It was a poor attempt at a bad pun. Anyhow, Joy Wolfe describes here some interesting goings-on in Manchester, UK, and I must confess that schadenfreude, being a long and imported word, is not totally alien to me.
If anyone had told me it would take the actions of a Natorei Karta self-proclaimed rabbi to get the ultra-Orthodox anti-Israel community and the Zionists to stand side by side at a demonstration I would have probably laughed in their face. But that is exactly what has been happening in a formerly quiet street in Manchester in the past week.
Ahron Cohen was previously familiar as he stood alongside Palestine Solidarity demonstrators around the world to show his hatred of the State of Israel.
While those of us who support Israel have not liked the message his personage sent out to the wider world, we have not questioned his right to freedom of speech and action, and the fact that tiny Natorei Karta and the much larger Satmar, among other sects, deny the right of Israel to exist is well known.
However once Ahron Cohen decided to attend the Holocaust denial conference in Teheran and was pictured shaking hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man who has publicly declared he wants to see the elimination of the Jewish state, that was one step too far.
The Manchester community from the haredi to the secular has made it very clear this man is a disgrace, and brings disrepute to us all.
Yep. Too far for Satmar boys is too far indeed. But the fun is only starting:
Throwing thousands of eggs at the house, letting down car tires, and scrawling an obscenity on his car are not things many of us approve of or wish to see, and there has been a concerted effort, now the point of what we feel about this obnoxious man has been very clearly made, to limit the demonstrations and to control the more unacceptable manifestations of people’s feelings.
Aw, heck, why begrudge people some innocent fun, when there is such a rare occasion for Satmar folks to do something together with the rest of the Jooz? I think this rare expression of unity should be counted as a credit, albeit a small one, to the “rabbi” Cohen. But wait, there is still better stuff to come.
There has been call for excommunication; his fees to the burial society have been returned to make it clear there will be no future resting place for him among Manchester Jews. Holocaust survivors have expressed their horror and pain. Shops are refusing to serve him and all the synagogue’s and shtiebels where he used to worship have closed their doors to him.
Methinks that if there is an urgent need for a burial of the said rabbi, the Elders could come up with a suitable location. No worries, rabbi, just get to it. And if the rabbi cannot get kosher sustenance from the Jewish shops, it is only in line with the burial issue. Unless he wishes to switch to pork and other treif, then we could be of assistance too (Elders use to keep a tentacle in every pie, you know).
Ach, it was one good and deeply satisfying dose of schadenfreude… But there is one point we, the Elders, would like to clarify (for Ms Wolfe as well) in this passage:
One important thing is not to mix the issue of Ahron Cohen’s basic right not to recognize Israel with his totally misguided view that he can express that view by standing alongside Holocaust deniers and giving them succor.
This statement was a bit OTT (over the top for computer illiterate) in its Political Correctness, Ms Wolfe. I am not at all sure that denying the “basic right” not to recognize Israel to Hamas, we should not deny same to Ahron Cohen. And to Satmar and other similar groups. Granted, from where I stand, “rabbi” Cohen looks like a revolting sleaze, but the creeps from Satmar, while a bit less sleazy, are revolting enough as well. And they deserve this “basic right” you mention no more than any other Israel-haters in the world.
Cross-posted on SimplyJews
“Throwing thousands of eggs at the house,.. ”
Hee hee… with that many eggs, I suppose one can only hope that the egg splash field is of even distribution.
Then, Ahron can proudly say ‘why yes, the paint job is of my artful design. The Eggshells fit in nicely with the splotches of yellow and the gobs of translucent … stuff… it gives a nice texture similiar to stucco…’.
:-)
I want to know what they Monseymen will do to their NK’s.
chsw
Want some joy? At the suffering of a fellow Jew? Never.
I disagree with Aharon Cohen as much as it is possible to disagree with anybody. But when a fellow Jew is in pain, I cannot feel joy. Sure, he may deserve it, and I may acknowledge that. But joy is far from my heart.
“Those creeps from Satmar??” I am a Zionist. I love Israel. But my disagreement with Satmar is tempered with a knowledge of my own limitations. If I had to argue (from Torah sources) as to whether or not the State of Israel should exist against the previous Satmar Rebbe Yoel Teitelbaum, and I had a thousand years to prepare, I would, no doubt, get shelacked.
Since he may have a point, from the Torah perspective, my condemnation of his followers is very much mitigated.
Love the blog, though, and I really like your comments on Shire Network news.
Keep it up.
You miss the point. The Satmar are speaking of a basic religious point, not a political one. They do not deny the State of Israel the right to exist any more than they deny the United States or France (lehavdil) the right to exist. They are saying that the State of Israel is a political state just like any other.
On the other hand, the religious connection of the political State of Israel is what they are disputing. As a result, the “Neturei Karta” have stepped over the line to back those who would murder all the Jews and are therefore in the halachic (Jewish law) category 0f a rodeif (literally pursuer – attempted murderer) and are to be stopped as a matter of self defense.
With all due respect, Sabba Hillel, we have a disagreement on the “hevre” from Satmar. While their religious point may be interesting (to someone, not me), their stand on the State of Israel is clear, enough to take a look at this.
I agree that they have not crossed the border (yet) that was crossed by that vermin, but they are quite close, from where I stand.
Best.
When Satmar talks about ‘Jews not Zionism’ (from the above link), I have to wonder what he thinks about most Jews.
Most American Jews are atheists. Satmar condemns Israel, a first world pearl set amongst sand and dung. I think I see his point but wonder if he condemns everyday Jews as pigs like Ah-madinejad does?
It seems Satmar et al are as stupid in theory and action, as Carter/progressives are in deed.
Actually, Ari, I didn’t write this post. I have several cobloggers. But thanks for the compliments.
Ari,
Apologies for missing your comment. I have two remarks:
1. Don’t you think that calling Ahron Cohen “a fellow Jew” is an overkill? There must be some limits to who deserves to be called a Jew.
2. “But my disagreement with Satmar is tempered with a knowledge of my own limitations.” I don’t see this as a valid argument. Trotsky could talk your socks off, to take one example. There are many clever and eloquent people defending any unspeakable case you can imagine. So what?
Snoopy,
Aharon Cohen not a Jew? Okay, could you tell me who his mother was? Are you sure she wasn’t Jewish? I’m just going by the Halachah here. To the best of my knowledge, he’s a fellow Jew.
It doesn’t mean I like him, or approve of what he did. Far from it. I just will never express happiness at the suffering of a fellow Jew, no matter how deserved.
Think about the laws of Sotah. One who sees a Sotah in her humiliation must do repentance. Admittedly, a Sotah deserves what’s coming to her for acting like a disgusting whore and cheating on her husband. But we’re still not happy to see a fellow Jew suffer.
It’s all right there in the Talmud.
Trotsky could talk my socks off? USING TORAH SOURCES? I doubt it. The Satmar Rebbe z”l, could.
I’m not saying that I agree with him. I’m just saying that my Torah expertise is not enough to dispute him effectively.
Ari – we are having a discussion in two separate planes, it seems.
I am not disputing the formal definition here. Even a rabid dog is a dog. Still it must be put down. I hope this (extreme) parallel does not offend your sensitivities.
Now, my mention of Trotsky wasn’t in any way related to Torah or Halacha, and you know it, I guess. Just a practical example of a person who is an excellent demagogue. And could win in most debates by sheer power of persuasion.
It seems that we agree on the vileness of the “rabbi” Cohen, disagreeing only on the small issue of my personal schadenfreude. I can easily concede that I am not an ideal person, deity knows…
Ari said:
So maybe like Finkelstein and Chomsky they were born Jewish, and South Africa’s “Minister of Intelligence” Ronnie Kastrils who after his verbal hounding of the Jewish community received red carpet treatment in Damascus a little while ago; but I bet that given the chance they would be first in line to cheer at the next “Auto da Fe”!
I would not even cheer at the death or suffering of somebody like Chomsky, or Finkelstein, or even Streisand.
They are still our fellow Jews. Sometimes the community must take measures to contain and deter the actions of such people, but we should still not be happy at their suffering. We should, rather hope they do repentance and merit good things, not bad.
It’s difficult to hold this attitude, when you see what some people do. But there is a mitzvah of ahavas yirael (to love one’s fellow Jew). Now I know that if a Jew is a sinner, it is a mitzvah to hate him, but shouldn’t we perform that mitzvah only reluctantly?
Ari, you are obviously a better person than I (and a few others, I suspect) am. Really. And we’ll continue to disagree (respectfully) on the delicate point: whether everyone born of Jewish mother is a Jew.
I believe that being a Jew, while it is a heavy burden sometimes, is also a privilege, at least of sorts. We should be able to take this privilege away in some exceptional cases.
Hey, if I was the gabbai of a shul, I wouldn’t call him up for an aliyah. If I was a shopkeeper, I wouldn’t sell him anything. His communal privileges in the Jewish community are gone (in those communities that observe the ban on this guy). The decree has been made– this guy has been banned from our community. I would have nothing to do with him.
But he still has the obligations of a Jew. If he eats treif, or speaks slander, he is subject to the applicable divine punishments. If he does a mitzvah, he is worthy of the reward. In that sense, he is a Jew. In the sense of being a member of the Jewish community, I agree that he is not to be dealt with, and is no longer a member, until he does repentance, and does so publicly.
However, not being G-d, I cannot tell you if his good deeds outnumber his bad.
Remember, Maimonides says that every Jew is capable of being as righteous as Moses and as evil as Yeravam ben Nevat. Perhaps, and I hope this is so, he will repent and attain his full measure of righteousness.
Until such time (and I’m not holding my breath) I would not associate with him in any way.
But that gives me no joy.
Especially considering this:
There was a similar ban put on Benedict Spinoza for his heresies. If not for that ban, we probably never would have heard of that guy. Bans never work. G-d will have to dispense justice, ultimately.
best wishes to you.
A
Ari, although I know you were only using the sotah ordeal as an example, I still feel I need to address what you wrote: “Admittedly, a Sotah deserves what’s coming to her for acting like a disgusting whore and cheating on her husband.”
Let’s not find the lady guilty before the bitter waters do. As terrifying and humiliating as the sotah ordeal was, it was intended as a test, not a punishment. The more humiliating stuff, which pretty much characterized the woman as guilty before she was tested, was added on later and is not part of the original Biblical description of the test.
Yet as nasty as the ordeal was, it still beat the heck out of what went before (and what still goes on in many countries in this part of the world today): the summary execution of a wife by her husband solely due to his suspicion of her, without a shred of proof. As far as I know, the sotah ordeal was meant to protect a wife from her husband’s capriciousness, jealousy or simple insecurity while allowing the husband to cool off and eventually take her back without his neighbors poking fun at him for being a cuckold, since none other than God had cleared her name.
I refer you to the Sotah passage in Bemidbar. It is reserved for those women who seclude themselves (involving two witnesses) with a man, after being warned not to do so. Even if she did not actually have intercourse, she’s still acting like a whore.
After all, if a husband tells a woman (in front of witnesses) not to seclude herself with a certain man, and then she goes and does so, she’s acting like a whore. The same can be said for a man who acts similarly.
Once that seclusion happens, she deserves, at least the humiliation of the Sotah test (which is pretty much written out in the Torah).
The test will only work if the husband was sexually pure, however.
And in any case, whether she lives or dies by that test, nobody should be happy to see our fellow Jew suffer. That’s my point.