Why Is America at War With Its Jews? Because American Jews Worship Other Gods

How to Eradicate Judaism in Two Generations or Less

Reviewing: “Betrayal: The Failure of American Jewish Leadership,” Compiled and edited by Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser, published by Wicked Son, an imprint of Post Hill Press, ISBN: 978-1-63758-879-6, 2023.

How did we get here, to a point where Jews wearing kippot are attacked on the streets of New York City, and the offenders are out on bail by the evening, if they’re even apprehended at all? Or worse, why are American Jews gunned down simply for being in a synagogue or a kosher supermarket in Pittsburgh, Poway and Jersey City? According to two co-authors, the answer is that American Jews started worshiping other gods.

Who are these gods? The social justice, equity and inclusion movements, belief for and against various “-isms,” like anti-racism, and the wholehearted belief in the Palestinian victim narrative and BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions), which runs gleefully unchecked on American college campuses.

Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser, two community organizers and the co-founders of the Boston-based Jewish Leadership Project, believe that the major organizations of the secular American Jewish community have changed their priorities to align with Judaism’s most ardent enemies in the name of tikkun olam (healing the world). Unfortunately, by doing that and by adopting various causes related to social justice, the view of the Jew as a servant of God and as a light unto the nations is being snuffed out.

In their book, “Betrayal: The Failure of American Jewish Leadership,” Jacobs and Goldwasser compile 22 essays that they believe show how various organizations tasked with protecting the Jewish community have actually accomplished quite the opposite. The essays’ authors, many of them well known right-wing commentators, focus their arguments almost entirely on the threat to Jewish continuity from the left wing.

Jacobs and Goldwasser lead by delivering a stinging indictment of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the North American Jewish Federations and the Networks of Jewish Community Relations Councils (JCRCs). Later, they also condemn the Reform Jewish movement for siding with social justice movements against Israel and American Jewry. The essay collection “is intended to publicly critique a failing Jewish establishment with the full understanding that many Jews view such rebukes as divisive and prefer to show unity,” they write.

“Ironically, for too many American Jews, the democratically elected leaders of the Jewish state can be pilloried time and again, but the undemocratically, donor-selected leadership here may not be questioned as this would ‘break Jewish unity.’”

Through articles by politically conservative heavy hitters like Alan Dershowitz, Morton A. Klein, Jonathan Tobin, Caroline Glick and others, the book paints a bleak picture of a Jewish world literally destroying itself, by making political choices over religious ones, justifying social justice fads and moving away from Jewish law in the name of religion.

Continue reading…

From Jewish Link, here.

Calling the Cops on a Molester – Rabbi Elyashiv’s True View

Aguda’s twisted path regarding abuse & calling police

Monday, July 3, 2023

There have been a number of anonymous individuals who have repeatedly insisted – without offering any evidence  – that the Aguda’s policy on reporting child abuse is identical with Rav Eliashiv’s written teshuva on the matter. For someone who has patience and a strong stomach – I would suggest rereading the posts linked below. 1) Rav Eliashiv deals with the issue of tikun olam as a justification for allowing things such as reporting molesters to the police. He mentions the issue of mandated reporting but then says that he is dealing with the issue of tikun olam. 2) He clearly states that if it is definitely a case of molesting that the police can be called. 3) He says the police can be called if there is raglayim ledavar ( reasonable evidence). The Aguda claims that only a rabbi can determine whether the level of raglayim ledavar exists (Rav Eliashiv does not write that). 4) He does say if there is no raglayim ledavar then the police can not be called. 5) The Aguda claims there is no conflict between having a rabbi decide whether you can go to the police and the requirements of mandated reporting. Rav Eliashiv does not say that and says that if there is justification from tikun olam to call the police one does not need the heter that the king ordered it (mandated reporting) in order to call the police. He indicates based on the Ritva that it is necessary to obey the mandated reporting law if it exists which is also the position of Rav Moshe Feinstein based on BM 83

Rav Eliashiv’s position

Rav Eliashiv(Kovetz Teshuvos 3:231): We learn from the Rashba’s words that when action is needed for the well being of society (tikun olam), that the Jewish sages have the ability in every generation to act to preserve the society and to repair breaches – even when there isn’t a specific order from the king. The Ritva (Bava Metzia 83b) has stated that this order of the king is “if the king says to capture certain criminals, even though the government will judge without witnesses and warning [as required by Torah law] and there is no functioning Sanhedrin [as required by Torah law] – it is still permitted since he is acting as the agent of the king. Since it is the law of the land to execute criminals without the testimony of witnesses and warning – as it states [Shmuel 2’ 1:5-16] that Dovid killed the Amalekite ger who had acceded to Shaul’s request to kill him -the agent of the king is like him.”  However according to what has been said, in a matter which is needed for the well being of society
Rav Eliashiv(Kovetz Teshuvos 3:231): It is permitted to notify the government authorities only in the case which it is certain that the accused has been sexually abusing children. Informing the authorities in such a case is clearly something for the well being of the society (tikun olam). … However in a case where there is no proof that this activity is happening but it is merely a conjecture or suspicion, if we permit the calling of the authorities – not only would it not be an improvement (tikun olam) – but it would destroy society. That is because it is possible that allegations are being made solely because of some bitterness the student has against his teacher or because of some unfounded fantasy. As a result of these false allegations the accused will be placed in a situation for which death is better than life – even though he is innocent. Therefore I do not see any justification for calling the authorities in such circumstances.
Rav Eliashiv(Nishmas Avraham 4:208-211): Rav Eliashiv told me that there is in fact no difference in halacha between a teacher who is molesting boys or girls since in both cases we are talking about severe mental damages and danger to the public. He cited the Beis Yosef who cites the Rashba regarding R’ Eliezar ben Rav Shimon (Bava Metzia 83a) who reported thieves to the government… Regarding this Rav Eliashiv said that we learn from this that surely in the case of child abuse which is more severe then theft that it would be permitted to first report it to the principal of the school and if he doesn’t do anything to report the matter to the police even in the Diaspora.

Rav Eliashiv(Nishmas Avraham 4:208-211): Rav Eliashiv told me that it is permitted for a doctor to report the life threatening abuse to the authorities even when there is a possibility [in the Diaspora] that the child will be sent to a non‑Jewish family or institution. However the doctor is then required to the best of his ability to see that the child is transferred to a Jewish family or institution.

2008/09/child-abuse-calling-police-rav-eliashiv.html

2010/02/rav-eliashiv-calling-police-for-theft.html

2008/11/child-abuse-callling-police-harav.html

2009/11/rav-eliashivhis-rabbinic-authority.html

Agudah’s Position

/2011/07/aguda-attempts-to-clarify-views-on.html

2012/05/aguda-forced-to-eat-its-words-no.html

2012/05/ny-sun-defends-rabbis-as-police.html

2012/06/da-hynes-aguda-on-collision-course.html

2013/06/missing-boat-consequences-of-rabbinic.html

2010/11/novominsker-rebbe-publicly-discusses.html

2011/08/reporting-abuseat-last-r-zweibel.html

2012/06/saving-kids-lashon-harah-high-price-to.html

2009/06/abuse-calling-police.html

2012/06/pure-torah-law-vs-pragmatic-weeding-out.html

2012/06/rabbi-zwiebel-aguda-child-abuse.html

2012/06/4-views-of-rabbinic-role-in-abuse-cases.html

2011/06/reporting-even-suspected-abuser-to.html

2012/11/r-avi-safranoffensive-article-regarding.html

China Should Allow Secession, but so Should Taiwan!

Can Taiwan Prevent a US-China War Over Taiwan?

The Savvy Street

By Walter Block

June 30, 2023

The world’s eyes are now focused on Russia and Ukraine. And with good reason. These two nations are now involved in a hot war with each other, and there are fears that it might spread even further.

Another possible war, that between the US and China over Taiwan, should also be kept on the forefront of consideration. If it occurs, it will involve the two most powerful nations on the third rock from the sun. China makes no secret of its desired relationship with Taiwan: the former considers the latter as its 16th province, even though it is presently separate from its mother country and has been since 1949.

The US is equally adamant that Taiwan is not a province of any other country, such as China. It opposes any unilateral change in its present status. In order to prevent any aggressive takeover of the former by the latter, American warships continually ply the waters of the South China Sea, which separates these two political entities.

How can a hot war over this issue be prevented? Is there any possible compromise that can preclude such an altercation, a potential danger to the entire human race?

There is.

One or more of these three political entities must officially sign on to the doctrine that all political associations must take place on a voluntary basis. No group of people should be compelled to associate, politically or in any other manner, with others against their will. Neither the US nor China is likely to be the first to take this plunge. This leaves the matter up to Taiwan. It, presumably, has the most to lose in any war to prevent a Chinese takeover, and, thus, the most incentive to do what it can to ward off such an eventuality.

What can Taiwan do?

Are there any folk now living in Taiwan who would wish to politically amalgamate with China? To become part of its 16th province? Fortunately for this compromise scheme, there are.

For example, Lin Te-wang, the leader of the Taiwan People’s Communist Party, admires Chinese President Xi Jinping, and maintains that his version of Chinese socialism would maximize economic development in Taiwan. How many Taiwanese support those or similar views? According to a survey recently held by the non-partisan Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation, this figure is about 12%.

How, then, to proceed? The Taiwanese government should hold elections of a very different sort than the usual. It should seek a relatively small area, perhaps, even a single town or a village in which a majority of the voters are to be found representative of this 12%. Unless voters who favor joining China are randomly distributed, geographically, a most unlikely occurrence (people with similar views tend to coalesce), such a territory will be found. Then, the Taiwanese government should welcome China into this one small area, which should be declared the 16th province of that mother country (provided that a peace treaty, or some such guarantee against the coerced spread of this entity, could be arranged).

There is precedent for this sort of thing. Not all political entities are geographically connected. For example, Pakistan and Bangladesh were for many years the same country, although geographically separate. If the Palestinians had their way, their country would consist of parts of Jerusalem along with the Gaza Strip. Were Quebec to separate from Canada, what remained of the latter country would be to a great degree disconnected by a large space.

This would be difficult for Taiwan to accomplish. No political entity ever relished giving up a part of itself. Just ask the Spanish re the Basque territory.

If Taiwan took the lead in this regard it would also be tough for Mr. Xi. He would lose face if he attacked what he would then have to regard as a neighboring island nation. For in this way, Taiwan would have already acceded to his wish, well, at least to an aspect of it. A part of Taiwan would be China’s 16th province. Which part? Only that section of the island which gave majority consent to this arrangement.

This would be a bitter pill for the US as well. In order to be logically consistent with this new philosophy, it would have to announce that if Texas or California, or Florida or New York, wished to secede from the US, it could do so without any physical opposition from Washington D.C. Let us say nothing about the war against secession of 1861.

Yes, there would be bitter pills all around. But if this scheme could prevent a war between China and the US over Taiwan, they would be as nothing, compared to the cost of the latter.

My goal, here, is to embarrass all involved politicians out of conducting a war on this matter. Maybe if they lose face for engaging in possibly nuclear fisticuffs, this will reduce the probability of it occurring in the first place.

From The Savvy Street, here.