`Insensitive' govt continues to ignore Jewish deaths in Mumbai

15 Dec 2008


NEW DELHI: Two-year-old Moshe Holtzberg tugs at your heartstrings, crying for his mother who was brutally killed by Pakistani terrorists at Nariman House in Mumbai during the three-day terror attacks. In many ways, Moshe is the face of the trauma that wracked the city.

Moshe's Israeli parents, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, and his pregnant wife, Rivkah, 28, were killed along with other hostages. His story of being whisked away from his dead parents, soaked in blood, by his nanny has brought tears to most hardened hearts all over the world.

The Indian government, however, has remained completely immune to all this. In a display of crass insensitivity as well as an enduring sign that the government continues to pander to the politics of the Muslim-Jew divide, minister of state for external affairs E Ahamed did not mention the Nariman House attack in his statement to the UN Security Council last week. And this from an India which officially maintains that terror has no religion and all victims are equal.

In his speech to the UNSC asking for the world to ban the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, Ahamed referred to "pre-selected targets which included a cafe popular with Indian and foreign tourists and two major hotels". There was no mention of the Jewish Chabad Lubavitch centre, which was specifically chosen by the terrorists to attack Jews.

The Nariman House siege was even more horrific as it was the only one where the entire world was witness to NSG commandos rappelling down from a helicopter and blowing up the building with grenades after a 56-hour battle. It was also the only place where another Jewish leader from New York actually conducted a conversation with one of the terrorists.

While there is no official reason for this omission, sources said it was "inadvertent".

In the aftermath of the attacks, India showed a lot of insensitivity, this was just one more of them. For instance, the Maharashtra government sent official letters of condolence to the families of victims. Singapore found that the name of its lone victim was misspelt badly. The letter had to be returned to get the name right. In Delhi, the Malaysian high commission found that it had not been invited to the government's condolence briefing because its citizen who died in the attacks was of Indian origin, so the government thought he was Indian!

But was Ahamed's omission of the Jewish house in his speech a function of the utterly improbable relationship that India enjoys with Israel or was it a function of the fact that the government didn't want to "anger" Muslims by sympathising with the Jews. Sources said it could be both.

India's relationship with Israel resembles an irresistible, clandestine affair -- where the linkages are growing in many spheres but all below the radar. So, while the government is perfectly happy to have a huge defence relationship with Israel and an intelligence synergy that is seemingly bottomless, a strong fear of angering the Muslim keeps it from acknowledging this relationship openly.

Little Moshe did not even comprehend the nature of his parents' deaths. But for those who hoped for a word of sympathy for an orphaned child, the Indian government has decided not to oblige.

Election enclave

Two days before the election, the Hasidic Jewish community in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, is strongly leaning towards John McCain, in contrast with predominantly Democratic New York City. Many members of the Lubavitch community expressed concerns about foreign policy, school vouchers and social conservatism. Barack Obama's perceived lack of experience and weakness in the war on terror have contributed to the community's overwhelming support for McCain. However, some voters stated ambivalence or indifference toward the presidential race.

2 Comments to "Election enclave"

1. November 05, 2008 9:42:23 PM Could not be happier that this group may not be happy with what the majority of 133,000,000 voters wants. They have had 8 years of George Bush in there pockets and I hope they will not be as strong a lobby with our new president.

— ralph barquin, NYC
2. November 06, 2008 3:54:11 PM I'm sure you're overjoyed that instead of well intentioned Rabbis having influence, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi will be the lobby.

— Daniel, Brooklyn

Rabbis agree with IRS rules, say shuls shouldn’t endorse candidates

By Leon Cohen and Andrea Waxman
of The Chronicle staff

Some 33 Christian pastors in 22 states — including one in West Bend, according to an Associated Press report — recently attacked what they believe to be restraints on freedom of speech in religious institutions during elections.

But their effort receives little sympathy from a group of Wisconsin congregational rabbis interviewed by The Chronicle last week.

The pastors participated in a project of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which the AP described as a conservative legal group.

The pastors devoted their sermons on Sept. 28 — which they called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” — to endorsing candidates in the coming presidential election.

They did this to protest Internal Revenue Service rules instituted by Congress in 1954. These rules strip tax-exempt status from non-profit organizations, including religious institutions — and organizations like The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle — that endorse political candidates.

ADF contends, according to a release on its Web site, that these rules violate First Amendment freedom of speech rights of clergy; and the Pulpit Freedom Sunday project seeks to provoke a legal challenge to the rules.

“I think they are wrong,” said Rabbi Shaina Bacharach, spiritual leader of Congregation Cnesses Israel (Conservative) in Green Bay.

The IRS rules help to preserve lines separating church and state, and “I don’t like to see those boundaries crossed,” she said.

In fact, “I think Congress is doing us a favor” with these rules, said Rabbi Shlomo Levin of Lake Park Synagogue (Orthodox) in Milwaukee.

“Politics is polarizing and the clergy’s role should be to tone down the debate,” he said. “We should be humble and admit that it’s difficult to make good decisions.”

Rabbi E. Daniel Danson of Mount Sinai Congregation (Reform) in Wausau added, “When religious institutions move in lockstep with a party, they lose their voice.”

Moreover, just as certain Talmud rulings “build a fence around” Torah laws, so do these IRS rules “build a fence around the Constitution,” Danson said.

Moreover, at least one rabbi would maintain silence about candidates even if the IRS rules were changed to allow religious institutions to endorse them.

Rabbi Shmaya Shmotkin, spiritual leader of the Chabad Lubavitch-affiliated The Shul (Orthodox) in Bayside, said, “It’s been a long-standing policy of Lubavitch, instituted by the Rebbe, that as an institution we are not to be involved in politics.”

“The reason is the way we view our role: to enhance and serve every single Jew, regardless of ideology or political leanings,” he said.

“Anything that could potentially deter from that mission or make someone with a different view uncomfortable is in our view detrimental.” Therefore, “even if by law we were able to, we wouldn’t do it.”

Addressing issues

That is not to say that all local rabbis ignored the election when they spoke from the pulpit during the autumn holidays season.

Rabbi Jacob Herber, spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Israel (Conservative) in Glendale and president of the Wisconsin Council of Rabbis, said he has spoken “about issues related to this campaign and specifically about the harmful and dangerous rhetoric that is taking place.”

“I put [these messages] in the context of the charged political rhetoric [in Israel] that preceded the assassination of [Prime Minister] Yitzhak Rabin [in 1995],” Herber said.

Rabbi Laurie Zimmerman, spiritual leader of Congregation Shaarei Shamayim (Reconstructionist-Renewal) in Madison, also has spoken about issues relating to the elections.

In fact, on Yom Kippur, she discussed why immigration reform should be considered a Jewish issue, and “from now until the election, I will talk about the economy,” she said.

Rabbi Joseph Prass, associate rabbi at Congregation Shalom (Reform) in Fox Point, reported that his synagogue sponsored a Yom Kippur study session about the elections with Mordecai Lee, former state senator and now professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

The idea, Prass said, was to talk about the issues through a Jewish lens. “People were allowed to discuss this election, but … it was not meant to lead to one candidate or another.”

However, some local rabbis did try to avoid even dealing with political issues in their High Holidays addresses.

Rabbi Benzion Twerski of Congregation Beth Jehudah (Orthodox) said, “All my sermons were personal growth-oriented” during the holidays, ranging from the Jewish people’s “mission to the world” to repentance and how sinning is “beneath the majesty that is our souls.”

Rabbis for Obama

Some of the rabbis differed on whether they should publicly endorse candidates on their own, as rabbis but not as spiritual leader of their synagogues.

Rabbi Joshua Ben Gideon of Beth Israel Center (Conservative) in Madison did not address the election in any of his High Holidays sermons.

But he is one of eight Wisconsin signers among the 500 rabbis nation-wide who have signed onto a public letter from a group called Rabbis for Obama in support of Democratic presidential nominee Barak Obama. (The others are Rabbis Renee Bauer of Madison, Marc Berkson of River Hills, Jonathan Biatch of Madison, Dena Feingold of Kenosha, Michael Remson of Kenosha and Roxanne Shapiro of Fox Point, as well as Herber.)

However, as one can see on the Rabbis for Obama Web site, the rabbis are listed by name and locale, not by their institutional affiliations.

“I am expressing support for a candidate,” said Ben Gideon, but not in the name of a congregation, and “that is different than preaching from the bimah about a candidate.”

But Bacharach and Danson both refused to sign onto this. “I don’t believe I should publicly advocate for either candidate,” said Bacharach.

And although Danson said that “people I have respect for” signed onto the Rabbis for Obama letter, he declined because “this is one hard disconnect, supporting somebody officially even if not as rabbi of whatever congregation, from how it is publicly perceived.”

At present, there is no similar group of rabbis announcing support for Republican nominee John McCain

Russia chief rabbi: Repeal Jackson-Vanik

Russia's chief Chabad rabbi castigated the United States for its refusal to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment.

In an interview published Wednesday in a Russian newspaper, Rabbi Berel Lazar said the only reasoning behind retaining the amendment was political and that it's usefulness had long ago passed.

The Cold War-era measure places restrictions on countries that do not allow their citizens to freely emigrate. Enacted 33 years ago, it was targeted at alleviating the constraints on Jewish intellectuals.

Jackson-Vanik, named for the two major co-sponsors in the U.S. Congress, remains in place for Russia and several other former Soviet countries, preventing their admittance to organizations such as the World Trade Organization.

Lazar said Chabad representatives have brought up the issue with President Bush and the U.S. State Department.

Jews have been able "to emigrate and to freely travel" for a long time, Lazar told Nezavisimaya Gazeta, while many have returned to Russia.

"No one has forced them to return," he said. "It was their free choice."

Lazar said the amendment is now harming the Jewish people because their struggle for human rights has been tied to economic policy.

"The repeal of the amendment is now tied to things like American chicken imports to Russia," Lazar said. "People and their spiritual freedom have been placed on the same plane with chicken."

Dear Reader: The Good and Bad of Chabad

by Eric H. Yoffie

In last Winter’s column, I reflected on Chabad’s admirable hospitality (see “The Art of Welcoming,” Winter 2006). Indeed, throughout the world, in virtually every city where a Jewish community of even modest size is to be found, Chabad shelichim (emissaries) conduct religious services, visit hospitals, teach children, organize Jewish holiday celebrations, and offer Shabbat meals to lonely Jewish students and travelers. No other Jewish movement—Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform—has been able to produce a corps of similarly devoted young men and women who are prepared to serve the Jewish people with such personal sacrifice.
Unfortunately, other Chabad practices are less admirable. Here are two examples.
In Russia, Chabad leaders have established an alliance with the increasingly autocratic President Vladimir Putin. Such alliances have their purposes, but not when they are used to deny recognition and funding to other Jewish groups. Looking back at the history of eastern European Jewry, we all view with distaste those chapters that involve Jewish groups drawing close to ruling despots so that they can work against other Jews with whom they disagree. We do not need a modern version of that history in the Russian Federation today.
In North America, the issues are very different. Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox synagogues routinely require families that want their child to have a bar/bat mitzvah to meet certain requirements—the son or daughter must attend religious school for a year or more, and the parents must commit themselves to study and congregational worship. The reason is clear: absent Torah learning and familial involvement, the bar mitzvah will be without meaning, an excuse for a party. Chabad centers, however, generally provide a bar mitzah service with few, if any, requirements. Chabad says that no child should be denied a bar mitzvah, and the family—which is usually unaffiliated—may be drawn later into Jewish life. Perhaps. More likely, the lesson is that Judaism is not a serious endeavor and that even the most significant milestones require only a modicum of commitment.
Surely no family should ever be denied membership in a synagogue because of inability to pay. But we should protest when Chabad, or anyone else, becomes a purveyor of Jewish minimalism, lowering educational standards for our children and community.
Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie President, Union for Reform Judaism

In Medved's Bed

I don’t know which four big lies about Israel and the Middle East radio talk-show host Michael Medved discussed when he appeared in Bala Cynwyd on October 23, 2007. I did not attend. But the “The” in the title of his talk, The 4 Big Lies About Israel and the Middle East, suggests that Medved managed to sift through the legion of lies floating around the subject and identified the absolutely, no-doubt-about-it biggest four.

That classic expression of Medvedian know-it-all arrogance comes as no surprise to anyone who listens to his show or reads his books and columns. After all, this is the man who revealed to a stunned nation that Happy Feet, the Oscar-winning, 2006 animated feature about dancing penguins, had a sinister pro-gay subtext. But what may surprise those who attended his talk, which was sponsored by Chabad Lubavitch of the Main Line and supported by Kehillah of Lower Merion and the Jewish Federation’s Center for Israel and Overseas, is Medved’s thoughts on America’s enslavement of blacks. Basically, he doesn’t think it was such a terrible thing.

In a column published on the Townhall website back in September, Medved argued, among other things, that there is no reason to believe that today’s African-Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa, that the U.S. did not become a wealthy nation through the abuse of slave labor, that the U.S. merits special credit for the rapid abolition of slavery – and that’s just half of it. By the time he lists all six of his reasons why slavery has gotten a bum rap, he reveals a level of ignorance about U.S. history and the economics of the slave trade that is simply astounding. Not to mention morally repugnant. Author and screenwriter Trey Ellis addresses this repugnancy from an African-American perspective in his must read column.

Morally repugnant was how one of the sponsors of Medved’s talk characterized his slavery piece after I brought it to that person’s attention, two weeks before Medved was scheduled to speak. Alas, in the opinion of some sponsors, the train had left the station. One said, you “can’t pull the plug whenever a hired speaker says something that we disagree with after we have committed to the engagement.” Really? I think you can. Of course, it involves the challenging task of letting your inner moral compass, your sense of moral outrage guide your actions, but that is apparently too much to ask of some in our community.

A week later, on October 15, Medved invited infamous anti-Semite Ann Coulter to his radio show, giving her a chance to defend the morally repugnant views she expressed on Deutsch’s television show. Medved treated her with kid gloves. He never forcefully challenged her hateful views of Jews or her warped understanding of the Hebrew Bible, which she refers to as the Old Testament. For example, she continually reiterates that she and other Christians accept the OT, but Medved is either too ignorant or deferential to point out that what many Christians actually accept is a distorted, misinterpreted and mistranslated version of the Hebrew Bible specifically designed to validate Jesus as the messiah and, in the process, invalidate the fundamental covenantal precepts of Judaism. Incredibly, Medved appears to express more solidarity with a fellow right-wing blabbermouth than he does with the Jewish people. Unfortunately, this revelation did not move the sponsors of Medved’s talk to take action either.

But can’t we look the other way? After all, Medved is such a staunch supporter of Israel. And Israel needs all the help it can get, right? Wrong. Surely we can do better. Surely we can find knowledgeable, passionate and inspiring speakers to educate us about the Middle East who don’t come with Medved’s despicable baggage. Surely we and the State of Israel are not in such miserable and desperate straits that we need to climb into bed with people like Michael Medved for comfort.