The Women of the Wall are back in the news again.
Not simply because of their connection to the "New Israel" Fund, but because last week 2 women wore talitot and carried a sefer Torah into the women's section at the Kotel. They were arrested.
Years ago, Israel's Supreme Court ordered Israel to find a solution for women's prayer groups and egalitarian prayer, and the agreed upon solution was that of the "Robinson's Arch" area of the Kotel.
Unfortunately, the Women of the Wall have declared that "the Robinson’s Arch ‘Solution’ Is No Solution"; "Certainly the Robinson’s Arch “solution” is not a serious one as long as it is run like an archaeological site and not a prayer site."
The Women of the Wall are continuing their campaign to allow equal access, and report the following:
They could even pray in the Temple's "Ezrat Nashim" -- the women's courtyard, and the could experience the ultimate expression of prayer, at Judaism's holiest spot? I don't even think the Chareidim would mind, as long as the Women of the Wall are out of sight / out of mind.
The New Israel Fund, should proudly and strongly accept this initiative as it has all the trappings of what the NIF is all about:
- Democratic change within Israel.
- Social justice and equality for all Israelis.
- Religious Pluralism and Tolerance
- Women's Rights
What do you think?
Not simply because of their connection to the "New Israel" Fund, but because last week 2 women wore talitot and carried a sefer Torah into the women's section at the Kotel. They were arrested.
Years ago, Israel's Supreme Court ordered Israel to find a solution for women's prayer groups and egalitarian prayer, and the agreed upon solution was that of the "Robinson's Arch" area of the Kotel.
Unfortunately, the Women of the Wall have declared that "the Robinson’s Arch ‘Solution’ Is No Solution"; "Certainly the Robinson’s Arch “solution” is not a serious one as long as it is run like an archaeological site and not a prayer site."
The Women of the Wall are continuing their campaign to allow equal access, and report the following:
Recently two women dared to violate these rules, wearing their tallitot over their coats and holding a Torah scroll. They were detained by the police, treated as common criminals, and one was fingerprinted.I have a much better idea for the women of the wall; instead of trying to pray at the Kotel, where it ends up annoying many Ultra Orthodox Jews, why don't the women of the wall go with talitot and Torah scrolls to Har HaBayit -- the Temple Mount, and pray at Judaism's most holy of places?
They could even pray in the Temple's "Ezrat Nashim" -- the women's courtyard, and the could experience the ultimate expression of prayer, at Judaism's holiest spot? I don't even think the Chareidim would mind, as long as the Women of the Wall are out of sight / out of mind.
The New Israel Fund, should proudly and strongly accept this initiative as it has all the trappings of what the NIF is all about:
- Democratic change within Israel.
- Social justice and equality for all Israelis.
- Religious Pluralism and Tolerance
- Women's Rights
What do you think?
Going to Israel?
Now get 2 phones for the price of 1 (and free calls too) with Talk'n'Save.
Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד
54 comments:
Unfortunately, the Women of the Wall have declared that "the Robinson’s Arch ‘Solution’ Is No Solution"; "Certainly the Robinson’s Arch “solution” is not a serious one as long as it is run like an archaeological site and not a prayer site."
This I agree with. As long as a person has to pay admission to reach the Robinson's Arch, it will never be the same as the Kotel.
have a much better idea for the women of the wall; instead of trying to pray at the Kotel, where it ends up annoying many Ultra Orthodox Jews, why don't the women of the wall go with talitot and Torah scrolls
While part of me likes this idea, it is a bad one for a number of reasons.
International condemnation
The next intifada
Actual halachic issues as opposed to Chumrot of Chareidim...
Are you also in favor of:
1) Universal segregated buses? Because mixed seating annoys the ultra-orthodox.
2) No pictures of women anywhere? Because that annoys the ultra-orthodox
3) Strict segregation of men and women EVERYWHERE? Including at your workplace? Because lack of same also annoys the ultra-orthodox.
4) Not arresting child molesters and child abusers? Because that annoys the ultra-orthodox so much that they engage in actual riots to protest it.
So far as I can see, everything that does not line up with their Talibanistit dream world annoys the ultra-orthodox. Seeing how I would like Israel to continue to be a place for all Jews (as opposed to just Haredi ones) to live, I consider it my national duty to annoy the ultra-orthodox.
Thank you, Women of the Wall, for fighting the Ultra-Orthodox takeover of a Jewish holy site!
the intrepid "women of the wall" slip by temple mount security, tallitot and sifrai torah concealed in their touristy backpacks. they wear baseball caps and sunglasses and appear harmless.
they enter the compound and head directly for the golden pimple concealing the foundation stone. there, framed dramatically by the dazzling gold of the mosque of omar, they whip off their baseball caps and sunglassed, don tallitot, form the ranks of a minyan and begin praying. it sounds like the miami boys choir. :)
angry druse and jewish policemen run toward them, shouting that they should cease and desist their prayerful activity at once, on pain of police violence. arabs pour out of the mosque like angry fire ants, faces twisted with rage. the shabab are already picking up small stones.
hilarity ensues.
Gila, dear, your numbers 1-4 are not supported by the Israeli Supreme Court. And furthermore the Israeli Supreme Court upholds the separate seating at the Kotel because that's what the majority of those who pray there regularly want. And the vast majority of those are happy that the Israeli legal system does not support your 1-4 either.
If you're trying to make an argument, it doesn't come across very logical when you throw in everything you can.
I think its an awesome idea.
Too bad, the reality is that the Woman of the wall don't really care about what they pretend to care about.
Gila,
Thank you for making the points you do.
I'm an American. I get to Israel when I can, which, sadly, isn't often enough. And I don't travel with a tour group or organized group. My question is this: If I showed up at Robinson's Arch *by myself,* on whatever weekday I happen to be in Yerushalayim, to davven/pray Shacharit (Morning Service), would I even be allowed to enter the site, much less be allowed to davven in tallit and tefillin?
I encourage you to fact check everything you have just blogged about including the time frames of the arrest and the actual accurance of the incidents.
One woman was detained by police in November and recently, the director of the organization was questioned by police and she was not at the wall at time, or carrying a torah.
If you want to share your opinion that's respectable, but at least fact check before you make up things that just aren't factual. In journalism, that is called slander.
can someone explain to me when the haredi chumrot became the go-to guide for Israeli law?!
ARGH ARGH ARGH
Rashi's daughters wore tfillin for crying out loud. There is no halachic reason that a woman cannot wear a tallit or carry a Torah.
The kotel belongs to all of Am Yisrael.
"The kotel belongs to all of Am Yisrael."
Including Jews for Jesus? Would you let them parade around waving crosses and praying to their messiah? They too are Jews!
Gila:
Thank you, Women of the Wall, for fighting the Ultra-Orthodox takeover of a Jewish holy site!
Although I can understand your sentiment (albeit disagree), how is this a takeover? How about we settel on the Orthodox (I am certainly not Haredi) insistence on maintenance of the status quo?
LeahGG:
Where is the source for Rashi's daughters wearing tefillin? (And what relevance does this have?) By the way, there are halachic reasons that a woman cannot wear a tallis, although essentially all poskin that she may wear one without a bracha
5:54 PM, February 08, 2010
Jameel, you just want them those rabbbbble rousers to get up on that there Temple Mount and get struck dead by an angry Lord, huh? huh?
Lets take a serious look at this - (if its possible).
The Wailing Wall / Kotel HaMa'aravo is certainly currently the most holy point on Earth for all jews, and theoretically the "Women of the Wall" should be allowed to pray there as they wish.
However, as all commentators have opinioned before me - most (stress on most) orthodox people would not want a mixed seating service (e.g. reform/conservative or whatever) there either.
Currently, the status-quo is that the Kotel is seperate, and that (for whatever reason) the law has stated that the Women of the Wall should not pray at the wall wearing Talitot and carry a sefer torah.
There are only three times a regular week that a sefer torah is needed in prayer - Monday Mornings, Thursday Mornings and Shabbat Morning and Afternoon. - If the women of the wall were really 'clever' - they would hold their minyan there without a sefer torah, and read the torah by Robinson's Arch - it seems that the whole procedure is just to provoke. There is no way they are going to win against the Haredim - since they are the minority and thats it -Lets say, that they did win - and that they can do what they want there - what next ? Why not open a non-kosher restaurant on the grounds on Shabbat too - where do you draw the line ? Where were these women 42 yeas ago when the Kotel was liberated ? Why have we only heard about them in the past decade ?
It seems to me that the whole issue is a provocation - and only invites 'sinat chinam'
On a note - Personally, I have no problems with women wearing talitot or carrying sifre torah (some of my best friends go to a minyan like that weekly), and I even tried the minyan once - but it was too weird for my liking. I just think that on sensitive issues like this one, were a status quo has been reached - it needs to be continued and not questioned.
From comments in: http://www.questionsandanswersonline.com/how-important-in-judaism-is-laying-tefillin-to-male-jews-why-cant-jewish-women-lay-tefillin/
"The Talmud in Eruvin also mentions “Michal daughter of Kushi wore tefillin and the sages did not protest” According to popular legend, Rashi’s daughters allegedly wore tefillin, as did the wife of Chaim ibn Attar and the Maiden of Ludmir. Sefer Hachinuch writes that if a women wishes to don tefillin she may and receives heavenly reward for doing so. The 18th century chief rabbis of Jerusalem Rabbi Yisrael Yakov Alghazi and his son Rabbi Yomtov Alghazi encouraged women’s use of
tefillin."
I personally met Orthodox women who donned tfillin every day because in their shteitel that was the sign of a tzedekkes.
Just because there is a status quo doesn't make it right. And no, J for J isn't Am Yisrael. Either you're Jewish or you accept Jesus. It's an either-or kind of situation. That said, I don't see us checking to make sure that none of them come to the kotel, nor do we turn obviously Christian tourists away.
Oh where to start?
Anonymous is the easiest and the most fun.
I encourage you to fact check everything you have just blogged about including the time frames of the arrest and the actual accurance of the incidents.
Actually, everything I just wrote was straight from the news sources I hyperlinked.
If you want to share your opinion that's respectable, but at least fact check before you make up things that just aren't factual. In journalism, that is called slander.
You know; that's rather annoying. First I put a direct quote in italics, indicating that its from another source, then I hyperlink the source as well -- its from Rivka Haut, published in Haaretz.
She wrote:
We arrived at the Kotel in the early morning, bringing with us a Torah scroll and a small table to put it on.
and she also wrote:
Recently two women dared to violate these rules, wearing their tallitot over their coats and holding a Torah scroll. They were detained by the police, treated as common criminals, and one was fingerprinted.
If you have to be so mentally challenged that when I quote sources from Haaretz FROM Rivka Haut (co-editor with Phyllis Chesle of "Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism's Holy Site" (Jewish Lights, 2003)) -- you consider it slander, I think you should smack yourself in the head a few times. You'll save us all alot of trouble.
Does it bother you when I present documented facts from women of the wall in Haaretz? Your complaints say worlds about yourself -- that when you hear something you disagree with, you call it slander, despite how factual it may be.
Gila wrote: Seeing how I would like Israel to continue to be a place for all Jews (as opposed to just Haredi ones) to live, I consider it my national duty to annoy the ultra-orthodox.
Thank you, Women of the Wall, for fighting the Ultra-Orthodox takeover of a Jewish holy site!
Do you have a problem with Women of the Temple Mount, wanting to pray at Judaism's Holiest site?
I would think that would be a much more important cause than simply praying at a retaining wall of the Temple Mount -- Judaism's holiest place.
Real Right Winger: The Wailing Wall / Kotel HaMa'aravo is certainly currently the most holy point on Earth for all jews,
No, its not the holiest point on Earth for all Jews -- the Temple Mount is. Everyone understands that.
The Kotel is a retaining wall of the Temple Mount.
Mekubal:
International condemnation
The next intifada
Actual halachic issues as opposed to Chumrot of Chareidim...
International condemnation? The world doesn't want us davening in the Old City in the first place.
Next intifada? Why would it cause an intifada? Does that justify not davening there? If the Chareidim would start an intifada over Women of the Wall -- would that be reason for them not to?
Lastly - there are actual halachik solutions for davening on har habayit. Going to the mikva beforehand, staying far away from certain areas, etc.
The RAMBAM davened on Har Habayit...
Shira: I don't think it would be a problem.
I meant - the holiest place in Israel that currently we can pray at - obviously the temple mount is more holy - but
a) we are not allowed up there due to the law ( I disagree with this)
b) we should not go up there if we are impure (source of the law)
RRW:
a) we are not allowed up there due to the law ( I disagree with this)
Israeli law allows us to go there. The Rabbanut announced that its halachikally forbidden to go to Har HaBayit.
R' Goren felt otherwise, as do many rabbanim, who permit going there b'tahara.
b) we should not go up there if we are impure (source of the law) Source of which law?
The Rabbanut law has just as much to do with abiding by the wishes of the State and not wanting to annoy the Moslems, as it does with going somewhere b'tuma, where they shouldn't.
Food for thought; If the rabbanut believes that the women of the wall shouldn't pray at the kotel with talitot and sifrei torah, why would the women of the wall listen to the rabbanut about har habayit?
I can't stand it when people call the Kotel "the holiest site in the world for Jews".
What in the world do they think the Temple Mount is?
I once asked such a person, "Why do you suppose Jews regard the Temple Mount as so holy?" Clearly a bit stumped, he replied, "Umm, because it's close to the Kotel, maybe?"
Jeez.
realRightWinger: a) we are not allowed up [on the Temple Mount] due to the law ( I disagree with this)
b) we should not go up there if we are impure (source of the law)
Correction:
(1) While it is true that there are rabbis who prohibit going onto the Temple Mount, there are others who both allow and encourage it. Such rabbis include former Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren and Rabbi Dov Lior. (There are those who may be interested in knowing that this is also the position of Conservative Rabbi David Golinkin.)
(2) There exists no law prohibiting Jews from going onto the Temple Mount.
(3) If a hypothetical law were ever to be legistated for such a reason, it would constitute blatant religious coercion.
(4) To the contrary, Israeli law guarantees the right of all people to visit and pray at their holy places.
(5) The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled on several occasions, in response to appeals by groups like the Temple Mount Faithful, that the law requires that Jews must be allowed to pray on the Mount.
(6) The Israel Police maintains a policy of prohibiting Jews from praying there. If they see a Jew doing so (or even just appearing to do so), he is pounced upon violently, detained, and barred from entering the site again. This policy is in flagrant and brazen violation of the law and of repeated Supreme Court rulings. (I wonder why all the valiant leftist organizations who champion the Supreme Court and the "Rule of Law" have nothing to say about this...)
Gila: Are you also in favor of:
1) Universal segregated buses? Because mixed seating annoys the ultra-orthodox.
...
I am not in favor of any of the things you listed. (To the contrary, I am quite vocally opposed to all of them.) And I can tell you with complete certainty that Jameel is not in favor of any of them, either. (You ought to know this; he has spoken out against some of these things.)
Gila: Thank you, Women of the Wall, for fighting the Ultra-Orthodox takeover of a Jewish holy site!
So how about fighting the takeover of the holiest Jewish site of all -- the Temple Mount? Will you offer the same thanks and support to Jewish women and men who stand up to fight for their right to pray there?
mekubal: As long as a person has to pay admission to reach the Robinson's Arch, it will never be the same as the Kotel.
(1) Correction: It is the Kotel.
(2) I agree that people should not be charged admission, and should be free to pray there as they choose.
mekubal: While part of me likes this idea, it is a bad one for a number of reasons.
International condemnation
Reaaly? That's also a good argument for Jews to abandon Israel entirely.
mekubal: The next intifada
In other words, you think people should be denied their rights under the law because other people threaten violence. So if haredim threaten violence, then that's also a good reason to deny other people their rights? Or does your argument apply only to threats of violence from Muslims?
mekubal: Actual halachic issues as opposed to Chumrot of Chareidim...
As I pointed out above, there are plenty of very respected poskim who permit and encourage Jews to go to the Temple Mount.
Jameel- you are wrong in your answer to Shira Salome. Over the years I've seen women being assaulted at the Kotel for putting on Tefillin (alone!), and harrassed for holding discreet, non-political prayer gatherings.
The wall is controlled by a bunch of fanatics. And deep down I don't believe Jameel likes this fact either, he is just looking for more angles to drive a (failed) civil rights argument home.
Shira Salamone: If I showed up at Robinson's Arch *by myself,* on whatever weekday I happen to be in Yerushalayim, to davven/pray Shacharit (Morning Service), would I even be allowed to enter the site, much less be allowed to davven in tallit and tefillin?
Jameel: I don't think it would be a problem.
tafka pp: Jameel- you are wrong in your answer to Shira Salome. Over the years I've seen women being assaulted at the Kotel for putting on Tefillin (alone!), and harrassed for holding discreet, non-political prayer gatherings.
pp -- Shira asked whether she would be able to daven in tallit and tefillin at Robinson's Arch, and Jameel answered correctly. The Women of the Wall and Conservative groups pay there on a regular basis. When, exactly, did you see women assaulted at Robinson's Arch?
tafka pp: The wall is controlled by a bunch of fanatics.
(1) No, only one part of the Kotel is controlled by fanatics. The Robinson's Arch area of the Kotel is not.
(2) Of course, I find it completely unacceptable that any part of the Kotel is controlled by fanatics. Control should be wrested away from them, and the law should be enforced.
tafka pp: ...[Jameel] is just looking for more angles to drive a (failed) civil rights argument home.
Why is it a "failed" civil rights argument? Why should certain Jews be free to pray as they wish at one holy site, but other Jews should not be free to pray in any manner whatsoever at another holy site? Why should the law take precedence over threats of violence from haredim, but not over threats of violence from Muslims?
It is hypocritical and outrageous to call a civil rights argument "failed" simply because you happen to disagree with the religious or political views of the people whose rights are are being denied, while at the same time accepting an identical civil rights argument in the case of people whose views you happen to agree with.
Strange that none of the Women at the Wall would want to pray at the Kotel HaKatan.
1) It is even closer to the Kodesh Kedoshim than the Kotel and by some considered an even holier position.
2) There is no admission charge.
3) It is open 24/7.
4) Very few Ultra-Orthodox Jews are there to get upset with them, and those that are there would be in the minority.
Certainly going there regularly would show everyone that their actions stem from their zealous religious fervor and not to provoke Orthodox Jews at the Kotel.
It is interesting the Women of the Wall want so badly to pray specifically and only at that one particular part of the Western Wall where the haredim generally pray, even though the other availble areas (Robinson's Arch, Kotel HaKatan) are part of the very same Wall.
It's hard to avoid the impression that the reason they want so much to pray at that particular part of the Kotel is specifically because the haredim pray there. If the haredim were to abandon it, the Women of the Wall would probably lose all interest in it.
And I agree that the Temple Mount is a far preferable place to pray, since it is the real holy site, as opposed to the Kotel. Anyone who defends the WotW's right to pray at the Kotel, but not the Temple Mount Faithful's right to pray on the Mount, is just an out-and-out hypocrite.
they aren't insisting because that's where the charedim are - they're insisting because that's the main designated area. Where does every tour group go? Where does every yeshiva kid go? Where does birkat cohanim happen?
TafkaPP Wrote: Jameel- you are wrong in your answer to Shira Salome. Over the years I've seen women being assaulted at the Kotel for putting on Tefillin (alone!), and harrassed for holding discreet, non-political prayer gatherings.
I've seen women daven at the Robinson's Arch area of the Kotel WITH talitot. No one bothers them there at all. They also have police protection -- as this was agreed to by the Supreme Court.
The wall is controlled by a bunch of fanatics. And deep down I don't believe Jameel likes this fact either, he is just looking for more angles to drive a (failed) civil rights argument home.
Failed civil rights argument?
Are you telling me that Jews do not have the right to pray at their most holy place? Freedom of Religion?
Somehow, I expected more from you -- as a pursuer of civil and human rights.
To call it a "failed issue" means your politics have tainted your sense of universal human rights.
I expect that from NIF -- but not from you.
Leah GG: And whats wrong with Har Habayit?
Wouldn't that be even more appropriate?
The point is that you know that they would be arrested if they tried to daven there because we're already kow-towing to arabs up there. That makes me sick.
It makes me sick that we're kow-towing to the pseudo-religion of charedi chumrot at the kotel as well.
Can't we at least quit the sinat chinam!?
I would also add that there are no Jews who are demanding that they want to pray in the mosques on the Temple Mount. There are massive, open areas on the Temple Mount where Muslims do not pray at all. Yet Jews are barred by the Police from praying even there!
This would be the equivalent of preventing the Women of the Wall from praying even at Robinson's Arch (where they currently do pray).
One would expect that people who purport to be defenders of civil rights and the law would be the very first to champion the right of Jews to pray at their holiest site.
Their silence is deafening.
LeahGG: they aren't insisting because that's where the charedim are - they're insisting because that's the main designated area.
So that's their reason for wanting to be there? Because the Government designated it as "the main designated area"?
And here I thought that their motivation was to pray at a Jewish holy site, for religious reasons.
Where does every tour group go? Where does every yeshiva kid go? Where does birkat cohanim happen?
Who cares? If the reason is to be at the Kotel, rather than to cause a provocation, then all parts of the Kotel are just as good. In fact, some parts -- like the Kotel HaKatan -- are even better.
Saying, "No, we only want to go where the big crowds are" is basically saying, "We want to be in everyone's face."
Not much of a religious motivation, to put it mildly.
LeahGG: The point is that you know that they would be arrested if they tried to daven there because we're already kow-towing to arabs up there. That makes me sick.
It makes me sick that we're kow-towing to the pseudo-religion of charedi chumrot at the kotel as well.
Both of them make me sick, too.
If all the people and organizations who fight against kow-towing to haredi fanatics would show some moral honesty by also fighting against kow-towing to Muslim fanatics, then perhaps we could change the situation.
Lurker; Why would the defenders of civil rights bother with the Temple Mount?
The Temple Mount is a Palestinian Site -- not a Jewish one.
Palestinian children have been playing football on the Temple Mount for millennium.
If you or your fanatical right wing friends want to cause world war 3 by preventing Palestinian children from playing football on Al Alksa, you had better watch out.
NIF is on the vanguard to ensure you don't destroy Israel's fragile democracy by doing something stupid, like praying.
anon: anything that insists that they can't daven where everyone else davens is unacceptable.
They're not violating any halacha.
They're not asking to be on the men's side.
Shunting them off where they can't be seen smacks of Jim Crow laws, and yes, there is reason to make a political statement against that. Their point is not only religious, but also political - they are trying to say that the charedim do not have the right to marginalize the women of Israel! Shoving them elsewhere is kowtowing to the charedim and is no compromise.
LeahGG: Shoving them elsewhere is kowtowing to the charedim and is no compromise.
Why wouldnt anyone appreciate a quieter location?
There are Chareidim who believe that women wearing taleisim is a violation of halacha. I agree that the Robinson's Arch area should be open for free 24x7 -- for women to pray as they wish. Yet if they insist on wearing tefillin and taleisim, I can understand why the Chareidim would get so upset.
Sinas Chinam is wanting to daven in front of everyone, dafka.
Gila: What planet do you live on?
I work and live here in Israel, and there's NO segregation of women at my workplace. And we have chareidi women working here as well.
Nothing is segregated. Why are you painting such a lopsided picture?
There's a mehitza. If it bothers you so much, don't look on the other side of it. And again, there are excellent sources for women wearing tfillin. And there is certainly no source for women not carrying a Torah.
Tallit might be a more complex matter because of it being the clothing of a man. However, the approach has not been to arrest women wearing pants, so likewise, arresting women wearing a tallit would be inappropriate and fosters sinat hinam.
if you want to argue with sefer hachinuch...
LeahGG: they're insisting because that's the main designated area. Where does every tour group go? Where does every yeshiva kid go?
I affiliate Orthodox, and when I am at the Kotel, I try to daven in the Robinson's Arch area whenever possible.
(1) At Robinson's Arch, you are actually standing on very stone pavement from the time of Bayit Sheini. This is not the case in the "main designated area".
(2) At Robinson's Arch, you are standing alongside actual ruins of the Temple itself. There is no such thing in the "main designated area".
(3) Robinson's Arch is quiet and peaceful, and provides an environment where one can meditate and pray in peace, undisturbed by the loud, annoying, shoving crowds and rude panhandlers.
I very much envy the Women of the Wall and the Conservative Movement, who have been granted arrangements in which they can pray there on a regular basis.
Anyone blessed and privileged enough to have a wonderful part of the Kotel like this to themselves, and who nevertheless wishes to reject it in favor of crowding into the Grand Central Station atmosphere of the "main designated area", -- where, as you so accurately put it, "every tour group" and "every yeshiva kid" goes -- is an idiot.
LeahGG
According to popular legend, Rashi’s daughters allegedly wore tefillin
The popular legend I knew about, I was asking for a source. Really, I'm beginning to suspect that this is an ancient version of an urban legend. To quote the statment that there is a popular legend, is akin to coming out with the chestnut that (either the Rav or Rav Moshe) permitted cheese with no hashgacha... Everyone's heard it, no one has a source
I wonder why the women of the wall never daven in Machpelah
I would also add that there are no Jews who are demanding that they want to pray in the mosques on the Temple Mount. There are massive, open areas on the Temple Mount where Muslims do not pray at all. Yet Jews are barred by the Police from praying even there!
This would be the equivalent of preventing the Women of the Wall from praying even at Robinson's Arch (where they currently do pray).
One would expect that people who purport to be defenders of civil rights and the law would be the very first to champion the right of Jews to pray at their holiest site.
Their silence is deafening.
Cmon Lurker. You and Jameel both know perfectly well that the struggle for this "Holiest Site" is not primarily a Freedom of Religion issue, rather one which is mired in a myriad of escalating political and geopolitical concerns, and which has also been championed by many public figures to the Israeli religious or political right - some of whom are none too complimentary about their fellow citizens in the civil rights movement. Further, your average Israeli on the street doesn't feel that lobbying for the right to pray on Har HaBayit is a bigger priority than say, feeding their children. Finally, the much-splashed media images of the occasional breakthru nutjob from the Temple Mount Faithful crew spouting all things intolerant towards "Leftists" don't exactly contribute to the promotion of the cause. So, all in all, plenty of perfectly logical reasons for this "deafening" silence.
Yet why would you be surprised or angered that by comparison, the public/media mobilise behind the Women of the Wall's struggle where the discriminatory/sexist elements are far more palatable and clear for all to see?
What has most disappointed me about this thread is that there was really no need to seek to belittle the struggle of the Women of the Wall to juxtapose it with the struggle of those who wish to pray on the Temple Mount. To claim faux-shock that the law prohibiting praying on Har HaBayit does not interest civil rights groups, and to somehow decide that the Women of the Wall and those who support them are somehow responsible for the skewed media attention, is just plain ridiculous, I'm sorry. You know where you live, who makes the laws and what interests your fellow citizens. Blame the media/government/wakf/NIF all you want for the state of affairs in this country, but the amount of bad feeling you're creating is not going to do anything to try and find any type of workable solution to the problems.
Finally, the much-splashed media images of the occasional breakthru nutjob from the Temple Mount Faithful crew spouting all things intolerant towards "Leftists" don't exactly contribute to the promotion of the cause
And there are no occasional breaththru nutjobs in WoW, spouting all sorts of venom towards Orthodoxy in general? (Hoping to promote a cause for being davka, instead of simply wanting to daven, as I'm sure most of WoW, are?)
You can be disappointed all you like, but civil rights groups couldn't care less about the rights of Jews to pray on Har HaBayit (men or women), let alone visit.
No one said that WoW is responsible for skewed media attention...nor was this post bashing the WoW (unless you feel overly defensive on their behalf).
The bad feeling is not directed towards the WoW -- rather towards the civil rights organizations (and funders) who would rather ignore civil rights of Jews on the Temple Mount. They don't have a problem providing funds for all sorts of other Arab and Palestinian Civil rights related groups.
What I find surprising is that you say we're creating bad feeling by raising a civil rights issue.
The NIF sponsored organizations who provided 92% of the information for Goldstone's report contributed to a heck of a lot more "bad feeling" (and world condemnations) than this blog post.
Jameel- of course I feel more strongly in favour of WoW than I do re the Temple Mount Faithful. So sue me.
But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the difficulty of the struggle of those who want to pray on Har HaBayit. Or would belittle it to make a point about another one.
The NIF sponsored organizations who provided 92% of the information for Goldstone's report contributed to a heck of a lot more "bad feeling" (and world condemnations) than this blog post.
I disagree. The Goldstone report merely provided the growing legions of Israel critics with more fuel to their fires.
Using a blog which is read by so many Jews to attacking Israeli organizations for the purpose of making a (yes, flawed, Lurker- not because I personally disgree with the politics, but because the wider context of the two groups is incomparable) comparitive point about freedom of religion simply leaves a nasty taste all round and doesn't make me feel like I want to come back.
I'll leave you with this thought, as you brought the NIF back into the discussions- if the future sees the NIF lacking in funds and unable to fund the wealth of health, welfare, and social services projects which EVERY SINGLE ISRAELI READER OF THIS BLOG is a beneficiary of in some way or another, I imagine that everyone who bought into the "Im Tirtzu" propaganda of unpleasantness will find themselves nursing a deep sense of regret.
http://coteret.com/2010/02/04/debunking-the-im-tirzu-report-part-ii-hair-media-critic-on-journalism-as-propaganda/
I think you should reread the post about WoW. It wasn't derogatory -- it was about a comparison, and how I believe (and I think many others as well), that there are civil right advocates and funds for liberal, left-minded and egalitarian groups -- and yet those groups and funds refuse to accept any similar civil rights abuse towards those on the right wing side of the political spectrum. That's why the "Human Rights for YESHA" group had to be formed -- since ACRI completely ignored Human Rights for settlers.
I'll leave you with this thought, as you brought the NIF back into the discussions- if the future sees the NIF lacking in funds and unable to fund the wealth of health, welfare, and social services projects which EVERY SINGLE ISRAELI READER OF THIS BLOG is a beneficiary of in some way or another, I imagine that everyone who bought into the "Im Tirtzu" propaganda of unpleasantness will find themselves nursing a deep sense of regret.
Every single Israeli reader of this blog is a beneficiary of in some way or another, of security provided by the IDF. The Goldstone report is being used to attack the IDF and convict IDF soldiers as war criminals.
Breaking News: It's all available to readers in English here.
Why do you think it is that there's so much animosity towards the NIF?
Despite your assumption of the "growing legions of Israeli critics" towards the IDF, and Israel's right to defend itself in the Cast lead operation -- I think your average Israeli (and many foreign donors abroad) is disgusted by the NIF supporting organizations that demonize the IDF.
Your bottom line is that everything written by "Im Tirtzu" is propaganda, and we should all be bowing down to the NIF and thanking them for making Israel a better place.
If we disagree that the NIF isn't the best organization in the world, then we should turn the other cheek and keep our mouths shut, right?
Everything we say is lies and propaganda. Everything the NIF organizations say is true.
Everything on this blog is a lie and propaganda.
Would you prefer we simply get in line and march to the tune of the NIF, the all perfect and knowing organization?
The primary difference here is that I listen to differing viewpoints, analyze them, ponder them, and sometimes modify my own.
If I'm told that its forbidden to criticize the NIF, then that leaves a rather bitter taste, dontchya think?
Out of curiosity, do the WoW have daily minyanim in temples, shuls or whatever? Or do they periodically just go to the Kotel to make a political statement and to p-ss off the truly religious?
If the answer is the latter, does one even think that they will continue if they are given a wall space. Are they any different from the deviants that insist on marching through hareidi areas , but lack the cojones to continue into the arab neighborhoods?
Are they any different from the deviants that insist on marching through hareidi areas , but lack the cojones to continue into the arab neighborhoods?
Going through a Hareidi area is an expression of civil rights.
Going through an Arab area is right wing fascism.
curiously,
since the WOW can daven at Robinson's Arch, are they having daily minyanim? Are they duchaning there? Or are they just interested in provoking the truly religious?
Post a Comment