Randy's Corner Deli Library

Showing posts with label Anti-Semitism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-Semitism. Show all posts

19 February 2009

Is a Play About Gaza Anti-Semitic? Read the Script.

February 18, 2009, 2:00 pm

Is a Play About Gaza Anti-Semitic? Read the Script.

In Wednesday’s New York Times, Patrick Healy writes about the possibility that the New York Theater Workshop may present a production of a new play inspired by the recent war in Gaza. Some critics have charged that the 10-minute play, “Seven Jewish Children,” by British playwright Caryl Churchill, is anti-Semitic.

Ms. Churchill’s play is currently being performed at London’s Royal Court Theatre as a benefit for the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians. The Royal Court’s Web site allows readers to download the full text of the play and read it for themselves.

The headline of Jeffrey Goldberg’s blog post on the Atlantic’s Web site gives a pretty good idea of his take on the play: “The Royal Court Theatre’s Blood Libel.”

The Guardian’s theater critic, Michael Billington, thinks not.

Mr. Billington’s sympathetic review describes the context of the cryptic play and points to some of the lines from the script that have disturbed readers like Mr. Goldberg:

Caryl Churchill’s 10-minute play was written in response to the recent tragic events in Gaza. It not only confirms theatre’s ability to react more rapidly than any other art form to global politics, but also makes a fascinating counterpoise to Marius von Mayenburg’s The Stone, which precedes it at the Royal Court. Whereas The Stone shows how German children are often the victims of lies about family history, Churchill’s play suggests Israeli children are subject to a barrage of contradictory information about past and present.

The work consists of seven cryptic scenes in which parents, grandparents and relatives debate how much children should know and not know. It moves, implicitly, from the Holocaust to the foundation of the state of Israel through the sundry Middle East wars up to the invasion of Gaza. At first, the advice indicates the deep divisions within Israel (”Tell her they want to drive us into the sea” / “Tell her they don’t”); at the end, it becomes a ruthless justification for self-preservation (”Tell her we’re the iron fist now, tell her it’s the fog of war, tell her we won’t stop killing them till we’re safe”).

In The Times of London, Christopher Hart’s review of the play was far more critical:

A leaflet handed out before the show, inviting donations to Medical Aid for Palestinians, tells you how “brutal” Israel’s “invasion” of Gaza has been. “Bombardment”, “devastation”, “earthquake”: these are reassuring little signposts. Otherwise, you might worry that Churchill has written a play that considers both sides of the conflict. In seven one-minute acts, Israeli adults discuss what to “Tell her” — in each case, an imaginary young Israeli girl. About the Holocaust? Suicide bombings? About 1967? “Tell her not to be afraid” is a recurring and poignant refrain. This simple device could have been highly effective, but it’s ruined by the play’s ludicrous and utterly predictable lack of even-handedness.

We all agree, I think, that the scenes coming from Gaza are not good. But the enormously complex reasons for such horrors are not considered here. Instead, Churchill comes across like a very minor Old Testament prophet, bewailing the Wickedness of my people Israel (Jeremiah 7:12). And the final lines, delivered by an Israeli in full rant, about how the Palestinians are “animals”, how he wants to see their children “covered in blood”, are simply outrageous.

London’s Jewish Chronicle quoted Jonathan Hoffman, a vice chairman of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, who had seen the play and called it “a libelous and despicable demonisation of Israeli parents and grandparents which will only stoke the fires of anti-Semitism.” Mr. Hoffman also charged that the play “draws on several antisemitic stereotypes, from the blood libel through to the ‘chosen people’ trope.”

In The Saudi Gazette, Susannah Tarbush wrote that the play “succinctly dramatizes the tragedies and ironies of history for both sides” and builds to what she calls “a devastating final scene set during the Gaza onslaught.”


h/t to R'Menashe East

13 October 2008

Conspiracy theory faults Jews for Lehman Brothers' collapse

View from a booth: The Nazis live. Will this stuff NEVER die? How ridiculous is it that this crap gets passed around and worse, believed or, worse than that, works into the "low information listener's" unwitting conscience and accepted as part of normal and legitimate discourse. I'm sorry to put this here, but vigilance is a better part of valor.

Randy Shiner


Conspiracy theory faults Jews for Lehman Brothers' collapse
By Anshel Pfeffer
Tags: Wall Street, Lehman Brothers

A new anti-Semitic conspiracy theory has been spreading online over the last few days, claiming that on the eve of Lehman Brothers' collapse last month, the firm transferred $400 billion to Israel.

The theory, which comes in the form of a news report, has already been distributed on dozens of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli sites. It alleges that senior Jewish officials at the Lehman Brothers investment bank passed their clients' money on to three Israeli banks, with the intention of then escaping to Israel to enjoy the take without fear of extradition.

Since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which was founded in the United States by Jewish immigrants from Germany in 1850, Web forums and comment pages have been flooded with anti-Semitic comments accusing Jews of causing the global economic crisis and branding them the greatest beneficiaries of the disaster. Such statements are especially common on clearly racist sites, but can also be found on more popular mainstream sites.
Advertisement

The Anti-Defamation League in the U.S. and other international bodies monitoring anti-Semitism have documented hundreds of such cases in the past two weeks.

A number of Islamic organizations, including Hamas in Gaza - which called the economic crisis America's punishment for its bad deeds - have joined the chorus and accused the Jewish lobby of causing the crisis.

But the allegation of the transfer of $400 billion of Lehman Brothers' cash to Israel is much more focused. The story making the rounds was written as if it were a news report from Washington, and has a byline of the "Voice of the White House." The story names three Israeli banks that allegedly received the money, explains in detail Israel's extradition laws and bank-secrecy act, and charges American law-enforcement authorities of having knowledge of the transfer. It also cites excerpts from a real story that appeared on the Bloomberg economic news service wire about estimated losses of $400 billion in the brokerage division of the investment bank.

The "story" first appeared a week ago on the Web site of Jeff Rense, a former journalist who has published numerous conspiracy theories involving Jews, Israel and the American administration.

Since then, it has been picked up and posted on dozens of sites and anti-Semitic blogs. Surfers who read it tried to copy it to more respectable forums and comment pages such as The Huffington Post in the U.S. and The Independent in Britain.

The conspiracy theory is reminiscent of past allegations about Jews, ranging from the czarist-era "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to the widely circulated libel that the Israeli Mossad knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and warned all of the complex's Jewish employees not to come to work that morning.

07 September 2008

Jewish anti-Semites I: Jews for Jesus

Jewish anti-Semitism, which should be logically impossible, nonetheless has a long tradition and is alive and well. It does not even have the decency to hide in Argentina. Here is the first of two egregious examples. 

Jews for Jesus seems on the surface to be a harmless enough sect of mystics and would-be dogooders. To many well meaning Christians, Jews for Jesus might seem to be a bridge between peoples. To religious 
Jews, their theology is anathema and their name is an oxymoron. There can no more be "Jews for Jesus" in the Jewish religion than there could be Christians for Muhammad. But religious differences should always be settled amicably. Religion is supposed to provide a path to decency and civilized behavior. The religion that resorts to violence to "prove" that it is better has in fact proved that it is worse. 

There is not much can do or say to change the beliefs of others in a free society, and as I respect the beliefs of most religious people unless they threaten my own freedom, I respected the beliefs of Jews for Jesus. I was appalled to learn of Jewish violence 
against Jews for Jesus disciples living in Ariel. Violence and decent religion should not mix. When they do, the result is always something likeAl Qaeda

But there is a sad logic that seems to dictate that those who stray from Judaism feel compelled to become enemies of the Jewish people. Election campaigns drag up a lot of detritus. Money and effort are spent illuminating the dust in many corners that would otherwise be hidden. Along with much flotsam about the sex habits of candidates and their family members, the US presidential election dragged up the the ugly truth about Jews for Jesus. Enterprising campaign enthusiasts 
found that the head of Jews for Jesus, David Brickner, insists that terrorism is God's way of punishing the Jews for rejecting the Messiah. That was bad enough. But other than the fact that the source was a former Jew, it was not very much worse than the claim of Pastor John Hagee that Hitler was God's way of getting the Jews to Israel. 

Unlike Hagee, however, who was probably just guilty of poor judgment and moral bankruptcy, Brickner proved himself to be a genuine anti-Semite. His conversion was complete so to speak. He felt compelled to repeat the anti-Semitic Shibboleth that that Jews are intractably rebellious and hence cursed. Of course, if Brickner had not been intractably rebellious and revolting as well, he would not have betrayed his people. He is a pretty revolting guy, representing a revolting philosophy. 

It is remarkable, that no sooner did he adopt belief in Jesus as savior, that Brickner had to become an anti-Semite. Jewish converts and their descendants have been betrayers of our people since Torquemada led the Spanish 
Inquisition. Like Hagee's theodicy, Brickner's notion runs into a logical problem, since the terror attacks of 9/11 2001 in the United States and those of 7/7 2005 in England were not committed against Jews. Most terror attacks in fact, have killed Muslims, so perhaps God is really trying to punish them. Or more likely, Hagee and Brickner are the result of God's judgment against all of us for suffering fools and knaves under the heading of "religious tolerance." 

Brickner has proven that in practical terms, in terms of loyalty to the Jewish people as well as the Jewish faith, there can be no such thing as "Jews for Jesus." Practical consequences seem to follow from theological reasoning. Perhaps therefore, as he is not a Jew any more, and is not "really a Jewish anti-Semite. My next example will be harder to dismiss in that way. 

Brickner and Jews for Jesus have obviously been spreading this stuff for years. Had it not been for the US Presidential election, and the fact that Brickner happened to deliver his poisonous sermon at Governor Palin's Church, and the fact that Governor Palin is the Republican nominee for U.S. vice president, we would never have known about it. Political partisans will make an issue out of whether or not Governor Palin knew anything about Brickner or approves of his ideas, all of which is totally besides the point. Now we all know about Jews for Jesus and everyone who does not speak out against this evil, and educate against it, and confront this group with the consequences of their own hateful philosophy, is complicit in it. 



Ami Isseroff
Original content is Copyright by the author 2008. Posted at ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Loghttp://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000598.htmlwhere your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Disributed by ZNN list. Subscribe by sending a message to ZNN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by e-mail with this notice, cite this article and link to it. Other uses by permission only

__._,_.___
=========================================================================
ZNN  - Zionism News Network - is for distribution of information about Zionism, Israel, Israeli and Zionist history, Israel advocacy and anti-Semitism and telling people about your Web site or activist issues. 
   
Please do forward posts from this list by email with all list information and URLs to publicize ZNN and Zionist Web sites. 

Your submissions are most welcome and will be posted in accordance with list guidelines. 
To join send an email to 
ZNN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
Contents are the responsibility of the posters.

Visit these Web sites: 
  
http://www.zionism-israel.com 
  
http://www.zionismontheweb.org 
  
http://www.zionism.netfirms.com

==============================

04 August 2008

Aux barricades! France and the Jews

View from a booth on a relatively hot summer day in San Diego:

I don't see conspiracies everywhere I look. Honest I don't. But this was either a foolish mistake on the part of Phillipe Val, the editor of Charlie Hebdo, or it was done with the intent to draw comparisons to the publication of the cartoons poking "fun" at Mohammed in the Danish papers that sparked rioting amongst some of Europe's Muslims. It seems to me that it would have been a wiser idea, if M. Val was so concerned about offending Jewish Frenchmen, he could have gone to the Consistoire du Juifs Francaise and asked them what they thought (very privately, of course) and then made his decision. Instead, he took it upon himself to condemn M. Siné and thusly touched off a debate of "who is it better to insult, Jews or Muslims?" This is not a discussion that anyone wants to or should have to have. The fact that the offensiveness comes from a 79 year old alta kocker tells me that this should have been left alone and for the French public to see the stench of Jew-hate in all its glory, free of politically correct condemnations from intellectuals outraged - shocked!, shocked! at the very notion that - gasp! anti-semitism is alive and well and living in the body of M. Sine, who undoubtedly hold Muslims in the same esteem as he does Jews, which is to say not very high at all. Meanwhile, Sarkozy fils will be marrying quite well, merci beaucoup, will rise politically, and M. Siné will drift into nothingness, which is where he belongs.

Randy Shiner





Aux barricades! France and the Jews
A columnist-cartoonist’s comment about President Nicolas Sarkozy’s son and his Jewish fiancée has stirred a French intellectual storm.

REUTERS

Jean, son of Sarkozy, is engaged to a Jewish heiress.It’s not quite the Dreyfus Affair, at least not yet. But France is divided again over power and the Jews.

While the United States has been debating The New Yorker’s caricature of Barack Obama as a Muslim, France has gone off the deep end over a brief item in the country’s leading satirical magazine portraying the relationship between President Nicolas Sarkozy’s fast-rising son, Jean, and his Jewish fiancée.

The offending piece in Charlie Hebdo, a pillar of the left-libertarian media establishment, was penned last month by a 79-year-old columnist-cartoonist who goes by the name of Bob Siné. He described the plans — since denied — of Jean Sarkozy, 21, to convert to Judaism before marrying Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, an heiress to the fortune of the Darty electrical goods retailing chain.

“He’ll go far in life, this little fellow!” Siné wrote of Sarkozy Jr.
He added, in a separate item on whether Muslims should abandon their traditions, that: “Honestly, between a Muslim in a chador and a shaved Jewess, my choice is made!”

Nobody paid attention for a week: Siné is a notorious provocateur whose strong pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist views have in the past crossed the line into anti-Semitism. I’d say he’s far from alone in that among a certain French left.

But this is the summer, news is slow, and since a journalist at the weekly Le Nouvel Observateur denounced the article as “anti-Semitic” on July 8, France has worked itself into a fit of high intellectual dudgeon.

The storm is gusting at high velocity, but I’ll try to take things in order. Philippe Val, the editor of Charlie Hebdo, requested an apology from Siné, to which the veteran “chroniqueur” replied, with some brio it must be said, that he would much rather cut off his testicles.

That did it for Val, who promptly fired Siné, who shot back by bringing legal action against the paper for “defamation.”

In the land of Dreyfusards and anti-Dreyfusards, the stage was now set for a great French drama, Internet-powered this time. The country, its blogs in overdrive, has split between defenders of the ousted Siné in the name of free speech and supporters of Val in the name of barring anti-Semitic hate speech.

Plantu, perhaps the country’s best-known cartoonist, has rallied to Siné’s defense by portraying the editor, Val, as a jack-booted Nazi and calling Charlie Hebdo “the paper where everything is allowed — even firing a cartoonist!”

Several political bloggers have asked why Val, in the name of free speech and solidarity with a Danish newspaper under fire, bravely republished cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, but drew the line at Siné’s caricaturing of the purported relationship between Jews, money and an opportunistic young Sarkozy with a nascent political career in the department of Hauts-de-Seine, near Paris.

On the other side, in a statement in Le Monde called “For Philippe Val and a Few Principles,” a panoply of intellectuals including Elie Wiesel, Claude Lanzmann, Robert Badinter and Bernard-Henri Lévy declared that “once again, once too often, Siné has crossed the line between humor and insult, caricature and hatred.”

Lévy, in an eloquent front-page commentary in the same newspaper, drew out the ugly French history — from 19th-century anti-Semitic tracts about money-grubbing Jews through the Dreyfus affair to innuendo about President Sarkozy’s partly Jewish heritage — that, in his view, makes Siné poisonous to the point of unacceptability.

“We have not made too much of the ‘Siné Affair,’ ” Levy concluded. He compared it to Michel Foucault’s “secretion of time” — a small thing that condenses “the spirit and malaise of an epoch.”

I don’t agree with Lévy. I think too much has been made of Siné and his feeble attempts at humor and that firing him risks stirring, rather than assuaging, what remains of French anti-Semitism.

Let’s be clear on three things. Siné clearly nurses some vile views about Jews. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as refracted in France through a growing Muslim population and virulent anti-Zionism among leftists, has produced new forms of anti-Semitism. There are murmurings in a Catholic Right French establishment about Sarkozy’s rise and the Jewish backgrounds of several people close to him.

These are not, however, sufficient reasons for turning Siné into a martyr by making too much of his bad joke. I’m with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who wrote in 1919 that: “I think we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.”

I know, American First Amendment freedoms are distinct from French practice. Here, for example, denying the Holocaust is a crime. But I remain a free-speech absolutist. In that spirit, I defended the publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Curtailing speech is generally far more dangerous than allowing even vile views to be aired, not least by a cantankerous has-been like Siné.
URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,569840,00.html

02 July 2008

No Fear : Meanderings of A Conundrum

No Fear: Meanderings of A Conundrum


I read an article on the "crisis" in Israel over the existence, as though they were rats or a virus, of so-called "Messianic Jews" and their "new techniques", as if its author were writing a guide for a trade show for sadomasochists. Its title: "Evangelizing the Jews: The New Techniques".

At first blush, shock. Then a hint of rage that they would dare ***t where I eat. Then I paused, no, stopped immediately, and I thought about Israel and her place in the world. If Israel is the Jewish nation, then we have absolutely nothing to worry about. It is quite easy to, as my mother used to say, react rather than respond. A reaction would be to, as some are suggesting in Israel, round the missionary "Jews" up and cart them en masse to the nearest international border (Which could be Gaza. Perhaps they can get the Muslims to convert to a Jewish-themed Christianity. That will blow the mind of any die-hard jihadist, especially if they then consider my hilarious conclusion).

Is this how we Jews treat other people? Do not respond "is this how they treat US?!". Lose the indignation. We are not judged, as Jews, on how others treat US, but rather how WE treat others. Recall Rav Hillel's admonishment to the one-legged potential convert who asked to know what the Torah stood for: "What you dislike, do not do to your friend. That is the basis of the Torah. The rest is commentary; go and learn!" Then, as the story goes,


Another gentile who accepted only the Written Torah, came to convert. Shammai refused, so he went to Hillel. The first day, Hillel taught him the correct order of the Hebrew Alphabet. The next day he reversed the letters. The convert was confused:"But yesterday you said the opposite!?" Said Hillel: "You now see that the Written Word alone is insufficient. We need the Oral Tradition to explain G-d's Word." A third gentile wanted to convert so he could become the High Priest, and wear the Priestly garments. Shammai said no, but Hillel accepted him. After studying, he, the convert, realized that even David, the King of Israel, did not qualify as a cohen, not being a descendant of Aaron.


So, gentle reader, just what will "we" do? And by "we" I mean the government of the State of Israel, home of the Jews, not just Israelis. (As if I, an American, could have the audacity to think that I could actually do something.) We have to deal with the matter in a Jewish, Zionistic way. And I put the "Jewish" before the "Zionistic" intentionally. That is what I relate to more deeply than the artificial construct that is Israel.

It seems to me that if I had the levers to a Jewish political state, complete with an advanced and advancing military, I would be very, very careful about what decision I would make and when I took it. I would get experts to see what exactly the damage is that is now being caused, allegedly, by the presence of missionaries in and to the State of Israel. And I would find the oldest study I could and see what the long term effects exactly were, over time, of the missionary "Jews'" activities. This would serve the purpose of quantifying the societal impact -- not just in the Haredi areas of the country -- of the missionary "Jews'" activities. Israel, being Jewish, cannot be associated in any way with racism or, for that matter, restrictions that are based solely on beliefs. And based on the research and facts, I would craft a policy on this issue for the Jewish National homeland.

Given the notion that I have expressed before that Judaism without a religion ceases to exist, the State of Israel has a rational interest in seeing that the idea of Judaism is not inconsistent with antiracialism and against prejudice based on someone's beliefs. Entirely. As the home of the Jews, this becomes, in common parlance, a national security issue.

For the State of Israel, the most reasonable Jewish National thing to do is to set quotas on the number of "Messianic Jews" who, like Egyptians, are let into the country, but who are also accounted for, by and large, with the occasional terrorist slipping through, reminding us that hope is more powerful than man. And I am not speaking of a miniscule number. I am for open borders to some extent, though it's a good idea to keep criminals and such out.

If Judaism is in such fear of collapsing under the alleged weight of Christianity that we Jews could even contemplate for a second the mass roundup of people for their "race" or for what they believe, then there is no hope for Judaism. We will have become our own worst enemy: it is an admission that Judaism is lost. But it is not. Far from it. From a purely Darwinist perspective, nevermind concepts like fate or God, we will get what we deserve.

For me, being Jewish is a no-brainer. I was born into it. Where I am today religiously, like all of us to some extent or other, is a mash-up of all that we are: the nature as well as the nurture. I just do not understand any religion that asks its members to believe what Christianity asks them to.

First, it asks its adherents to -- and this is important because this is what saves Judaism -- believe in God. For an intelligent person, this alone is a major obstacle.

Second, it asks you to believe a whole lot of stuff that anyone with a reasonably functional brain that knows is demonstrably impossible. Mortal men and women (and those are the only ones I know) cannot come back from the dead, except in George Romero films. Humans do not, trust me on this, get pregnant via a "divine spirit" that is not attached to the end of the male sex organ. It does not happen.

In Judaism, it is idolatry -- and this is the third and biggest article of Christian impossibility for me: to think of a man (or a porcupine) as a God. Yet this is what Missionary Christians -- "Messianic Jews" -- ask us to believe. As Jews, we don't need Jesus to talk to God. (and just so my position is consistent, neither do we need Allah or Buddha or any other allegedly divine person to do so) We do not require a middle-man. The concept of God is difficult enough to grapple with. In Judaism, God has no form. He cannot be conclusively disproved in conception or execution. The mystery remains forever for Jews, until the Moshiach does figure out that she should show up.

(If, according to Evangelical Christian theology as espounsed by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and their ilk are correct, there is a male Jew walking around out here - and for all I know it could be me - who is the "Anti-Christ". So by induction, I conclude that if I am the Anti-Christ, then the Moshiach must be a woman. It could prove true that even if I am not the Anti-Christ, the moshiach could still be a .... nevermind. I'll report back after I've conclusively figured that detail out.)

It's true that I spent the seventh and eighth grades at the Hardey Preparatory School for Boys (the boys' school affiliated with the Order of the Sacred Heart, a French Catholic Order) so my brain is a little more used to contradiction than perhaps someone else might be who had a more or less religiously consistent upbringing. I spent my time at Hardey Prep in kind of a birthright ceremony, as if every day I had to go and feel and know that I was different. The ceremony included getting called "kike", "Christ Killer" and the rest. I got into the only fistfight I ever started when Joe called me "kike" and I could not walk away as I had before. But that was one guy: and looking back, he probably, in eighth grade, didn't have an idea of the impact of his words or of words generally upon another person. Maybe the shiner I delivered got him to see my point regardless. Maybe the guy is still a putz who I'd hit again if forced to.

But it is also true that I learned Leviticus with Sister Margaret Mary Munch for my Bar Mitzvah during the latter part of 1972 and well into 1973. When the other kids went to learn Catholic Doctrine, I was in the science lab with Sister Munch, learning Leviticus. The words my mother told me before she laid the news on my sister and I that we would not - not -- be attending the quite Orthodox Ida Crown Jewish Academy -- still stick in my mind. "Just remember that the guy up on the cross is Jewish". My mother would not be a hypocrite. She could have, however, learned a little more about moderation in passing on Judaism. There are ways, and, well, then there are ways.

The quite Orthodox family of my father must have been in utter horror at the knowledge that a Shiner son (alas, I was, before my son's birth, the only male descendant of one Mandel Shiner) was attending a Catholic school. I would have been as equally horrified today, but knowing my mother, it appears she knew exactly what she was doing on a long term basis, though perhaps, knowing her, I give her too much credit.

I did not get proselytized even once there. That's not part of the Catholic thing. It was mostly fear, guilt and mystery that enshrouded me -- I think it was the Scheninah responsible for the latter -- in the halls of a very dark, very wooden school. I was treated mainly with respect, apart from the (at least to my mother) "obviously anti-Semitic" football coach who would not put her son in the game. She did not accept that I wasn't that good. At football. Far from retreating into Christianity, I was kicked out of it like a picnic table in a hurricane.

But just as we are not to be judged on the basis of how others treat us, but rather how we treat others, it seems to me that if we look at the problem in a really Jewish way, we will laugh at Christians who have to get dressed up like (they envision) Jews, with all the familiar trappings - Ark, Torah (they are available for purchase), the whole megillahs - Esther and Ruth, and Chumashim straight from Artscroll Publishers, the last word in dogmatic Orthodoxy, after we ask ourselves the following question: Isn't it the Evangelicals that are on their way to Judaism, rather than the Jews on their way to becoming believers in a religion that offers its people instant salvation if only you give your soul to Jesus, a man?

I have not yet done the statistical research on this, but I did read an interesting item the other day which cited some statistics in this regard: after 25 or 30 years (i.e., from sometime in the 1970s) something like 70% of the "Messianic Jews" actually DO go on to get Orthodox conversions and lose the notion of Jesus. That statistic bolsters the notion that nobody needs to be afraid of anything as long as it is handled in a Jewish way. If a Jew is going to convert, he's going to convert. And that's just the way it is, to a point, which is why I think some reasonable restrictions as a matter of Jewish National policy given that Israel is the only place on earth that a Jew can go and feel safe, at least most of the time, considering that history will be repeated if not learned from and that while six million died in the Shoah, records were made to be broken. In the final analysis, there are far worse enemies for Israel and Jews than those that are already 3/4 the way to being Jews in the first place.





Randy Shiner