian Ernst Nolte wrote a defense of the shoah on the grounds
that Chaim Weizmann had issued a call to the world's Jews in 1939 to
resist Hitler.  And Nolte didn't even cite the Talmud for authority.

No, if Mr. Halevi wants to be radical he has to go after more than the
handful of Jew-haters who attended the conference.  We read that
antisemitism is well and firmly-established in the Muslim world.  In
Iran alone, with an estimated population of 68,688,433 (as of July,
2006) more than half endorse the destruction of Israel.  Add to these
let us say half of the 280,000,000 Arabs in the world.  And should the
Poles, Ukrainians, Germans, French--all of whom harbor large numbers of
antisemites--get a pass?  So I suggest that Mr. Halevi go back to his
drawing-board and come up with a workable plan.  No science fiction this

Noyekh Miller

From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:47:03 GMT
Subject: Re: A radical but sane proposal: murder

I must protest this admitted incitement to murder!
No, this is NOT such a case!

First, just because they participate in holocaust-denial, that does not
prove that they personally want to kill Jews themselves.  But more
importantly: Don't confuse WANTING to kill with PLANNING to kill.  We
have NO PERMISSION to kill every person who WANTS to kill Jews.  Look at
the quote again: if someone is COMING to kill you Not merely if he
THINKS about killing you.  How can someone make such an error as this??

Normally, I would send this as a private email to the poster, to point
out his error and suggest that he retract his comments. But this public
incitement to murder requires a public protest.

Contrary to the subject line, this is NOT a sane proposal. IT IS
INCITEMENT TO MURDER and must be protested!

(If the poster has seen that these people are actually planning to kill,
then he should have included that information in his post.)

Akiva Miller

From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 01:13:28 +1100
Subject: A radical but sane proposal: murder

That Chazal may (or may not) be applicable to president Haman of Iran,
I'll leave it for the poskim, but I very much doubt that it is to the
other Jew-haters who attended. They don't seriously threaten to kill
Jews (though no doubt they would enjoy if this happened, ChV).

And the Jews who attended - are stam Shotim, who need serious
psychiatric attention, not murder.

> I propose this applies to the traitorous Jews and Jew-hating goyim
>who, by their action in attending Iran's hate-fest, clearly want to
>kill Jews.

Just in case you are being serious, would YOU do what you suggest?
Would you encourage your son or daughter to do so?



End of Volume 53 Issue 55