samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (02/17/85)
Early arrivals from Ethiopia, and their leaders, consented to the quiet proposal by Harav Ovadia Yosef and other major poskim that they immerse in a mikveh, lechumra, i.e., to remove any lingering uncertainties concerning their halachic status. The clear, overriding benefit was to assure permanent universal acceptance by all Jews. No racism was intended, and stigma would have been avoided if the mission had been completed quietly. The early arrivals complied, and a quiet "giyur" of thousands proceeded without anyone taking offense. The approach was sensitive and humanitarian. The "sin" was that is was being accomplished by the Orthodox. Opportunists can't bear to stay out of the news. First Operation Moses was jeopardized by leaks. In the same foolish fashion, a hue and cry was raised by Shulamit Aloni, Yossi Sarid, Conservatives, and other would-be humanitarians, with familiar anti-Torah polemics, gaining what political mileage they could with their traditional incantations against "religious coercion". These fools have caused great harm, undermining what could have been a straightforward dignified absorbtion process. They can congratulate themselves for causing the new immigrants embarassment and confusion, and for dividing the Jewish people at a time when economic and military problems are at crisis level. Yitzchok Samet
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/21/85)
> Early arrivals from Ethiopia, and their leaders, consented to the > quiet proposal by Harav Ovadia Yosef and other major poskim that > they immerse in a mikveh, lechumra, i.e., to remove any lingering > uncertainties concerning their halachic status.............. >.................................................................. > ............................................................... a > hue and cry was raised by Shulamit Aloni, Yossi Sarid, > Conservatives, and other would-be humanitarians, with familiar > anti-Torah polemics, gaining what political mileage they could > with their traditional incantations against "religious coercion". > These fools have caused great harm, undermining what could have > been a straightforward dignified absorbtion process. They can > congratulate themselves for causing the new immigrants > embarassment and confusion, and for dividing the Jewish people at > a time when economic and military problems are at crisis level. > > Yitzchok Samet Yitzchok evidently feels it is disruptive to the social peace to have the Ethiopian Jews choose for themselves. Nothing the non-Orthodox advocate would inhibit those who believe as Yitzchok does from making their case directly to the immigrants to persuade them to "convert" voluntarily. If your case is so powerful, why do you fear having the choice left to them? It is because you believe they will not agree with you. If not, why? You will not concede that your position just might be mistaken; you will not admit your case is anything but compelling; you will not suggest (at least aloud) that the Ethiopians are incapable of making a reasoned choice or are morally regressed. You deal with the immigrant's leaders, who are unaware of life in Israel or the modern Jewish world, and implicitly threaten that they will not be "accepted" less they follow your bidding. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that a "deal" would be cut with those leaders, and that the "deal" could not stand the light of day. It strikes me as more than ironic that those who preach "my way or the highway" are the ones who accuse "dissenters" of being divisive --- especially as the "dissenters" are more numerous and do nothing to inhibit the Orthodox from making their case. The resort to statute and state coercion is a tacit admission that you fear you cannot make your case. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (02/22/85)
> > Early arrivals from Ethiopia, and their leaders, consented to the > > quiet proposal by Harav Ovadia Yosef and other major poskim that > > they immerse in a mikveh, lechumra, i.e., to remove any lingering > > uncertainties concerning their halachic status.............. > >.................................................................. > > ............................................................... a > > hue and cry was raised by Shulamit Aloni, Yossi Sarid, > > Conservatives, and other would-be humanitarians, with familiar > > anti-Torah polemics, gaining what political mileage they could > > with their traditional incantations against "religious coercion". > > These fools have caused great harm, undermining what could have > > been a straightforward dignified absorbtion process. They can > > congratulate themselves for causing the new immigrants > > embarassment and confusion, and for dividing the Jewish people at > > a time when economic and military problems are at crisis level. > > > > Yitzchok Samet > > Yitzchok evidently feels it is disruptive to the social peace to have > the Ethiopian Jews choose for themselves. - David Rubin No! I think that they are being manipulated against their interests to get involved in a "war" which is not theirs. Using emotional scare tactics on unwary people is undermining their ability for free choice. That's why consumer laws were written to protect people from unscrupulous high pressure, door to door salesman. People who "choose" under pressure tactics are being manipulated and need time to cool off and reconsider. The lines you conveniently deleted from my article (see below) contain the answer to your charge, namely, that they could only gain and not lose by going to mikveh. The opportunists raised false charges of racism to emotionally confuse the people and obscure that that simple yet essential point. --------- LINES CENSORED OUT: ... The clear, overriding benefit was to assure permanent universal acceptance by all Jews. No racism was intended, and stigma would have been avoided if the mission had been completed quietly. The early arrivals complied, and a quiet "giyur" of thousands proceeded without anyone taking offense. The approach was sensitive and humanitarian. The "sin" was that is was being accomplished by the Orthodox. Opportunists can't bear to stay out of the news. First Operation Moses was jeopardized by leaks. In the same foolish fashion, a hue and cry was raised ...
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/23/85)
> = Yitzchok Samet responding to David Rubin resonding to Yitzchok Samet, " " = David Rubin responding to ... oh, you know what I mean ... > No! I think that they are being manipulated against their interests > to get involved in a "war" which is not theirs. Using emotional scare > tactics on unwary people is undermining their ability for free choice. > That's why consumer laws were written to protect people from > unscrupulous high pressure, door to door salesman. People who "choose" > under pressure tactics are being manipulated and need time to cool > off and reconsider. So it's "high-pressured sales tactics" to allow them to choose, but not so to make the choice for them!? It is "emotional scare tactics" to tell them they will be accepted (at least by most) regardless, but it isn't to threaten them with nonacceptance!? This is humpty-dumpty linguistics. By all means, let them reconsider for as long as they need to -- it's not those who advocate their immediate acceptance who bar them from reflection on the matter. > The lines you conveniently deleted from my article (... .....) > contain the answer to your charge, namely, that they could only > gain and not lose by going to mikveh. The opportunists raised > false charges of racism to emotionally confuse the people and > obscure that that simple yet essential point. Your charge of censorship is unfounded. First, the ellipsis was clearly marked, and, second, a reference line was provided to all. As for the answer to my charge being in the edited (for brevity, I assure you) lines, you didn't understand my challenge: if they truly have nothing to lose and everything to gain, they will certainly arrive at the "correct" (from your point of view) decision WITHOUT BEING COMPELLED TO DO SO. You can make that argument to them rather than to me. You seem to believe these people cannot withstand the withering corruption emanating from those who will let them choose; you do not respect their ability to make a moral choice; you proclaim your acceptance of them as equals. These sentiments are not consistent. I do not believe that those who would act as you are advocating are racists (i.e. believe themselves genetically superior to blacks), but rather believe themselves morally superior to all who don't share their viewpoint, whatever color, religion, or kind of Jew they may happen to be. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (02/24/85)
My first answer to David Rubin was off the mark. It should have been: "Don't equate lying, malicious, instigation and emotional incitement with 'offering a free choice'." My key charges were: 1) The Ethiopians originally agreed to a quiet ceremony by their own free will. 2) No hint of racism was intended or involved. 3) No stigma whatsoever would have resulted. 4) Attacks charging racism and stigma were vicious lies. 5) These lies were politically motivated. Their purpose was to propagandize against the Orthodox control of the rabbinate. The propagandists exploited self-righteous humanitarian rhetoric to incite public opinion. 6) The Ethiopians were exploited by instigators to be pawns in a political melee. The politicians gained at their expense. Perhaps you take issue concerning the facts. But if you accept them as I've charged, I can't see why you would react differently. Yitzchok Samet
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/25/85)
> My first answer to David Rubin was off the mark. It should have been: > "Don't equate lying, malicious, instigation and emotional > incitement with 'offering a free choice'." I'd like to see what you consider to be a "free choice". Your reply (below) still skirts what I consider the critical matter: if your position is so manifestly just and without error, would not it be inevitably accepted by the Ethiopians? And if they will choose "correctly", what harm will be done by giving them that choice (whatever the motivations of those who would give them that choice)? > My key charges were: > 1) The Ethiopians originally agreed to a quiet ceremony by > their own free will. This charge is contradicted by your earlier posting, which put forth the far more modest claim that selected leaders had so agreed. > 2) No hint of racism was intended or involved. As I've said, perhaps no racism, but definitely more than a hint of moral superiority ("these people cannot be trusted to choose correctly...") > 3) No stigma whatsoever would have resulted. As long as they did it your way... > 4) Attacks charging racism and stigma were vicious lies. Attacks charging racism were uncharitable, but only in the motivation of the feeling of superiority, not in its existence. Charges of threatening stigma are true. > 5) These lies were politically motivated. Their purpose was to > propagandize against the Orthodox control of the rabbinate. > The propagandists exploited self-righteous humanitarian > rhetoric to incite public opinion. Of course, asserting Orthodox control of state agencies is a political act. I suppose if you agree with Yitzchok, you are righteous, but if you disagree, you are self-righteous. And the Orthodox NEVER use rhetoric to incite public opinion in Israel, I assume... > 6) The Ethiopians were exploited by instigators to be pawns in > a political melee. The politicians gained at their expense. The Ethiopians were exploited by politicians of both stripes. That is what politicians do for a living. The politicians' motivations, however, are irrelevent to our dispute; we (on the net) are only discussing the "right thing to do", not the political advantages to be gained in such a matter. > Perhaps you take issue concerning the facts. But if you accept them > as I've charged, I can't see why you would react differently. > > Yitzchok Samet The facts are not disputed, but we still react very differently. Without choice, there can be no such thing as morality (at least, that was the crux of the response given by my Hebrew school teacher (an Orthodox rabbi) to the inevitable inquiry, "Why does God suffer evil to exist?). If you wish to PERSUADE the Ethiopians to go through with the mikveh, by all means.... I just object to COMPELLING them to do so. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (02/26/85)
>Your reply (below) still skirts what I consider the critical matter: >if your position is so manifestly just and without error, would not it >be inevitably accepted by the Ethiopians? And if they will choose >"correctly", what harm will be done by giving them that choice >(whatever the motivations of those who would give them that choice)? > David Rubin To David: Who's skirting? You would prefer to shift discussion to your "critical matter". But you never responded to mine. I'll answer you anyway, but at the end. To me, the critical matter is the one that will emerge after tempers have cooled and time has added perspective. During the McCarthy era the issue was who was or wasn't a communist. In perspective, we now realize that the issue was witch-hunting. The purpose of my article was not to solve the Ethiopian problem. I can't affect that situation tangibly. On the other hand, I do hope to debunk some anti-Orthodox prejudices, like yours, often expressed on our net. In my view, one central and critical matter is that there is a vicious libel campaign against Orthodoxy. (In an earlier article, I demonstrated beyond question, that charges of racism against halachic authorities are ridiculous. No one took issue.) This is the underlying dynamic and the antidote is to expose the liars and instigators. Now to your questions: >> "Don't equate lying, malicious, instigation and emotional >> incitement with 'offering a free choice'." >I'd like to see what you consider to be a "free choice". I was trying to suggest that your favorite phrase is camouglaging the facts. You answered by again invoking the magic words and skirting my point. >> 1) The Ethiopians originally agreed to a quiet ceremony by >> their own free will. >This charge is contradicted by your earlier posting, which put forth >the far more modest claim that selected leaders had so agreed. Unthinkable as it may sound, they (choose to) obey their religious leaders. >> 2) No hint of racism was intended or involved. >As I've said, perhaps no racism, but definitely more than a hint of >moral superiority ("these people cannot be trusted to choose >correctly...") You have no basis (except distrust) for attributing distrust to the Rabbis who approached them? Does explaining the Torah constitute moral condescension? >> 3) No stigma whatsoever would have resulted. >As long as they did it your way... Not because it's my way, but because it's a fact. >> 4) Attacks charging racism and stigma were vicious lies. >Attacks charging racism were uncharitable, but only in the >motivation of the feeling of superiority, not in its existence. >Charges of threatening stigma are true. Uncharitable!? You're bending over backwards to rationalize for the anti-Orthodox. Aren't you capable of any fairness towards us? What stigma? That they were so "inferior" that they listened to the advice of the Orthodox Rabbinate and the Torah? Wouldn't you respect their choice, or would that be defacto evidence that they lack the ability to choose? >> 5) These lies were politically motivated. Their purpose was to >> propagandize against the Orthodox control of the rabbinate. >> The propagandists exploited self-righteous humanitarian >> rhetoric to incite public opinion. >Of course, asserting Orthodox control of state agencies is a political >act. I suppose if you agree with Yitzchok, you are righteous, but if >you disagree, you are self-righteous. And the Orthodox NEVER use >rhetoric to incite public opinion in Israel, I assume... I'm condemning lies not political activity. I identify the motive to clarify what's relly going on. Self-righteousness is a method of covering motives. Is it less legitimate, in your view, to expose self-righteous humanitarians than to expose self- righteous Orthodox? >> 6) The Ethiopians were exploited by instigators to be pawns in >> a political melee. The politicians gained at their expense. >The Ethiopians were exploited by politicians of both stripes. That >is what politicians do for a living. The politicians' motivations, >however, are irrelevant to our dispute; we (on the net) are only >discussing the "right thing to do", not the political advantages to >be gained in such a matter. No lies or instigations whatsoever were fostered by the rabbinate. The unscrupulous acts of these Torah haters deserved to be exposed. Why do you object? Why do you try so hard whitewash? >> Perhaps you take issue concerning the facts. But if you accept them >> as I've charged, I can't see why you would react differently. >The facts are not disputed, but we still react very differently. >Without choice, there can be no such thing as morality (at least, that >was the crux of the response given by my Hebrew school teacher (an >Orthodox rabbi) to the inevitable inquiry, "Why does God suffer evil >to exist?). If you wish to PERSUADE the Ethiopians to go through >with the mikveh, by all means.... I just object to COMPELLING them to >do so. Your clear bias in these discussions explains why you react differently. We come finally to your topic, the issue of choice. First of all, the "compelling" is only in your mind. The fact is that many chose not to go to mikveh and didn't. Unless you imagine that arms were physically twisted, you must be objecting to psychological pressures. If you mean to suggest by quoting an Orthodox Rabbi that psychological pressure is forbidden by the Torah, you are wrong. As a matter of fact, the Torah authorizes Rabbinic courts to use physical and psychological pressures where appropriate. (The Talmud explains that this does not violate free choice. You can't extrapolate to this issue from from your Hebrew school experience.) In fact, however, the only pressure exerted was the truthful explanation of the facts of (halachic) life, by recognized authorities. I have met Jews from Ethiopia and I was extremely impressed by their purity and character. I have every confidence in their moral ability. Still I appreciate that, just like you and me, they can be fooled and bamboozled. My article sought to identify and condemn the ruthless bamboozlement that occurred. I am not advocating "my view" as a criterion for free choice, as you claim. The Ethiopians were consciously defrauded. A contract made under conditions of fraud is not legally binding, under Torah law or secular law, lehavdil. It is simply absurd to invoke free choice as a legitimizing factor under conditions of deception. An unbiased person who agrees on the facts, even if he is not Orthodox, should react as I do, i.e. to cry foul when he smells a rat. Yitzchok Samet