WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, (of 10) reported in full below:
By S. Shalom (simshalom@att.net)
Blooged at:
http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
http://simshalom.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-happened-to-jew-on-google.html
(Part 1 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO "JEW" ON GOOGLE?
Early in 2004 The Jewish Press (of March 19) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/) published a report pointing out that “an anti-Semitic website is the first result one gets when typing in the word ‘Jew’ on Google, the Internet’s number one search engine.”
Soon after that a letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press:
“Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign at - www.removejewwatch.com
[ now at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] -
and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
As a reader of The Jewish Press I followed up and signed the petition. I Emailed friends and associates to do likewise. I posted the message on a number of pro-Israel and Jewish discussion groups on Yahoo! and MSN, but what really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story:
The Online Petition
Within a very short period of time starting in March 2004, well-over 50,000 people signed the petition with many leaving their own personal protest comments addressed to Google. As would be expected, this unusual public cyber-protest against free publicity for anti-Semitism, involving something as well known and used as Google in the computer world, caught the attention of varied audiences, some friendly and of those that were not.
Technicians supportive of the offending website “jewwatch dot com” got wind of what was happening and early on hacked (a form of online vandalism) Weinstock’s first online petition placing an obscene photo and hate messages on it. Weinstein quickly found a more secure web host at “petition online” and restarted the petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
This motivated even more people to sign the petition, which then topped over 100,000 signatures. An anonymous Internet expert contacted the web hosts of the offending site and argued that it should NOT be hosting a racist hate site. This resulted in “jewwatch” being kicked off its original web server and going off line for a few weeks. At that point Weinstock published a message on his “removejewwatch” site: “WE WON!” It was premature, to say the least.
Next week: Part 2: “jewwatch” Jew-hatred
-------------
(Part 2 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
By S. Shalom (simshalom@att.net) http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
Summary so far: A letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press (3/31/2004) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/ ) : “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com/ [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
The petition is still live at http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
What really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story continued:
(Part 2 of 10) “jewwatch” Jew-hatred
The boiling anti-Semitism of “jewwatch (dot) com” is trumpeted on their site. Its goal (for now) is “Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide” but they have also moved on to classical anti-Semitic propaganda and “advocacy” such as providing form letters for their followers to write to the media. Their venom is directed at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) ( http://www.adl.org/ ) in particular for protesting pro-Nazi statements and activities.
Unfortunately it did not take long for the hate-mongers to find a new web host someplace unknown and “jewwatch” went back online. By that time events had caught the mainstream media’s attention. People on the pro-Jewish newsgroups began to report that, weirdly, one of the main anti-Semites behind “jewwatch” was being interviewed on radio talk shows and claimed to be the “victim” of a modern day “witch hunt”. Turns out that the group/s behind the hate site are connected with notorious neo-Nazi units such as the “stormfront (dot) org” a self-proclaimed “White Nationalist” site that promotes “White Pride World Wide” and without shame advertises KKK leaders such as David Duke and his ilk.
The Media gets involved
As articles were written and published, some were reported by Mr. Weinstock on his petition site with links to the sources see http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html : “Google slammed for anti-Semitic search…Google spokesman David Krane said the company's search results are determined by a complex set of algorithms that measure factors such as how many sites link to a given page. The company can't and won't change the ranking for Jew Watch, regardless of how many signatures the petition attracts…” (silicon.com April 7, 04); “…Google refused: "Unfortunately, no computer can assess the morality, tastefulness, or honesty of a site's content. Results are determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query…”(Jerusalem Post March 31, 04); “Google finds itself in controversy…The administrator of Jew Watch did not respond to an e-mail message requesting comment, the report said. Weinstock has launched an online petition, asking Google to remove the site from its index. He said if Google receives 50,000 requests to remove the site, it will comply...”(UPI, in The Washington Post April 7, 04) and more reported this subject.
Next week: Part 3:
U.S. Sen. Schumer and the ADL intervene: Google’s President apologizes.
Readers response to the previous Email and posting:
One person observed: “Google has added an "explanation" concerning the specific
search "jew" listed as the first "Sponsored Link" which usually appears at the top, or to the right of the search results (having a general label of "Offensive Search Results" but deals specificly with the results to the search on the word "jew"). The sponsored link goes to a page set up specificly to explain the results given by the search term http://www.google.com/explanation.html ”
Another person was critical: “Are you aware how absurd this email is? Do you know anything about Google? No matter how many petitions you sign, you will not change Google's ranking system. It is because of fools like you, that problems like this are played up and more serious concerns for the Jewish community are ignored.”
Here is what I wrote (addressed more to the latter irate person):
“Thank you for your Email although your tone could have been a little less insulting. But that does not worry me so much as your passive acceptance of "the way Google works".
1) Let me make clear that I was not the one who initiated the petition against Google. The original petition was started and is still maintained by a Mr. Steven M. Weinstock of New York and you can read what he says at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html The petition was signed by over 125,000 people see http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
2) For anyone who uses the World Wide Web on the Internet, the existence of Anti-Semitism is a serious problem, which even Google was forced to admit as it has added its own "apology" when searching for "Jew", see http://www.google.com/explanation.html
3) Unlike you, Google itself admits to the problem. Unfortunately they do not go far enough because the only reason that will force them to block a website is when “…The only sites we manually remove from our search results are those that contain illegal content or maliciously attempt to manipulate our technology…” (from Google's explanation letter).
4) Did you know that if you did a search for "Jew" on Google's GERMAN portal at http://www.google.de/ you would NOT find the "jewwatch" site? Why? Because Google itself has removed it since in Germany it is illegal to promote Anti-Semitism and racial hatred. Google also tries to exclude extreme child-pornography web-sites from its search engine because child pornogrophy is illegal in the United States.
5) Now I ask you, if Google can kick off "jewwatch" from its German site and edit out child-pornography from its US search engines, then why can't they do the same thing with similar sites IF THEY WOULD WANT TO ? And to add insult to injury, Google itself admits "The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results." Is not simple human decency and morality good enough for them to remove a website that is "monitering" Jews in Nazi fashion, and also linked to a network of Neo-Nazi websites that are pro "The Final Solution" (planning for the genocide of the Jews even now, G-d forbid)?
6) Should we as Jews just "accept" what Google is doing because it claims to be under the "control" of mathematical " algorithms" and is just an "innocent" object in cyber-space? Sounds like a variation of the old "I was only following orders" excuse. How naive it would be to believe that, because Jews will always be on the lookout for what Anti-Semites want to do.
7) You know, it reminds me of those Germans before World War II who thought it was OK for Hitler and the Nazis to be accepted as a "normal" political party and run for democratic elections and sit in the Reichstag (Germany's parliament). That was "before". History has already seen what happens "after", when the cunning Anti-Semites use the freedoms of a democarcy and of open communications, then once in control, they burned down the Reichstag declared a dictatorship and blamed it on the Jews.
8) One more point, a number of large Internet companies use Google's services, yet somehow they manage to squeeze out the Anti-Semitic "jewwatch" site when a search is done for Jew and give "jewwatch" a lower ranking. Why is that? Try doing a search for "Jew" on Yahoo for example, they use Google's search engine, you will get basically nice sites that deal with the subject of "Jew", yet they put "jewwatch" in twentieth place maybe. So many things could be done and are possible.
I hope that rest of the series on this subject will be of interest to you. I look forward to hearing from you again, and I promise that I will not be insulted if you insult me, as I believe in "Ahavat Yisrael" !
All the best and happy surfing!
Shalom!”
--------------------
(Part 3 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
By S. Shalom (simshalom@att.net)
This series is being blogged at http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
Summary, in Part 1: A letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press (3/31/2004) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/ ) : “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com/ [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
The petition is still live at http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
In Part 2: The Anti-Semites behind “jewwatch” become aware of the efforts against them. The media notes that Google will not be moved by “petitions” in spite of criticism from some sources in the media. A flurry of behind the scenes activities takes place.
What really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story continued:
(Part 3 of 10) U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York and the ADL Intervene: Google’s President Apologizes.
Google did NOT remove the offending website, but did place an “apology” of sorts at the top of the web page where the offending site showed up:
“Offensive Search Results: We’re disturbed about these results as well…If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically…Our search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google. Some people concerned about this issue have created online petitions to encourage us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Because of our objective and automated ranking system, Google cannot be influenced by these petitions. The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results. We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it. Sincerely, The Google Team. p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to both the Jewish Internet Association, an organization that addresses online anti-semitism, at http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/, and Google's search results (about anti-Semitism) on this topic.” (http://www.google.com/explanation.html)
Why did Google do all this? The answer is that there was enough of a public outcry and interest at the time to bring the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at http://www.adl.org/ and US Senator Schumer of New York, the state with the most Jews in America. Schumer’s web-site is at http://schumer.senate.gov/ contact at http://schumer.senate.gov/webform.html The ADL had undertaken its own investigation of the issues behind the controversy. When one clicks onto the ADL site it defends Google (even though very ironically the wrath of “jewwatch” and “stormfront” is constantly directed at the ADL).
In an open public statement still online at its website the ADL declares:
“An e-mail campaign suggests that Google intentionally lists a hate site as the first item that comes up when searching under "Jew" or "Jews." While it is true that hate sites do appear when certain search terms are used, their appearance and rank are not controlled by Google. Google employs technology that automatically ranks sites based on a complicated formula called an algorithm. The ranking of Jewwatch and other hate sites is in no way due to a conscious choice by Google, but solely is a result of this automated system of ranking. When searching under the term "Jew," the top result in Google at the time of this writing is the hate site "Jewwatch." This site is run by Frank Weltner, who also uses the online monikers "Von Goldstein Mohammad" and "Couch Potato." "Jewwatch" has been in existence since 1997. The longevity of ownership, the way articles are posted to it, the links to and from the site, and the structure of the site itself all increase the ranking of "Jewwatch" within the Google formula. (http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp April 22, 04).
An April 22, 04 press release by the ADL adds:
“…In a letter to ADL, Google President Sergey Brin apologized to users who found the search results for the word "Jew" upsetting and promised to work for a solution that would satisfy ADL's concerns and those of users offended by the #1 ranking of an anti-Semitic Web site…
‘We are extremely pleased that Google has heard our concerns and those of its users about the offensive nature of some search results and the unusually high ranking of peddlers of bigotry and anti-Semitism,’ said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. ‘Google has shown great responsiveness to this issue and a willingness to consider changes to better identify extremist Web sites, so that users can still have the benefit of Google's unique search technology while being alerted when they are about to enter into a hate zone’…" (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Internet_75/4482_75.htm)
The ADL has published Brin’s letter (quoted in full) on its website:
“Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, 94043
(April 21, 2004)
Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League, Dear Mr. Foxman:
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns related to Google's site ranking technology. As a result of several constructive discussions with Senator Charles Schumer [Schumer’s web-site is at http://schumer.senate.gov/ . Contact at http://schumer.senate.gov/webform.html ] , members of his staff, and based on input from you and your team, we are currently looking at various technical modifications - specifically for categories and other auxiliary information. This is clearly an issue that we care deeply about, and we plan to explore additional ways of addressing it in the future. We would also like to thank you for posting an explanation on your website noting that a site's ranking in Google's search results are automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query. I have attached the text we have put on our website that gives users a clear explanation of Google's search results. And I would like to underscore how the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.
Thank you again for your letter and for your invitation to work with you in educating the public about how best to use web search technology and how we can improve our service.
Sincerely,
Sergey Brin,
President, Technology, Google Inc.” (http://www.adl.org/internet/google_letter.asp)
Next Week: Responses, and the Anti-Semites Gloat.
Readers’ responses to the previous Email and posting:
One reader wrote a one-line question:
“What happened to freedom of speech?”
And another reader wrote in a similar vein:
“I still don't understand what your point is in all of this. You even seem to show why they do what they do when you pointed out that Google has removed the link from the German portal because anti-semitism is illegal there. Here we have free speech. The same right that allows us to protest civil rights being violated also allows groups like the KKK to say what they want. Hate speech is not illegal in the US and any removal is a slippery slope towards banning things that the majority of people don't agree with. Why should Google censor themselves because a large group of people don't like what they have to say? If you don't like the system, use another search engine or encourage the 125,000 people to change which site appears first. We hold the first amendment dear and I would hope the right of free speech would hold up on the internet as much as it does everywhere else.”
This was my reply:
“Thank you for your feed-back which I greatly appreciate.
As an avid Internet user and as someone deeply concerned with Jewish affairs both in real life as well as on the World Wide Web, I have been following the subject of "jewwatch" avidly this past year as a kind of primitive litmus test of how anti-Semitism functions and circulates on the web and what if anything can be done about it. I hope to discuss and bring to light various options in the remaining parts of my report on this subject.
I agree with you that the freedom of speech issue is important. You ask: "Why should Google censor themselves because a large group of people don't like what they have to say?"
In point of fact, Mr. Steven Weinstock who was the originator of the online petition responded quite brilliantly when confronted with this issue:
"...Google has an extra responsibility, something called Corporate Responsibility, where they have to be responsible for what they promote...The New York Times or CNN would never promote such material even though they have a legal right to...They are morally responsible...Google is in the same league as CNN and NY Times...And a simple disclaimer is not enough...A large percentage of Google searches are outsourced to Google's large corporate clients such as AOL, Netscape, and this disclaimer does not appear on these websites. Sincerely, Steven M Weinstock.” See http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html
Just as Google does abide by the codes imposed on it in Germany, it could, if it wanted to, act similarly in the United States VOLUNTARILY as that does NOT go against the law in any way. There is no reason why it cannot abide by "Corporate Responsibility", as does the mass media itself which is the life-blood of public opinion. No one is suggesting that the anti-Semitic websites should lose their freedom of speech on the World Wide Web if they choose to put forth their venom on their own websites, in fact it would be impossible to go around and shut down global anti-Semitism and Israel-hatred both in cyberspace or in real life (we can agree that that has to be a job for the Jewish Messiah to clean up the world in the future.) BUT corporations in the here and now, like Google (co-founded and headed by a Jewish young man who is its co-president: Sergey Brin), that are hopefully NOT affiliated with the hate-mongers ARE in a position to do something about it as Google has its OWN FREEDOM/S OF CHOICE and FREEDOM/S OF ACTION to block hate on their computer servers with the "click" of a few buttons or with some simple filters. If a major TV news-person would air objectionable content and because of that he would be shut down, fired and shunned, we would not accuse his corporate bosses of denying people their freedom of speech, on the contrary, we would be commending them for throwing such malicious trash out into the gutter where it belongs.
But the above is only one aspect of the total picture which is spread far and wide over the Internet. The neo-Nazis in cyberspace have plans they are following to ensure that sites such as "jewwatch" get as much free "publicity" as they can on the web, they have issued calls for their supporters to link to "jewwatch" and similar sites to increase rankings on Google and other search engines.
So in fact what you mention "encourage the 125,000 people to change which site appears first" has in fact been happening and utilized by all sides !
As concerned Jews, as a response, many Jewish bloggers (who maintain blogs i.e. "Web logs", that are very popular nowadays) have created links on their own blogs and websites to the article on "Jew" on the world's newest and largest Encyclopedia at Wikipedia: The multiple web-links to that article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew is what has pushed "jewwatch" down to number two spot when doing the search for the word "Jew" on Google. So that is another approach.
Hopefully this series of reports will energize more people who are both Jewish and/or favorable towards Jewish causes to become aware, interested and actively involved in ways to actively counter anti-Semitism on the Internet. The alternative is to sit around passively and do nothing as anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist websites proliferate on the web with impunity and that may yet come back to haunt us one day, G-d forbid.
I will discuss these and similar aspects in greater detail in the weeks to come, and I look forward to hearing from you again.
Best wishes!
Finally, one reader was extremely encouraging:
“Stay with this, what you are revealing is very very important. With great appreciation.”
-----------------
(Part 4 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
By S. Shalom simshalom@att.net Blogged at http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
Feed-back:
A number of readers have written to say that when they did a search for the word “Jew” on Google, at this time, the first result they get was the article about “Jew” at the new “Wikipedia’’ on-line encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew and then the second place (on Google) was taken by the Anti-Semitic hate site “jewwatch dot com”, so they are puzzled by why that is so, since it was claimed that “jewwatch” had come up first.
My response:
It is true that at the present time, due to a number of events and factors, “jewwatch” comes in second when searching for “Jew” on Google (or to use the idiom, when “Googling for Jew”). This in itself will be part of this detailed report of “What happened to ‘Jew’ on Google”, because until March of 2004 it was only the hate site “jewwwatch” that came up first and the “Jew” article from Wikipedia was nowhere in sight. Only AFTER the uproar and petition to boot “jewwatch’’ off of Google began to pick up steam (from April to June of 2004) was the “jewwatch” article “pushed down” from its first place ranking on Google. The reason this happened is similar to the reason “jewwatch” was first for so long: It was due to what is known in computer parlance as “Google-bombing” by means of a “Google-bomb”. This means that when many people who have their own websites and blogs place links on those sites and blogs to a particular website or article, then the more sites that link to it raise the mathematical chances that Google’s search engines will give the site that has the most links to that particular topic the higher ranking on its search results. So just as “jewwatch” was able to get many of its supporters to link to it, a number of Jewish bloggers set out to find an article dealing with “Jew” to link to (in order to “demote” the “jewwatch” article on Google), and the choice was to link to the more-or-less neutral and encyclopedic article on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew Some Jewish bloggers chose to also link to the very informative pro-Jewish website known as “Judaism 101” at http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm which often comes in at third or second place itself when searching for “Jew” on Google. All these happenings and developments are part of this report and will be discussed more fully and individually in the remaining parts of this report.
Summary of this report so far:
In Part 1: It’s reported that a letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press (3/31/2004) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/ ): “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
The petition is still live at http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
In Part 2: The Anti-Semites behind “jewwatch” become aware of the efforts against them. The media notes that Google will not be moved by “petitions” in spite of criticism from some sources in the media. A flurry of behind the scenes activities takes place.
In Part 3: U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York and the ADL intervene and Google’s President apologizes (http://www.adl.org/internet/google_letter.asp )
What really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story continued:
(Part 4 of 10) Responses, and the Anti-Semites Gloat
In May 4, 04, Weinstock published a letter of explanation on his petition’s home page (now at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ) :
“From: "Steven M. Weinstock" removehate@optonline.net
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 23:35:24 -0400: I want to say that I feel I've been misquoted...I am a big believer in the 1st amendment ... and I believe that a site like jewwatch.com has a right to exist, regardless of how horrific it is...I just don’t feel that a site like this should justify the #1 spot on Google...The fact that Google is the biggest internet brand it acts like a 'seal of approval' and even though I am grateful that Google added a disclaimer to the results it provides, I feel that is not good enough...I believe that Google has an extra responsibility , something called Corporate Responsibility, where they have to be responsible for what they promote...The New York Times or CNN would never promote such material even though they have a legal right to...They are morally responsible...Google is in the same league as CNN and NY Times...And a simple disclaimer is not enough...A large percentage of Google searches are outsourced to Google's large corporate clients such as AOL, Netscape, and this disclaimer does not appear on these websites. Sincerely, Steven M Weinstock.”
Nothing more was posted after that, but the online petition was not stopped.
The Jew-haters gloated and were (pleasantly) surprised and amused by Google’s response, as mentioned on some web forums: “I am a moderator of the White Nationalist site Stormfront, and am also peripherally connected with the jewwatch controversy. We are interested in this for obvious reasons. Will the 'net allow itself to be censored? Our bet is that they'll install an optional "hate filter" on their results, defaulting to "on". In any case kudos to Brin, Jewish himself, for saying no to hacking the search engine. That is integrity!!!” (http://www.gadgetopia.com/2004/04/27/GoogleAndJewWatchReVisited.html May 5, 04)
Twists in the (Internet) road
By June 2004 Weinstock had collected over 125,000 signatures and more were coming in. What happened next is a little bizarre. For an unknown reason, at some later point, the regular home page and its petition launched by Weinstock at http://www.removejewwatch.com/ was redirected to the home page of Yahoo! Giving the impression that the petition is perhaps over and the subject is maybe closed. However, after some searching I found that the petition is still able to take signatures and was technically active, but was nevertheless moved to a new website now at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html without comment. The mystery continues because the site at http://www.whynotmedia.com has only one word on it: “Welcome” without further explanation. Further research shows that “whynotmedia” was the host site of http://www.removejewwatch.com/ in the first place. So far, even though I have sent out some Emails to find out why and how “removejewwatch” no longer appears at its old Internet location and why it redirects to Yahoo! instead of to its new home at “whynotmedia”, and why there has been no real effort to publicize the petition, no explanations or clear reasons have been established. Thousands of people could and would still be signing the petition, which stands at over 126,600 signatures, but for months it has been barely a trickle because no-one was informed that the page was moved and the petition’s redirect to Yahoo! home page is not explained. In addition, before moving the petition site into obscurity, a seemingly unrelated letter from a supporter was added negating the Democrats’ criticisms of President Bush’s handling of events leading up to Sept. 11th 2001 (http://whynotmedia.com/article1.html ) which probably alienated the more liberal supporters of the petition.
Next Week: The Anti-Semites get ugly and plot.
----
Jews who don't like some rabbis' inluence in the Israeli army
The sad part is that the following writer is dead serious...:
"Religious commissars in the IDF By Ze'ev Schiff"
http://www.haaretz.com/
Wed., October 27, 2004 Cheshvan 12, 5765
"One Hanukkah many years ago, I was sitting in the office of a man who was about to become the next chief of staff - Ehud Barak - when there was a knock at the door. It was a religious man who was introduced as a rabbi, and he invited Barak and myself to join in lighting the first candle.
A candelabra and candles were already laid out on a desk in the secretaries' room and all the preparations had been made in Barak's office without him knowing about it. The rabbi placed skullcaps on our heads and immediately began reciting the succession of blessings.
No one inquired how he had entered the office without permission, or who had allowed him to enter the IDF General Staff base without authorization. There was some bewilderment, but no one said a thing because, after all, the rabbi before us was performing a mitzvah.
The rabbi left Barak's office and headed for another one, all without any permit or authority. Those were days when Chabad and other religious groups could treat army bases and commanders as their own. What took place back then in a disorderly, partisan fashion has now taken on an orderly form.
Aside from the formal, sanctioned activities of the IDF Chief Rabbinate, other religious activity takes place within the IDF through external organizations. It resembles missionary activity and aims to create close links between religion and army through various methods.
All of the relevant parties gloss over this activity since it is not ostentatious and soldiers assume it has been approved by the army. The problem is not in lighting a hanukiah after barging into an army base, nor are religious soldiers and their adherence to their faith the source of objection.
Among the kippa-wearing soldiers are many disciplined and outstanding fighters who have reached high rank and senior position, up to and including the General Staff. In many respects, they have over the years taken the time-honored place that kibbutzniks have until now filled in the IDF.
The problem is the new status, albeit indirect, that rabbis in the IDF have been accorded. The leaders are the rabbis of the hesder yeshivas. The spotlight was recently trained on them in the wake of the Halachic decision issued by Rabbi Avraham Shapira, who called on soldiers and policemen to refuse orders to evacuate settlements.
Rabbis have now reached the status of commissars in the IDF, not unlike the former commissars in the Soviet army. They are not commanders, but at their word, decisions are made on important matters. The mere fact that they are involved, even indirectly, in army life is what makes the situation so irregular and problematic.
Who would have ever imagined, for instance, that the rabbis of the hesder yeshivas would be involved in determining what type of military service their pupils would perform in the IDF? They established the Council of Hesder Yeshivas, which the IDF proceeded to recognize.
Not long ago, they scheduled a meeting with the head of the army's manpower division, Elazar Stern, and then mocked him by not turning up at the meeting because the media were laying an ambush for them at the meeting place.
It does not matter what the political stand of these rabbis is, or how they translate the army's orders into Halachic rulings. Even if some of them do not accept Rabbi Shapira's call to refuse orders, it is not their function to "approve" orders in the IDF. With all due respect to the rabbis, their place is in the synagogues and the yeshivas or as army chaplains or other state-sanctioned posts.
They cannot play a role in the IDF, even an indirect one. Just as there are no religious commissars in the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it goes without saying that there should be no religious commissars in the IDF.
Until the War of Independence, the Palmach had its own commissars, at which point its units were reorganized under the IDF, or dismantled.
The kibbutz movement had, and still has, commissars in the army's Nahal settlement units. These two examples derived from partisan arrangements. Yet all of these groups are external bodies, and all of them ought to remain outside the bounds of the IDF."
Winds of change sweep Russian Jewry as kabbalist takes over a leading group
ACROSS THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
By Lev Krichevsky
From JTA at http://www.jta.org/
JTA Story:
"MOSCOW, Oct. 25 (JTA) — A leadership change in a top Russian Jewish organization is likely to dramatically change the balance of power in the Russian Jewish community — and is raising questions about the degree of Kremlin involvement in Jewish communal affairs.
Leading donors to the Russian Jewish Congress approved the choice of Vladimir Slutsker as president at an Oct. 18 closed-door meeting. He was expected to be installed Wednesday after a vote by the group’s board.
A banker, enthusiast of the Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbalah and a member of the upper house of Russia’s Parliament, Slutsker, 48, will replace Yevgeny Satanovsky, a longtime Jewish activist who has been RJC president since 2001.
Slutsker is little known to the public. He joined the RJC leadership only this month by making a financial contribution of $250,000, the minimum required to join the RJC’s board.
Since its founding in 1996, the RJC has raised more than $70 million from domestic donors to support various Jewish projects. The group also aspires to represent Russian Jewry on political and social issues before the government, but its role has diminished in recent years.
Though Slutsker’s previous involvement in public Jewish causes is not widely known, sources in the Federation of Jewish Communities, a rival organization run by Chabad that has become the largest Jewish group in Russia, said Slutsker was one of the biggest local donors to federation projects, including construction of the group’s prime facility in Moscow, the Marina Roscha Synagogue and community center.
Slutsker was unavailable for comment this week. His appointment appears to be the result of a combination of factors.
Satanovsky has become unpopular with many RJC leaders and supporters, mostly because of his leadership style — what one critic has described to JTA as his inability to make friends.
Just a month and a half ago, Satanovsky was re-elected as RJC president despite fierce criticism by some of the group’s lay leaders, who made it clear they would try to replace him.
Some critics objected to the fact that under Satanovsky, the RJC stopped supporting religious programs and saw its presence in the Russian provinces wither under pressure from state officials who favored the federation.
Most recently, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee backed out of its 2-year-old agreement to build a multimillion-dollar Jewish community center in Moscow together with the RJC and a few other partners.
In a statement released earlier this month, the JDC cited unexpected growth in project costs. But some observers believe the JDC was unhappy with Satanovsky, who oversaw the project.
For his part, Satanovsky told JTA he cared about the organization so he had agreed to help restructure it for the sake of its future.
According to a preliminary agreement between Slutsker and main RJC donors, Satanovsky may remain within the RJC executive structure to focus on issues of Jewish college education and scientific research, areas of longstanding personal interest.
At the same time, the selection of Slutsker could indicate that the Kremlin has managed to defeat the remaining traces of independence among Jewish community organizations in Russia, although the federation steadfastly maintains that it is independent.
Since Vladimir Putin became Russia’s president in 1999, he and his administration have given preferential treatment to the federation because the Kremlin wants the Jewish community to be represented by a single voice as part of its desire to control all political parties and religious communities, analysts believe.
The latest evidence of the Chabad-Putin alliance came Monday, when Putin praised the federation for its activities on behalf of Russian Jewry. In a message delivered by a Kremlin representative to delegates of the group’s biannual conference, the Russian president said, “The activities of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia contributes to acquainting Russian Jews with national culture, serves the noble goals of reviving spiritual and moral values, of preserving the centuries-old traditions of mutual respect, neighborly relations and tolerance.”
The federation became the Kremlin’s favored Jewish entity in part because the RJC was headed by Vladimir Goussinsky, an influential Jewish media mogul who was outspoken in his criticism of Putin.
Goussinsky was later expelled from Russia on Kremlin-spearheaded charges of tax evasion.
To overcome this stigma of being linked to Goussinsky, Satanovsky lately had been trying to please the Kremlin, though he never succeeded at that, said Yevgeniya Albats, a liberal journalist and member of the RJC leadership who was one of the most vocal opponents of Satanovsky within the group.
She was referring to the fact that under Satanovsky, the RJC — like most other local Jewish organizations — avoided criticizing the authorities over the arrest of Jewish oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky or over Putin’s recent initiative to revamp Russia’s electoral system, which was criticized by democracy advocates.
For its part, Chabad has used the Kremlin stamp of approval to help spread Judaism throughout Russia.
Slutsker is believed to be close to Vladimir Ressin, the Jewish deputy mayor of Moscow, who has sought to overcome the existing split between the RJC and the federation.
Last year, Ressin came out with an initiative to create a single Jewish religious community structure to replace the federation and the Congress of Jewish Religious Organizations and Communities, an umbrella group backed by the RJC.
Leaders of the RJC-allied group criticized the initiative, which they feared would pave the way for all Russian Jewish religious communities to come under control of the Lubavitch-run federation. Some believe that would serve Kremlin interests by creating a more unified Jewish community that would be easier to control.
The initiative was dropped quickly.
It is believed that Slutsker would bring the two groups together, a belief given evidence Monday when Slutsker spoke to the federation.
The era of infighting within the Russian Jewish community is over, he said, addressing delegates to the biannual conference of the federation. “The main task on today’s agenda is the fight against terrorism. To succeed in this fight, it is necessary that all Jewish organizations are united.”
The RJC always has had poor relations with the federation, but under Satanovsky they grew especially hostile, federation spokesman Borukh Gorin said.
Gorin said he hoped the appointment of Slutsker, whom he described as a longtime personal friend, would improve relations between the two groups.
Gorin also implied Ressin was involved in picking Slutsker as the RJC leader.
“I hope that under Slutsker, RJC will pursue a policy of peace that will become even more tangible with the growth of influence of Mr. Ressin,” he said.
While the reasons behind the RJC shakeup appear transparent to many, the group’s prospects — and the future balance of power within Russian Jewry — remain an open question, given the fact that Slutsker himself is an unknown quantity for many in the community.
“Satanovsky lacked some basic leadership qualities, and his replacement was absolutely necessary,” Albats said. “But I don’t know who Slutsker is.”
Another prominent Jewish community figure, who had been sharply critical of Satanovsky, said he had some doubts about Slutsker as well.
Tankred Golenpolsky, founder of the International Jewish Gazette, an independent Moscow weekly, said he was running an article headlined, “Who is Mr. Slutsker?”
Golenpolsky said he did not believe Slutsker was a pawn in a Kremlin game, though he did expect him to seek more cooperation with the federation, which Satanovsky had opposed.
“The community is one, the leaders could be different, but those who suffer from the split are not the leaders but the ordinary Jews,” Golenpolsky said.
Though he doesn’t know Slutsker well, he approves of the choice, Golenpolsky said.
“He is a nice person, and he has a tefillin and a tallit,” Golenpolsky said, referring to the fact that Slutsker, unlike Satanovsky, is regarded as a religiously observant.
Yet Slutsker’s religiosity is raising even more questions as to where the RJC might head under its new president.
Slutsker is known to have two passions, Kabbalah and karate. He had been one of the most ardent followers and biggest donors to Kabbalah guru Michael Laitman, a Russian-born Israeli rabbi who has spearheaded a recent revival of Jewish mysticism among Russian Jews.
Slutsker parted ways with Laitman some time ago, reportedly over financial matters, and became a Kabbalah lecturer himself, leading a group in Moscow that is especially popular with members of the Russian business elite.
Slusker is keen on talking about Kabbalah in public meetings, and already has indicated that as RJC president he would primarily focus on the group’s religious agenda and its P.R. campaign."
Judge (in South Africa) upholds Jewish excommunication right
Beth Din has right to act against man who reneged on child maintenance
September 16, 2004
By Estelle Ellis
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=129&fArticleId=2226897
"A Johannesburg businessman has failed in his bid to stop a decision to excommunicate him from the Jewish Orthodox community.
Judge Frans Malan yesterday dismissed the case brought by the man whom the Jewish ecclesiastical court - the Beth Din - had decided to shun because he failed to honour his child maintenance agreements.
Beth Din attorney Billy Gundelfinger said Jewish communities all over the world were watching the outcome of this case.
Earlier, Beth Din senior counsel Gerald Farber said a ruling against them would have been like "taking a pencil and drawing a line through centuries of religious practices"
In his affidavit, the man said that issuing a cherem (an excommunication) against him would render him a pariah in his religious and cultural community.
"I will suffer extreme humiliation and ostracism and will be unable to protect my children from the effects of such humiliation and ostracism."
"It will make it impossible for me to practise my religion with other members of my community ... "
"I will be damned before my death by having my soul doomed to exclusion from a Jewish cemetery and a Jewish burial. This cherem will destroy, defame and obliterate me as an Orthodox Jew."
The head of the Beth Din, Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag, said it was only a shunning and would not affect the man's children and would not bar him from attending synagogue services.
The drama started with an arbitration decision by the Beth Din in the divorce case between the man and his wife.
It seems that the man - who has not been named, to protect his children - was ordered to pay a certain amount of maintenance by the Beth Din but refused to do so.
The Johannesburg High Court later declared this arbitration award to be unlawful as the high court, by law, is the only body that can decide about maintenance and custody.
The man's wife then laid a complaint about his non-compliance with the Beth Din's order.
As a result, he was considered a dissident and the Beth Din, after some legal wrangling, decided to excommunicate him.
He brought an interdict application to bar the Beth Din from implementing the decision.
The excommunication that the Beth Din is now free to implement contains, among others, these restrictions:
*He may not be part of a Jewish congregation.
*He may not be part of a prayer quorum.
*He may not lead communal prayer.
*He may not have a Jewish burial or be buried in a Jewish cemetery.
The man's legal team, however, argued that doing this would be unconstitutional as it infringed on their client's right to religion and right to practise religion.
In his summary of Jewish law, Judge Malan said the cherem formed part of Orthodox Judaism and that those who wished to practise the faith were obliged to demonstrate fidelity to it.
"(Those who adhere to the religion) consensually undertake to submit themselves to the discipline which has been imposed on them ..."
He said that under the circumstances it seemed reasonable and justifiable to limit the religious rights of the man because a failure to do so would have the result that the Jewish faith and community would not be able to protect the integrity of Jewish law and custom.
"A cherem is central to the faith and purports to be nothing more than the expression of the collective disdain of the community."
The judge said the terms of the cherem the Beth Din had decided to impose on the man were not constitutionally offensive, adding that he was not persuaded that there was factual evidence of bias or bad faith on the side of the Beth Din.
"It cannot be described otherwise than as being fair."
Judge Malan said freedom of religion also involved the autonomy of a particular faith in setting guidelines for the admission of members and their discipline.
He dismissed the man's application with costs.
Advocate Frank Snyckers, instructed by Lisa Heather Fisher, appeared for the man. Advocate Gerald Farber SC, assisted by advocates Nathan Segal and John Campbell, instructed by Gundelfinger, appeared for the Beth Din. - Special Writer."
Jewish Voters Split Between Non-Orthodox (mostly for Kerry) and Mostly Orthodox (mostly for Bush)
"A Vote On Values
As the Orthodox community swings to Bush, not everyone is on board.
By Jonathan Mark (from The Jewish Week).
No presidential candidate will stump in Jewish New York; there are few, if any, election posters on neighborhood walls; and no one seems to be wearing political buttons. The Jewish street may never have been so quiet in a quadrennial October, nor so taken for granted, since nearly 70 percent are expected to vote for John Kerry.
But the Jewish vote has never been so divided along denominational lines, with the non-Orthodox supporting Kerry far in excess of that 70 percent, while the Orthodox vote has never been more “swingable” toward the Republicans, said Nathan Diament, director of the Orthodox Union’s Institute of Public Affairs.
Diament points out that some 60 percent of Orthodox Jews voted for Gore-Lieberman in 2000; “current polling indicates that 65 percent, or upwards, of Orthodox Jews now plan to vote for Bush,” he says.
A clear line has been drawn, with 24 percent of all Jews supporting Bush, a non-gay definition of marriage, and 25 percent supporting government aid to religious schools, according to recent polls.
Binyamin Jolkovsky, editor and publisher of the right-leaning online journal www.JewishWorldReview.com, observed, “There are two distinct Jewish communities right now, the general Jewish community and the Orthodox. Our value systems are so different.”
Maybe there are no big political rallies, or political storefronts in Orthodox neighborhoods, but two Republican senators, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, came around in September to the Orthodox version of the old smoke-filled room, the Borough Park parlor of the Novominsker Rebbe, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, head of Agudath Israel of America and its Council of Torah Sages, the most elite and some say infallible leadership in the Orthodox world. The Novominsker was joined by several of his fellow Sages, as well as some 20 other black-hat heavyweights.
After a preliminary pitch by both sides about their shared values, and the need to support Jewish safety in an unsafe world, the very next issue raised by the sages was about the centrality of education in Orthodox life and therefore the necessity of vouchers, or tax credits for day schools, according to a source familiar with the meeting, something that would never have been raised in another denominational setting.
There have been no major rabbinic endorsements, but Zev Brenner, president of the Talkline radio network, and the leading talk-show host in Jewish radio, says, “I hear people using words like hakaras hatov, the religious obligation to appreciate and support someone who has helped you. Despite the fact that [Bush] has made comments that are very strongly worded against Israel, the feeling among people is that at the end of the day, he’ll be the best for Israel. People believe that every now and then the president has to do or say things for the Arab Street or public consumption, but deep down he’s supportive.”
To listen to Bush’s Orthodox supporters is to hear a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” understanding of Bush and Kerry’s views on Israel. For example, if Bush excoriates Israel in front of a UN General Assembly full of enemies for Israel’s “humiliation” of Palestinians, it’s not Bush’s fault, he didn’t really mean it. But if Kerry has a 100 percent rating from AIPAC, well, say the Bush supporters, Kerry doesn’t mean it either.
“People have the idea,” explains Brenner, “that deep down Bush is a good guy, and he is aligned with the Christian Zionists who won’t let him sell Israel down the tubes.”
The idea that Bush is a good guy, and a Christian guy, hints at a deeper truth. In a recent column on the ascent of conservative politics, George Will cites “The Right Nation,” by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, who demonstrate that the conservative appeal derives from “its congruence with American values, especially the nation’s anomalous religiosity,” and the strength of institutions that stress that congruence.
The left, by contrast, according to the book, built a foundation on academia and the major media, though most fervently Orthodox Jews see little value, other than mercantile, in secular education, and perceive the media to be pathologically anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.
The Republicans have become comfortable with God-speak and religious shorthand, and consciously reached out to the black-hat community by picking Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, a Jewish Press columnist and Orthodox evangelist, to give the closing benediction at the Republican convention. This is a level of respect that fervently Orthodox Jews don’t even get from most other Jews, who laugh at the Jewish Press and have only scorn for the Orthodox critique of television, newspapers, and secular culture.
Over in Williamsburg, Rabbi Hertz Frankel, principal of the Bais Rochel elementary school, says, “The tendency among chasidim is to Bush. It’s about his being pro-life, pro-religious institutions, anti-gay marriage,” issues that strike a religious chord.
In the poor, windswept streets near Rabbi Frankel’s yeshiva, a baby boom has precipitated an economic crisis. Last month, Rabbi Frankel says, his school opened with 383 girls in 14 classrooms in first grade alone. He says Bush is in favor of tax credits for schools such as his — even if no credits materialized in the president’s first term.
“At least he’s in favor,” says Rabbi Frankel.
Bush’s concern for Israel’s safety is paramount for many, and perhaps even for anti-Zionist Satmar. Aside from political Zionism, Jolkovsky explains, almost everyone in Orthodox America has a relative living or studying in Israel.
“Kerry,” said Jolkovsky, “wants to bring people like Jimmy Carter on to his team, people who thought [the] Oslo [peace process] was a good idea. These people are dangerous and delusional.”
Many Orthodox Bush supporters seem to have forgotten their own stiff criticism of Bush emissaries, such as Anthony Zinni, who tried to nudge Israel back into the “delusional” peace process.
Unlike most other patrons at the Jerusalem II restaurant in Manhattan, who enthusiastically supported Bush, citing his support for Israel, Yaakov Friedman, a Bobover chasid who works in real estate, twinkled when he conspiratorially confided, “I’m going to vote for John Kerry. I think he’ll be better for the economy, for health care, better for the average person, for the lower class. I’m a landlord and I know how hard it is for some people to pay the rent.”
It was a sentiment echoed among the Modern Orthodox. Adena Berkowitz, a prominent Orthodox feminist and ethicist who has been working as a non-paid political consultant to the Kerry campaign, says, “There are a million poor Jews in the United States,” she says. “We have to think about who will step up and help us. We have a president who wanted to slash housing allowances and cut entitlements.”
Rabbi Saul Berman, the director of Edah but speaking privately, says, “There is an essential Jewish interest in the creation of just society in the country in which we live.” He believes Kerry is the candidate “more likely to support the needs of the poor and the downtrodden.”
In the Modern Orthodox community, the prose of reality seemed to matter more than Republican emotions that are seen as conveying more kitsch than content.
A rabbi of one of New York’s largest Modern Orthodox synagogues, who asked not to be identified, says he’s never seen his congregation so divided. He expressed concern for “the very dangerous modus operandi of the Bush administration that is geared to serving special interests in ways that don’t get headlines.”
Additionally, “An administration that has so heavily banked on the Iraq war is going to have to come to the table to buy itself out of its quagmire with the Arab world. I’m afraid that the chip that America has available is Israel.”
If there was any consolation for the losers in November, said several Jews, we should remember that there is a God who rules the world, and the fate of this world won’t be the president’s decision alone."
600 Jewish US troops desire Judaism in Iraq! Not enough rabbis to serve them!
Some holiday: Jewish troops in Iraq lack rabbis, safe passage to services
By Orly Halpern
http://www.haaretz.com/
Sun., October 10, 2004 Tishrei 25, 5765
BAGHDAD - Specialist Dan Freedman woke up at 3 A.M., September 15. It was dark and he was tired, but he was determined to get from his base at Camp Victory to Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace in the capital. He put on his uniform, grabbed his M-16 and went looking for his two Jewish comrades-in-arms to join him on an urgent mission - to get to the palace, safely, before Rosh Hashanah services began that evening at 6 P.M. He had 15 hours to complete the mission.
The 10-mile stretch of highway connecting Camp Victory with Baghdad is a perilous one. Iraqi insurgents have made it a popular strip for launching attacks on passing American military vehicles. Last April, insurgents distributed fliers in the area, calling on locals not to use the road. "Anyone traveling on the highway is a target," the flier said. Many a soldier has been killed on the road, which has been dubbed "RPG alley," a reference to the rocket-propelled grenades the insurgents use as their weapon of choice.
Freedman, an infantryman serving in a long-range surveillance unit, arranged a special multiple-vehicle convoy to get to the palace. Numerous other soldiers were involved in securing the mission. The U.S. Military Academy pledges to transfer any American soldiers to the site where religious services are being held on condition that the trip can be made safely. In Iraq, however, "safe" is a relative word. For Freedman and his two Jewish comrades-in-arms, the trip was safe enough.
Many of the more or less 600 Jewish soldiers in Iraq are forced to make dangerous trips to participate in the Jewish holidays. When they get there, they often find the proper food and supplies lacking. The problem, says the head U.S. military chaplain in Iraq, Colonel Gene Fowler, is that there are not enough rabbis to go around.
"We still don't have enough rabbis in theater," said Chaplain Chip, as he asks to be called. "We need five or six to do a good job."
The lack of military rabbis is not limited to Iraq. "The problem is that we don't have enough in the Army, Navy or Marines - in the whole world," Chaplain Chip said.
Jewish soldiers are posted all around Iraq, but there is only one rabbi stationed in the country - Rabbi Shmuel Felzenberg, based in Camp Anaconda, near the city of Balad, some 40 miles north of Baghdad. He led Rosh Hashanah services in Balad, drawing about 1,000 people.
The military flew in two more rabbis just for the High Holy Days and stationed each one in far-flung parts of the country, where they hopped between the main bases. A Navy rabbi flew in and led services in Falluja and Ramadi, in western Iraq, for Jewish Marines. Rabbi Hanoch Fields, an army reserve chaplain out of Colorado, who brought with him Army-bought prayer books, was flown north to Mosul. (Once known as Nineveh, Mosul was the city of the biblical prophet Jonah.) Afterward, Fields was sent to Kirkuk.
But in Baghdad, neither the sprawling Green Zone, home to the largest U.S. Embassy in the world, nor nearby Camp Victory, one of the largest American military bases in Iraq, has a rabbi. If it weren't for Paul Tyson, all the Jews in, around and south of Baghdad would have been without services. Tyson, an adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Justice, volunteered as a military-authorized lay prayer leader.
Often when a number of Jews are located in a place without a military rabbi, they choose a layman to conduct the services rather than use the services of a non-Jewish chaplain who gives a "generic" prayer service. "It's part of our job that soldiers have the opportunity to worship according to their tradition," Chaplain Chip said.
On September 13, Administrative Notice No. 09-A005 was sent out by e-mail to everyone in the area. It read: "Jewish High Holiday Services at the palace, 15-16 September 2004."
Like Freedman, many soldiers had to make their own travel arrangements to the palace chapel, where the services were held. One Jewish military officer stationed in Camp Babylon hitched a helicopter ride to the Green Zone with some Polish officers. He is based in what was once the ancient city of Babylon, where King Nebuchadnezzar dragged thousands of Jews after conquering the kingdom of Judah 2,600 years ago. Today, it is mostly populated by Shi'ite Iraqis and a large contingent of Polish forces, leaving scant chance of a minyan.
For the some 15 soldiers and 10 civilians who showed up at the palace, it was worth the trip. The large high-ceilinged, marble-floored room in the north wing of the gold-domed Republican Palace provided a quiet sanctuary for Jewish prayers.
Plastic chairs were set in rows facing a podium where Tyson gave a short service in Hebrew and English. Besides the chairs and the room, which serves all religious faiths, little else was provided by the military.
"The Catholics all have rosaries, but the Jews didn't have anything," Tyson said.
His sister, who runs the gift shop at Temple Har Zion in Mount Holly, New Jersey, "gave her suppliers a guilt trip" so that they would lower the price of prayer books. The synagogue bought them and sent them to Tyson, who brought them from his trailer home to the palace in a laundry bag on his bicycle. "There was no other way," he said.
Tyson stored them behind the "Jewish" door of a cupboard whose doors are labeled Protestant, Lutheran, Catholic, LDS (for Latter Day Saints) and Jewish.
"Jacky," one of the American contractors working in the Green Zone, built a pushke - a box for donations - into which everyone stuffed American dollar bills. He later constructed a sukkah near the palace pool, for use during the holiday of Sukkot two weeks after Rosh Hashanah. "I considered building the sukkah under Saddam's Victory Arch," he said with a chuckle.
When the Rosh Hashanah service was over, everyone lingered. They took photos sitting on Saddam's ornately carved furniture until someone suggested they all get a table together in the dining room. Some 15 Jewish soldiers and civilians made their way down the marbled halls to the food line.
Chaplain Chip said that the military provides kosher food. "We bring in kosher food and distribute it to where the services are located," he said. But the palace dining room had no chicken soup, no fish heads, no apples and honey.
The Jews were not deterred. Under a crystal chandelier next to a curving marbled stairway, they sat at plastic tables pushed together, eating roast beef off disposable plates. One civilian brought a bottle of red wine and a young American civilian adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior recited the blessing. A couple of the younger soldiers poured the forbidden drink into their paper cups when the older Jewish officers were not looking.
For the group of Jewish soldiers, diplomats and contractors, it did not matter if they had a real rabbi, if there were enough prayer books or kosher food, or if it took hours to arrange a convoy to get there. Just being there together sufficed.
"It was meaningful," Larry Cheshal, a telecommunications contractor, wrote later in an e-mail, "because I was here in the land of Mesopotamia celebrating my Jewishness in a war zone with soldiers and diplomats trying to free a land from the tyranny of terrorism.
"No matter what your personal politics are at an individual level," he wrote, "it gives me hope that people will risk their lives - [some] for money, yes, but also for what's right.'"
of Judaism_Section (PALTALK)
