Sunday, September 18, 2005

Using the Shidduch System: Is it really safe?

In the orthodox world it is not uncommon for single individuals who are looking for their beshert (soul mate) to use a matchmaker (shadchan). For many this makes dating so much easier, yet for a few, their lives have been changed forever in a negative way.

There have been times that a shadchan neglected to tell a client (either male or female) of their potential dates past criminal record. There are pros and cons about doing this. Everyone deserves a fresh start. If two individuals don't hit it off, there is no need to share everything. One of the problems of doing this is that there have been times that if one person doesn't hit it off with another, one may think of a friend who might be a better possibility. They no longer may use the shadchan, and a friend can end up engaged to someone who could be problematic.

I am aware of situations in which the shadchan (matchmaker) was aware that there were allegations of an individual being physically or sexually violent. Because the shadchan (or the rabbis who support the alleged offender) didn't believe the allegations, an introduction was made with a potential partner. There have been several cases where a couple marry, and an innocent person becomes a new victim of domestic violence, and or their children (male and female) become incest survivors.

After consulting with many survivors of these sorts of situations, I think it's time that we demand that there be a policy that shadchans are required to disclose if a potential mate has a criminal record prior to the introduction, especially when there have been allegations of physical or sexual violence.

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was curious if anyone knows the answer to this question.

If a shadchan is aware that someone is an convicted sex offender or there were allegations of some sort of sexual crime made against someone, isn't the shadchan morally responsible to inform?

Also if the shadchan neglects to tell one their clients about a conviction or the allegations, and something happens, would that make the shadchan liable for damages?

September 18, 2005 10:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had the experience of dating a man I met on line. Prior to meeting him I checked out his references. I also asked my rabbi to check him out. I thought he would be ok. I even asked him, and his references if he ever had problems with the law. I'll admit that I asked this jokingly.

After a few dates he told me about his criminal record. I'm very happy he disclosed this information to me, yet I decided not to date him again. The reason had nothing to do with him having a criminal record. The reason had to do with the fact he didn't tell me up front. When I called his references and my rabbi, they all said they knew, but figured it wasn't an issue for him anymore.

September 19, 2005 8:41 AM  
Anonymous Donna said...

I also met a man on line.

I also thought I knew him fairly well, but I still had my rabbi check him out for me.

It ended up that everyone in the town he was from knew that his wife divorced him after the allegations came out that he sexually abused boys in the yeshiva he taught at.

No criminal charges were ever pressed against him. That was because the police were never called. Instead he left his position and moved to a new city.

September 19, 2005 9:50 AM  
Anonymous rabbiMD said...

> If a shadchan is aware that someone
> is an convicted sex offender or
> there were allegations of some sort
> of sexual crime made against
> someone, isn't the shadchan morally
> responsible to inform?

The shadchan is HALACHICALLY obligated to inform. See the introduction the sefer Chafetz Chayim for specific discussion of obligations regarding shidduchim.

September 20, 2005 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The shadchan is HALACHICALLY obligated to inform. See the introduction the sefer Chafetz Chayim for specific discussion of obligations regarding shidduchim."

If they are obligated to inform, why doesn't it happen?

September 21, 2005 12:03 AM  
Anonymous rabbi pam said...

Allegations are meaningless. In fact, the existence of allegations against someone does not grant the right to relate that information to other people (within the scope of the halachot of "evil speech").

Most people believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty (although the owner of this blog seems to disagree).

That being said, if there is proof (not just allegations) that a person has committed any crime (sexual or otherwise), anyone possessing this information is obligated to share this information with people who may be at risk due to their relationship (personal, business, educational, etc.) with the guilty person.

-MP

September 21, 2005 1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rabbi Pam,
I have a gread Shidduch for you. I've had several people check him out. He was never convicted of a crime, but there is some controversy surrounding him.

He's also a rabbi. He's also been all over the world. He's an author. I think you'll like him. One of his famous works is called "The Torah of Desire". Let me know if your interested. Remember it's only allegations.

September 21, 2005 5:12 PM  
Anonymous rabbi pam said...

Thanks for the offer, but I'm quite happily married.

The Torah is full of people who were accused falsely. One good example is Potiphar's wife who accused Joseph of sexual abuse. As we all know, Potiphar's wife was the real sexual predator and Joseph was the victim. Yet, based on your "logic", Joseph is guilty for the mere reason that he was accused of a crime.

People on this website seem to equate accusations with guilt, which is anti-Jewish and anti-American (since both Judaism and the American justice system do not find a person guilty based on allegations alone).

September 21, 2005 10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"People on this website seem to equate accusations with guilt, which is anti-Jewish and anti-American (since both Judaism and the American justice system do not find a person guilty based on allegations alone)."

I'm sure that your buddies Mark Gafni and Mordechai Tendler are innocent. Who cares if Gafni confessed to having relations with a minor?

Does it mean anything that Tendler was kicked out of the RCA? How many times has a rabbi had his membership revoked?

I know that not even Rabbi Ephraim Bryks had his membership terminated. He resigned before they had a chance.

I'm sure all three of them would be great as a date.

September 22, 2005 8:23 AM  
Anonymous rabbi pam said...

If the Rabbis that you mention have been found guilty based on evidence in a competent judicial setting (American court, Jewish court, Israeli court, etc), then the allegations are no longer "allegations" - they are FACTS.

Unproven allegations are meaningless. All rational people understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty (and an allegation alone is not proof). Jewish and American law demand nothing less.

Websites like this one have tremendous potential to help those who are actual victims of abuse. However, the presence of certain participants who appear to have a rather fanatical approach (the allegation=guilt mentality) undermines the credibility of the cause.

How would you feel if someone made a false allegation against you or your spouse? Would you want everyone to jump to conclusions based on allegations alone? I doubt it.

Shanah Tovah to everyone.

September 22, 2005 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rabbi Pam,
how about doing a background check on a rabbi who runs a jewish outreach organization?

I'm sure he's someone you would want your daughter to date. He's even a cohen.

September 22, 2005 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Diana said...

Rabbi Pam,

"Websites like this one have tremendous potential to help those who are actual victims of abuse."


Have you taken the time out to do some research on the topic?

If you did you would understand that only 16% of all cases that go to court are found guilty. Do you know the reasons for this?

Can you give us the definition of what an "actual victim is"?

Also can you explain why most survivors don't come forward and press charges against their offenders, and also why mosst survivors don't use the rabbinical courts when there are crimes of the sexual nature?

September 22, 2005 1:13 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

1)
>rabbi pam said...
>Allegations are meaningless. In
>fact, the existence of
>allegations against someone does
>not grant the right to relate
>that information to other people
>(within the scope of the
>halachot of "evil speech").

Incorrect, I do not believe you huderstand shmirat halashon in regard to sexual abuse.

http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/legal.html#The%20Physical
...
Despite the permissibility generated by the need to prevent future injury, Hafetz Hayyim prohibits the revelation of any information that would cause harm to the accused that is not based on bonafide evidence worthy of a court of Iaw.31 This prevents an innocent person from becoming the victim of false accusations and slander.32 This restriction severely hinders the revelation of instances of child abuse where the only confirmation of the abuse is the statements of minors whose veracity is unreliable, as they are generally considered as unfit witnesses,33 or circumstantial physical evidence. However, because confidential reports to agencies responsible for investigating such allegations will not harm a person's reputation and because the testimony of children, supported by significant suspicions, may be acceptable testimony,34 this restriction does not prevent the proper prosecution of abusers or endanger the well being of children. In addition, when physical and mental pikuach nefesh is involved, one must, after careful deliberation and consideration of the evidence and its consequences, reveal serious suspicions.

Thus, in cases of child abuse, where, after careful evaluation of the evidence it is believed that abuse has occurred, there is no prohibition of rehilut-- even outside of the judiciary process. On the contrary, it is a mitzvah to inform others so as to protect them and their families from possible harm. Hafetz Hayyim, rejecting the possible objections of those who would deem this an unwarranted leniency, states that withholding such information is tantamount to withholding testimony in a court of law and is prohibited by "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy brother" (Lev. 19:16).35 This obligation to reveal this information holds: even outside of court proceedings;36 even if the informer is the sole source of information; even if the statement is based solely upon hearsay; and even if the abuser promises not to harm anyone else if there is concern that he cannot be trusted.37

2)
>Most people believe that a
>person is innocent until proven
>guilty (although the owner of
>this blog seems to disagree).

You are confusing the criminal justice system with life, this blog, the first amendment and every other aspect of our lives that the criminal justice system has virtually no relevence to.

Guilt is only relevent to criminal proceedings. That is not the standard we use when determining whether a person is suitable to hold a leadership position in the Jewish community.

3)
>That being said, if there is
>proof (not just allegations)
>that a person has committed any
>crime (sexual or otherwise),
>anyone possessing this
>information is obligated to
>share this information with
>people who may be at risk due to
>their relationship (personal,
>business, educational, etc.)
>with the guilty person.

Again, you don't even have familiarity with the halachot in this area and are wrong (see above).

Again, you like so many others fail to comprehend that these are crimes committed in private that virtually never have witnesses, so nothing you've stated is relevant.

4)
>The Torah is full of people who
>were accused falsely.

Really? I believe you need to learn more chumash.

5)
>One good
>example is Potiphar's wife who
>accused Joseph of sexual abuse.
>As we all know, Potiphar's wife
>was the real sexual predator and
>Joseph was the victim. Yet,
>based on your "logic", Joseph is
>guilty for the mere reason that
>he was accused of a crime.

The text of the chumash exonerated Joseph (of course using your "logic" he was convicted by a court which is your ONLY determinant in this area).

As in the Torah, false allegations of this nature are rare. I suggest you check the law enforcement statistics in this area. 2-4% is the only statistic I've seen from law enforcement regarding false allegations of sexual assault where the accused is KNOWN (the % of false allegations is higher where the accused make allegations against an unidentified stranger). If you look at the subset of false complaints against a KNOWN accused by MULTIPLE accusers. The % of false allegations is practically non-existant. Further If you look at the subset of false complaints against a KNOWN accused by MULTIPLE accusers who are UNRELATED and did not know each other when they first disclosed abuse, you would be hardpressed to find many such cases.

6)
>People on this website seem to
>equate accusations with guilt,
>which is anti-Jewish and anti-
>American (since both Judaism and
>the American justice system do
>not find a person guilty based
>on allegations alone).

Guilt is irrelevant. Again,
guilt is only relevent to criminal proceedings. That is not the standard we use when determining whether a person is suitable to hold a leadership position in the Jewish community.

I would refer you to this website that lists Catholic priest offenders

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/

Note how out of the close to 5,000 priests listed only a few dozen have been convicted. Are the rest fit to hold leadership positions?

7)
>If the Rabbis that you mention
>have been found guilty based on
>evidence in a competent judicial
>setting (American court, Jewish
>court, Israeli court, etc), then
>the allegations are no
>longer "allegations" - they are
>FACTS.

And OJ Simpson is innocent?

Again guilt is irrelevant here. This blog cannot convict anyone or take away their freedoms/rights.

8)
>Unproven allegations are
>meaningless. All rational people
>understand that a person is
>innocent until proven guilty
>(and an allegation alone is not
>proof). Jewish and American law
>demand nothing less.

Again guilt is not the issue here.

9)
>Websites like this one have
>tremendous potential to help
>those who are actual victims of
>abuse. However, the presence of
>certain participants who appear
>to have a rather fanatical
>approach (the allegation=guilt
>mentality) undermines the
>credibility of the cause.

Because you say so? Or because you simply don't have any understanding of the halacha, the law or other similar efforts by victim advocates in other religions?

10)
>How would you feel if someone
>made a false allegation against
>you or your spouse? Would you
>want everyone to jump to
>conclusions based on allegations
>alone? I doubt it.

No one has. Guess why?
a. I don't put myself in a position where I can be accused of such behavior.
b. I don't engage in such behavior.

Maybe Rabbi Pam, you should ask why your "friend" keeps being accused of this behavior. Maybe while you're at it you should ask yourself why you protect him.

September 22, 2005 7:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(((((Jewish Whistle Blower)))))) Thank you so much. I couldn't have said it better.

September 22, 2005 8:09 PM  
Anonymous rabbi pam said...

Jewish Whistle Blower has done a splended job of proving my earlier statement:

>The presence of certain participants
>who appear to have a rather fanatical
>approach (the allegation=guilt
>mentality) undermines the credibility
>of the cause."

The blog linked in his/her personal profile is further evidence of this fact. The comments on the blog are also rather disturbing.

Certain parts of his/her post are particularly revealing of his/her inability to approach this topic rationally:

>No one has [made false allegations
>against him/her]. Guess why?
>a. I don't put myself in a position
>where I can be accused of such
>behavior.
>b. I don't engage in such behavior.

You really don't "get it". A person does not need to be in a position to be accused by a false accuser. A false accuser, by their very nature, plays by no rules. Your "behavior" has little to do with the matter when a false accuser decides to attack you.

For the sake of argument (only), I am accusing you of sexual abuse. There, now you have been accused. Did you do anything wrong? (no) Should your neighbors hesitate to allow their kids to play at your house? (no) Will it be difficult for you to defend yourself against very explicit charges that lack enough substance (times/dates/places/etc) for you to effectively defend yourself? (yes)

Whistleblower's comments on the relevant halachot also expose his/her need to properly (and impartially) research the subject. I highly recommend studying the CCAR guidelines that are taught in the rabbinical school Social Work/Counseling curriculum.

There are plenty of evil people in this world who engage in sexual abuse. Society must be protected from those individuals. However, we must recognize that false allegations occur. To conclude that every person who has been accused is guilty (without any form of judicial process) is immoral and against Jewish/American law. Clergy, in particular, are easy targets for sick people who have a grudge against a rabbi/priest, a particular religion, or against religion in general.

Until members of this website begin to understand the different between allegations and guilt, no one will take you seriously.

The web has tremendous potential to help actual victims. However, this website does a disservice to the cause due to the fanatacism that is found here, due to a mere few individuals (apparently).

As we approach Rosh Hashana, a time of special healing and repentence, let us all hope for universal peace and healing and the end of abuse of all types.

September 23, 2005 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Voice of Reason said...

Rabbi Pam,
Please tell us all about the excellent job you have done on the investigation of your buddy Mordechai Winyarz?

I'm sure that you decided he wasn't a danger, since your rabbinic organization has never made a public statement regarding this matter. Just in case you were not aware, he made the following statement of his relationship with one of his survivors. He called it a loving relationship, and she called it sexual assault.

Marc Gafni: "I was a stupid kid and we were in love," the rabbi said. "She was 14 going on 35, and I never forced her"

September 23, 2005 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Voice of Reason said...

Here's a case that was investigated by the CCAR.

http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Mayersohn_Michael.html

"After the three-member ethics committee's investigating team looked into the case, the panel in June 2003 said in a report to Gold that Hogue's charge "cannot be clearly confirmed or denied," but that it was "troubling to dismiss her experience here as having been entirely imagined."

Though the panel could not prove Mayersohn was guilty of any ethical lapse, it maintained that "there is an indication of a rabbi in need of some kind of support and/or training."

The panel found there was sufficient evidence Mayersohn had "exercised poor judgment" in his dealings with Hogue and in August voted to censure him. That was less than the gravest possible penalties — expulsion or suspension — but more serious than a letter of reprimand.

Under the Reform code of ethics, a reprimand remains the least serious form of punishment. It takes the form of a private letter to the rabbi involved.

By being censured, Mayersohn was required to undergo psychological evaluation, therapy and counseling for teshuvah, or repentance."



So what happens the next time?

September 23, 2005 8:37 AM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>rabbi pam said...
>Jewish Whistle Blower has done a
>splended job of proving my
>earlier statement:
>
>The presence of certain
>participants who appear to have
>a rather fanatical approach (the
> allegation=guilt
>mentality) undermines the
>credibility of the cause."

What can I say? Rabbi Pam demonstrates that she has zero reading comprehension, guilt is simply an irrelevant issue. She has some delusion that the rules of a criminal court apply here.

Rabbi Pam, open a newspaper, one can discuss serious allegations even without any determination of guilt it's certainly not "anti-American" and when it protects people from physical/mental harm (as in the cases discussed on this blog) it's not "anti-jewish" either.

>The blog linked in his/her
>personal profile is further
>evidence of this fact.

Evidence??????

>The comments on the blog are
>also rather disturbing.

Mainly yours.

>Certain parts of his/her post
>are particularly revealing of
>his/her inability to approach
>this topic rationally:
>>No one has [made false
>>allegations against him/her].
>>Guess why?
>>a. I don't put myself in a
>>position where I can be accused
>>of such behavior.
>>b. I don't engage in such
>>behavior.

And what part of my response is irrational?

>You really don't "get it". A
>person does not need to be in a
>position to be accused by a
>false accuser. A false accuser,
>by their very nature, plays by
>no rules. Your "behavior" has
>little to do with the matter
>when a false accuser decides to
>attack you.

What the hell are you talking about Rabbi Pam?

There is no problem in the Jewish community or in the general community of people going around making false allegations of sexual abuse right and left. The problem is sexual abuse and exploitation NOT false allegations.

Your arguments were used in the Catholic community to protect priests. The fact was there were few false allegations and many cases of sexual abuse.

>For the sake of argument (only),
>I am accusing you of sexual
>abuse. There, now you have been
>accused. Did you do anything
>wrong? (no) Should your
>neighbors hesitate to allow
>their kids to play at your
>house? (no) Will it be difficult
>for you to defend yourself
>against very explicit charges
>that lack enough substance
>(times/dates/places/etc) for you
>to effectively defend yourself?
>(yes)

All nonsense, if I never meet alone with anyone and never put myself in a position to be falsely accused, how easy Rabbi Pam, is it to make false allegations against me?

And as I pointed out previously, law enforcement statistics indicate that false allegations are rare. Sexual abuse unfortunately is prevalent.

>Whistleblower's comments on the
>relevant halachot also expose
>his/her need to properly (and
>impartially) research the
>subject. I highly recommend
>studying the CCAR guidelines
>that are taught in the
>rabbinical school Social
>Work/Counseling curriculum.

I quote from an RCA roundtable document (now adopted) that references the halachic sources (and I even included a link to the source referenced material in footnotres) and you point me to CCAR guidelines with no references to halachic sources????

Do you even comprehend the material I possted?

Have you even read or researched the linked sources?

>There are plenty of evil people
>in this world who engage in
>sexual abuse. Society must be
>protected from those
>individuals.

Finally, something accurate.

>However, we must recognize that
>false allegations occur.

Where, when, how frequently? Look at law enforcement statistics, demonstrate to me that it is a significant problem. It isn't. It's a red herring used by Catholic priests to prtotect themselves and their colleagues.

>To conclude that every person
>who has been accused is guilty

No one here can do that as guilt/non-guilt is a determination of a court, not this blog.

>(without any form of judicial
>process) is immoral and against
>Jewish/American law.

Open a newspaper sometime, look at the Catholic on-line priest database I referenced above, educate yourself in the area of victim advocacy in America. Your comments demonstrate your ignorance.

As I demonstrated above, it's permitted within Jewish law and the first amendment allows discussion, hardly "against
Jewish/American law". Other religions clearly address allegations of sexual abuse in similar fashions so it is not "immoral" either.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/

>Clergy, in particular, are easy
>targets for sick people who have
>a grudge against a rabbi/priest,
>a particular religion, or
>against religion in general.

Easy target? You think it's easy to make false allegations of a serious nature against a public nature? Please provide statistics or proof from ANY law enforcement source that this is the case.

It is not.

How easy was it for the victims of any Catholic priest to come forward? How many false complaints were there? Please stop showing us your ignorance on the subject. Victims of sexual abuse deserve more.

>Until members of this website
>begin to understand the
>different between allegations
>and guilt, no one will take you
>seriously.

Once again this blog is not a criminal court, guilt is irrelevant and you are clearly ignorant of the problem of sexual abuse and its prevalence. You have ignored virtually every point, fact and link I've referenced by repeating your ignorance on the subject.

>The web has tremendous potential
>to help actual victims.

Correct.

>However, this website does a
>disservice to the cause due to
>the fanatacism that is found
>here, due to a mere few
>individuals (apparently).

The only disservice is your continued ignorance on the subject. Try educating yourself.

>As we approach Rosh Hashana, a
>time of special healing and
>repentence, let us all hope for
>universal peace and healing and
>the end of abuse of all types.

I can summarize Rabbi Pam's main problem with 2 case illustrations:

1) 3 male rabbis say that the allegations against a colleague and friend are false. Rabbi Pam believes.
2) 3 woman say a Rabbi sexually abused/exploited them. Rabbi Pam does not believe.

September 23, 2005 9:08 AM  
Anonymous rabbi pam said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 23, 2005 10:09 AM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Rabbi Pam says ...
>Whistleblower is a sad example
>of the problems that exist when
>fanatacism impairs a person's
>ability to provide desperately
>needed support for victims of
>abuse.

So I'm a fanatic? Please elaborate.


>He claims that I made statements
>that I never made. (I have never
>investigated anyone. I have no
>personal knowledge of the two
>cases that Blower claims I have
>an opinion on. Etc.)

Read please.. "case illustrations". I'm not claiming "actual cases". Just giving examples of what your bias appears to me to be. Please work on your reading comprehension.

>Do you ever wonder why this
>website attracts so little
>participation? Please consider
>that when people like Blower
>make personal attacks on people,
>no one will participate in
>discussions here.

Personal attacks? You accused people here of being "anti-Jewish" and "anti-American". Your words.

>I first heard about this site
>(among others) and a conference
>of mental health professionals
>in the Jewish community.

I'm sad to hear someone as ignorant as you in the area of sexual abuse is in this area.

>The person who directed me to
>this website (who knows Vicki
>personally) told me to be
>cautious due to the people who
>run the show here.

So I guess lasho harah is OK in that situation, where there is no physical/mental harm.

>I came here with an open mind to
>discuss the real issues of
>sexual abuse in the Jewish
>community (of which I have first-
>hand knowledge based on my work
>in counseling victims of abuse
>and perpetrators of abuse in the
>Jewish community).

Oy, God help those poor victims.

>I joined this thread to assert
>that "matchmakers" are REQUIRED
>to reval *factual* details of
>history of illegal/immoral
>actions when making shidduchim.

I still don't understand the point you made there. If there are numerous allegations and no convictions, what must the shadchan reveal?

>Blower chose to attack me
>instead.

Personal attacks? You accused people here of being "anti-Jewish" and "anti-American". Your words.

>I have no intention of
>continuing to participate in
>this website. I should have
>heeded the advice of the person
>who hold me about this place,
>and gone elsewhere instead.

No loss to us.

September 23, 2005 10:25 AM  
Anonymous we know who the anonymous poster attacking Vicki is said...

From a 1998 Berkley letter:

...
He has misused his position of editor of JCN to allow anti-Semitic extremism to be spread via this "Network" and to engage in petty personal vendettas, and
campaigns of underhanded dirty tricks. He has published and allowed to be reprinted scurrilous and libelous materials. He has used the hard copy sister newspaper ("Jewish Ink") of JCN to launch an underhanded and dishonest
hatchet attack on a poster to the forums of JCN, a man who is a Holocaust survivor (and obviously had no chance to respond to Yanover's slurs). He posted a deliberately misleading and dishonest slur piece on his web site against a professor who frequently posts to JCN forums. And he attacked Jonathan Pollard in nasty tones, which induced Pollard to circulate a letter
labeling Yanover as "intellectually vacuous and total lacking in morality".
...
As part of Yanover's JCN activities, he sponsors a forum that is run by one Walter Ruby. Ruby is an anti-Zionist leftist and follower of Tikkun's Michael Lerner. This forum has long been an arena dominated by non-Jewish
anti-Semites, posting a variety of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel materials.
The "monitor" of this forum for anti-Semites and skinheads is Ruby, whom Yanover claims to be a "veteran journalist". In fact Ruby is a writer for a Long Island Jewish weekly. In a computer bibliographic search of the popular press just completed, only two pieces by Ruby turned up, both being book reviews in the Mother Jones magazine (the Tikkun of the gentiles). In a
representative recent statement, Ruby understood, validated and justified the calls by Palestinians to Iraq to commit genocide by dropping poison gas on Israeli Jews because Ruby feels Israel is not making enough concessions to the PLO.
...

September 23, 2005 10:45 AM  
Anonymous we know who the anonymous poster attacking Vicki is said...

http://www.afsi.org/OUTPOST/98JUN/jun9.htm as

Spotlight on the Extremists

...Yori Yanover, owner and editor of the "Jewish Communications Network," is quickly gaining a reputation as one of the most extreme and irresponsible voices on the internet. Excerpts from recent postings by Yanover on his web site: "Palestinian terror, acts of terror are usually the weapon of the weak side in any struggle. The strong side has governments and parliaments and courts and armies" ... "The Golda Meir government was a sickening exercise in hypocrisy, lies, robbery of conquered minorities, direct theft of national treasures, and a record-setting self-righteousness" ... "If we're looking for a true culprit in the Rabin assassination, I propose Religious Zionism, as a political concept and as the morbidly fascistic approach to Judaism." Among other things, Yanover's Network sponsors a forum run by Walter Ruby, a leftwing journalist (Long Island Jewish World) and longtime Peace Now activist who is apparently not fazed by Yanover's rantings...

September 23, 2005 10:54 AM  
Anonymous we know who the anonymous poster attacking vicki is said...

Walter Ruby on Yanover:

#51968 Walter Wed Jun 14 13:31:51 US/Central 2000

I just set the following letter to Yori Yanover, an old friend who runs a fine Internet news service usajewish.com. What is doing and writing on his web site about the situation in Russia in recent days, however, is not fine at all. By sending him this letter, I may have just lost and old friend, who was one of the founders of JCN--where I had a discussion forum before we founded Encounter, but some issues are bigger than friendship.

In linking and printing on the front page of yesterday's USAJewish with explanatory coment the letter from the Federation of the Jewish Communities of Russia as well as the letter from Rabbi Berl Lazar as the "Chief Rabbi of Russia" appealing for Vladmiri Gusinsky to be freed from prison, my friend Yori Yanover is acting as a Chabad propagandist and not as an honest journalist. The readers of USAJewish may not be aware that the Federation of Jewish Communities--a Chabad group pure and simple--proclaimed Lazar as chief rabbi last week despite the fact that there already is a chief rabbi, Adolph Shayevitch, who is recognized by all Russian Jewish communities and congregations except Chabad ones. Yanover also neglects to mention that Lazar and Chabad have done everything they can for years to undercut the power of the Russian Jewish Congress of which Gusinsky is president; that Lazar and Chabad obsequiously praised Putin despite his growing repression of democracy and despite the fact that Chabad's patron and Gusinsky enemy Boris Berezovsky ran a blatantly anti-Semitic news report on his television network ORT during the presidential campaign. In that context, the statements that Yori proints without comment are a classic case of corcodile tears and tuches-covering on the part of Chabad-Russia which will not fool anyone who is aware of what has really been going on. I am really disgusted by Yanover's dishonest reporting of this issue and his support for a Chabad effort that endangers the welfare of the Jews of Russia. Might it have something to do with Yanover's other job--as a paid employee of Chabad-Lubavitch?

Walter Ruby

September 23, 2005 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 23, 2005 2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rabbi Pam,
I don't even know if I can trust that you are actually a rabbi.

This is the first time I am posting to this blog. You want to know the reason why I haven't until now? It's because I'm afraid I'll be attacked by people like you. I've had to deal with enough in my life. I want a place I can say what's on my mind. I'm so sick and tired of being harassed by people like you. I am an incest survivor. My offender was my father. He is a rabbi. Do you know what it's like to be in my position? Who will people believe? Me or him? Does my voice matter? I think it does.

Rabbi Pam -- go away, we don't want you here. Go preach to your congregation all you want, but leave this blog alone. I call it home, and you are not invited.

September 23, 2005 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 24, 2005 9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 26, 2005 5:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like Rabbi Pam is one of the first/only professionals (counsleing abuse victims in the Jewish community) who have posted here. It is too bad that she was chased away.

September 29, 2005 11:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home