Wednesday, June 19, 2013

MK Dov Lipman demands apology from Jonathan Rosenblum for 15 falsehoods

Update (June 20, 2013)  Jonathan Rosenblum just issued - An apology and rebuttal
 Times of Israel   Prior to my election to the 19th Knesset, I devoted time to writing books and columns. Since taking office, my time is consumed fulfilling my responsibilities as a member of the Knesset, and I no longer have the additional time to write.

Many people ask why I have not responded to the many negative articles and columns written about me in American Jewish media outlets. I must admit that I pay little attention to them. Now, however, a red line of falsehood, inaccuracy and distortion has been crossed, and therefore I am compelled to respond.

Someone forwarded a link to a column written about me by prolific charedi columnist Jonathan Rosenblum – a column replete with falsehoods. I will begin my response by addressing the most glaring inaccuracy.Mr. Rosenblum wrote: “In a widely circulated video last year, Lipman is seen leading a woman whose attire guaranteed to provoke an angry response past a shul in the ‘Yerushalmi’ neighborhood of Ramat Bet Shemesh.”

False. Here are the facts: There was no shul, there was no woman dressed provocatively, and there was no Yerushalmi neighborhood. Mr. Rosenblum is revisiting an incident which occurred nearly two years ago, and he has chosen to believe hearsay and to rewrite history. Here is what actually happened:
As the video shows, dozens of extremists were blocking the sidewalk near a religious girls’ school on a main thoroughfare in Beit Shemesh, in an attempt to intimidate young religious girls on their way home from school with chants of “prutzah,” “shiktzah” and more.

I was at the school in order to help guarantee the safety of the girls, and requested that the police clear the extremists off the sidewalk. The police chose not to get involved. I then asked a religious woman standing nearby to walk with me towards the extremists, in order to ensure that the girls could walk through safely. It was important that a woman be there to hold the girls’ hands, or give them a hug as they walked through the threatening crowd of hostile men.

As we approached the mob, they began screaming at me, including blatant threats on my life. [...]

Jonathan Rosenblum represents the Torah world, and wrote this particular piece in Yated Neeman, a newspaper which is governed by the Torah giants of our time. Thus, I hope Rosenblum has the courage to correct these falsehoods and apologize. Whether he does or not will say a lot about him, but I am satisfied that all readers now have been presented with the facts. I also hope that readers understand that while I would never initiate such harsh discourse, I had to address this misleading column in order to correct the inaccuracies regarding the work I have done in the past, and the work I will continue to do, with G-d’s help, as part of the Yesh Atid party in the Knesset.

30 comments :

  1. As Stalin said, when it comes to lesheim shamayim you need to break eggs to make an omelette.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Provocative dress does not have to be sexually alluring. A fat 50-year-old man wearing an "Abortion is Murder" tee shirt at a pro-choice rally is provocatively dressed. A woman whose hair and arms are not covered according to halacha, as we see in the video, is also not provocatively dressed for a trip to the supermarket but to approach a group of chassidishe zealots who are fired up about tznius in such attire is bound to provoke hostility. That provocation is Rabbi Lipman's provocation and not the woman's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have it backwards, Moshe. It was not a provocation by Lipman or the woman. The chareidi mob of men who were out there threatening and terrorizing children were the provocateurs. This terrorist chareidi mob was also throwing rocks, rotten eggs and feces. Lipman and others (myself included) were there to protect children because "daas torah" was too weak or scared to even bother to denounce it.
      ... But don't let that facts or reality interfere with your preconceived notion of Lipman.

      Delete
    2. Right, because standing on the street screaming "shiksa!" at 5 year old girls while secretly being sexually turned on by their uncovered ankles is Torah true behaviour.

      Delete
    3. When a woman walks the street in modest dress YET not up to par for a certain kehilla, that is not called PROVOCATIVE. I have been in this area often, it is not solely a Yerushalaymi area

      Delete
    4. Uncovered hair and arms is halacha for every kehilla. It is like eating pork.
      10,000 chareidi provocateurs do not make Rabbi Rosenblum's accusation any less true.

      Delete
    5. Don't forget that the raging mob of chassidim were surely doing many more avieros than uncovering hair in public or eating pork. I am waiting for Rabbi Rosenblum to apologize for 14 falsehoods.

      Delete
    6. The Shomer Emunim Rebbe told me that a person can't be a kanoi if he enjoys doing it. The chareidi "defenders of the faith" are doing it for fun - as is testified by the Toldos Ahron Rebbe.

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2008/07/renegade-kanoim-denunciation-of-toldos.html

      BTW please provide a source that you can spit on someone who has uncovered hair or arms?

      Delete
    7. but to approach a group of chassidishe zealots who are fired up about tznius in such attire is bound to provoke hostility.

      i wonder how these guys manage to get through the day without loosing it. i mean, they go to the store, get on buses (non-mehadrin ones also), the post office, government offices and they must see women who are not dressed according to their standards or even according to the most meiqil shittot. how do these "fired up about tzius" fellows control themselves?

      Delete
    8. are they fired up about other mitzvot as well? i mean, if someone in the qehilla were to be found cheating in business, would they go after him with the same enthusiasm? what if someone were to walk in their neighborhood eating fish and cheese sandwich? or if there was someone speaking loshen harah, that's it, the spitting starts?

      Delete
    9. Rabbi Eidensohn, who are you asking for a "source that you can spit on someone who has uncovered hair or arms"? I don't see any comment on this page condoning any spitting on anyone or anything any chossid did in in the video.

      Delete
    10. i wonder how these guys manage to get through the day without loosing it. i mean, they go to the store,
      With separate lines(or possibly separate hours) for men and women.
      get on buses (non-mehadrin ones also),
      The real zealots don't. I'm talking even the one's who think the screaming and spitting type are out there. They'll walk a half hour to go to a mehadrin line where they won't have to see women.
      the post office,
      In their neighborhoods. Or they send their wives.

      government offices
      Only if they have no other choice. And then they complain about going and say how you can "see the sin in their eyes."

      and they must see women who are not dressed according to their standards or even according to the most meiqil shittot. how do these "fired up about tzius" fellows control themselves?
      No. They will walk the most round about circuitous route in order to not see a secular woman, or even a less religious woman. I know guys who won't even walk along Malkei Yisrael street in Geula because they don't want to see women who aren't dressed to their standards. Like I said, this isn't even the screaming spitting crowd.

      Delete
    11. they can take the 418 to jerusalem but if they have to get to talpiot, then what? they walk there, drop 40 shekels on a cab? what do they do when they fly? i have friends in NY who tell me that RBS Bet guys come there all the time (to schnorr). tower's mehadrin flights are long gone. and when a woman jogger goes NEAR their neighborhood?

      anyway i have no problem with and even say kol hakavod to someone who takes so many steps to avoid situations which they consider problematic. my problem with the the guys who get hostile.

      Delete
    12. Being provocative does not mean doing anything that upsets people. My existence might irritate people but I am not being provocative for existing. (I would be provocative if I insisted in standing in front of a person who didn't like me - solely in order to irritate him.) Likewise a woman who is walking on the streets of her community for the purpose of taking her children to school or shopping - is not being provocative if her standards of dress are normative for her community - but might upset people from another community. Deliberately wearing clothing that is inappropriate for a particular neighborhood - is being provocative.


      "Mr. Rosenblum wrote: “In a widely circulated video last year, Lipman is seen leading a woman whose attire guaranteed to provoke an angry response past a shul in the ‘Yerushalmi’ neighborhood of Ramat Bet Shemesh.”"

      He is not just claiming that the dress would be provoking - but that it was "guaranteed to provoke an angry response". Furthermore he is claiming that the women entered into the territory of the zealots "In the Yerushalmi neighborhood". In other words the women were harrassing the zealots by doing waling while dressed in a way that they knew would cause upset and they went out of their way by entering into the territory of the zealots in order to upset them. That is Rosenblum's claim.

      MK Lipman says that this assertion is false. "There was no shul, there was no woman dressed provocatively, and there was no Yerushalmi neighborhood."
      "As the video shows, dozens of extremists were blocking the sidewalk near a religious girls’ school on a main thoroughfare in Beit Shemesh, in an attempt to intimidate young religious girls on their way home from school with chants of “prutzah,” “shiktzah” and more."

      In other words the zealots were provoking themselves by causing an unnecssary confrontation with people who sole concern in walking was to get their children from school.

      It is being provocative only when the upset is being deliberately provocked. If some idiot frummy insists are sitting on a bus next to a woman and then screams at her that she is being provactive because of where she is sitting - he is wrong.

      Only if she got on the bus with the express purpose of finding a frummy to sit next to - knowing that it would upset him - only then is it called being provocative.

      MK Lipman is not being provocative i.e., harrassing - when he helps a mother take her kids to school. He is concerned about preventing harm to the mother - he is not interested in disturbing the frummy.

      Your comment is perceived as justifying the activity of the zealots by saying that they were being provocative when the frummies attacked them. You are justifying their behavior by blaming the victim by saying they were provocative. My comments is that even if the zealots were being provoked there is not justification for the stupid behavior displayed and surely when the women had everything right to walk where they were. That is why I asked for a source.

      Now you explain that you are are not justifying the behavior of the zealots - but just saying that Lipman's claim is wrong. It is clear that Lipman is correct in his assertion and that it is Rosenblum who is making a false claim.

      Delete
    13. the point is moot Jonathan Rosenblum just apologized for this one point

      http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/06/20/an-apology-and-a-rebuttal-to-mk-rabbi-dov-lipman/

      Delete
  3. החפץ חיים כותב שיש שבעה תנאים שרק כשמתקיימים כולם מותר לומר לשון הרע לתועלת (אחד מהם הוא הכוונה הטובה שהוזכרה לעיל). נתמקד בעיקר בפרט הרביעי:
    פְּרַט הָרְבִיעִי. בְּיוֹתֵר יִזָּהֵר, עַל כָּל פָּנִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כָּל הַסִּפּוּר אֱמֶת, בְּלִי תַּעֲרֹבֶת שֶׁקֶר, וְשֶׁלֹּא לְגַזֵּם הָעִנְיָן יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁהוּא..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about מפרסמין החנפים?

      Delete
    2. You are referring to Rashi's pshat in that gemara (Yoma 87b, I think). The Chofetz Chaim doesn't bring it down. The Rambam doesn't mention it either.

      Delete
    3. The Chofetz Chaim brings it down in clal 4 seif 7.

      Delete
    4. I stand corrected.

      Delete
    5. given that even rosenblum has admitted that he made mistakes in his article, tzoorba's post is irrelevant (he is defending a client who pleaded guilty)

      Delete
  4. Get the facts straightJune 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    It pains and angers me to see Laymore's comment. I live in Beit Shemesh (and am Charedi). This woman was walking TO HER HOME FROM HER DAUGHTER'S SCHOOL. It is NOT a Yerushalmi neighborhood (i.e. Ramat Beit Shemesh B, or even the Kiryah Charedit). Does she need to cross the street in her own neighborhood. Sickness!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The woman is not the issue. The issue is Rabbi Rosenblum's statement that her dress was provocative in that situation. This entire post is about Rabbi Rosenblum's accusations. pro-choice people have a right to go where they want to but to approach a group of pro-choice provocateurs (if such a thing exists) wearing the above mentioned tee shirt is a provocation.

      Delete
  5. I see some of his 'explanations' as justifications or clarifications. If you say that you are working on a compromise regarding gay marriage (not that I can think of any compromise which is not total capitulation by one side or anther), it does not mean that a claim that you have joined with people who are pushing for this disgrace is false. It means that 'you' have a cheshbon that others may not know about. So even Lipman's claims that JR made 15 false claims is false.
    But I will reiterate what I have said in the past - Lipman is an American. He has zero understanding of the Charedi world in Israel. It is pure hubris that he thinks that he can decide what is best for that world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor Rav Lipman. He's forgotten the 614th and 615th mitzos:
      1) Thou shalt not contradict the Chareidi leadership's party line. All the mitzvos you do, all the cheseds you perform, all the Torah you learn, even the outfit you wear, won't save you from the fires of Gehinnom.
      2) Having Daas Torah means never having to say sorry.

      Delete
    2. YEHUDA, the Charedi world of Eretz Yisroel changes yearly. It is not the same CHaredi world of the 1990s or early 2000. With the influx of many many Charedi olim to Eretz Yisroel the dynamics are constantly changing. Meah Shearim or Hungarian Chassidim is NOT and has never been the calling card of Charedi life. Get used to the facts on the ground!!

      Delete
  6. Oh. Oh. How proud, oh how proud, be the Rabbi.
    Oh. Oh How proud, oh how proud, be Julius.

    Wonder if Horav Shternbuch knows or approves of you quoting 'Der Groise M'nuvel'
    in your articles, especially when you berate rabbis and their leadership.

    We know your reply. Just pointing it out once again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are just a nebech who has his nose pressed against the window looking in and wondering what adults do with their lives. You have no clue.

      Rav Sternbuch requested that I give him my posts and he reads them. Why don't you find yourself a rav who can provide guidance for you to do something than spend time on the internet making nasty comments. You keep making the same nonsensical assertions - as if you know - when you are simply a pitiful creature full of jealousy and hatred.

      You might enjoy reading my encounter with three other nebachs

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/12/3-belzers-blogger-trying-to-understand.html

      Delete
  7. The GREAT TRAGEDY here is that his response will not be featured and vigorously debated on the very sites that raced to post the Rosenblum article in the first place. The intellectual dishonesty makes me embarrassed of my Chareidi membership. It's maddening when the NYT and the liberal media act this way, but when it's us, it hurts much more.

    Potential corrections and clarifications are not the only thing lost in an environment that stifles debate. Even before the author pens his article he knows if he will be loose with the facts he will get away with it. That can lead him to not bother with proper research at the very least, or worse, to deliberately bend the facts.

    [In the past two weeks there have been two monumental letters that have been totally buried. Nobody got to see the Belsky letter to the RCA, or the letter from R' Dovid Epstein.]

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.