September 30, 2005
Anti-Israel Problems At U.N. Unimproved
Perspective and context are needed to fully assess Israel’s stature in the United Nations system. A September 16 editorial shortchanges both by taking an unwarranted swipe at our television ad on the U.N. and Israel (“UNimproved”). The nuanced ad was aimed primarily at the unique gathering of more than 170 world leaders in New York for the U.N. World Summit — to remind them that out of 191 U.N. member states, only Israel is denied the full benefits and respect of membership.
True, there have been several encouraging developments, which you cited in your editorial, and we also have welcomed. But the core issues affecting the treatment of Israel at the U.N. sadly remain.
Yes, in 2000 Israel became a temporary member of the West European and Others Group, an accomplishment that in fact was due largely to the efforts of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. They credited a series of our full-page newspaper ads in The New York Times for helping wake up the European member states to the injustice of excluding Israel from any chance of serving on the U.N. Security Council and other major bodies. But membership in the West European and Others Group, which is temporary and conditional, applies only to the U.N. in New York. Efforts to get Israel admitted to the regional group in other U.N. cities such as Geneva and Nairobi, Kenya, have been stymied.
Furthermore, the U.N. administrative structure that has evolved with the support of most member states provides for systemic, round-the-clock promotion of the Palestinian cause. The Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians, and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People, are key U.N.-funded entities that divert precious resources, while reinforcing hostility toward Israel and hindering progress toward peace.
Moreover, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which convenes annually in Geneva, divides the world in two. Israel, presumed “guilty,” is handled under a separate agenda item, while the other 190 member states are combined under another, single agenda item, underscoring once again the unfair treatment of Israel.
The American Jewish Committee has been actively involved in the world body from its founding 60 years ago. We support efforts to reform the U.N. system out of concern for its moral integrity and its future. Yet whatever reform is eventually achieved will fall short unless U.N. members agree to desist from treating one member state completely different from the other 190.
David A. Harris
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee
New York, N.Y.
Troubles Female Comics Face on Circuit a Joke
I appreciate the difficulties women face on the comedy circuit, as described by Catie Lazarus in a September 9 Fast Forward article (“Paying Homage to Comedy’s Matriarchs”). However I firmly believe that funny is funny, whether you’re male or female.
I am a 45-year-old Jewish housewife and stand-up comic. I write my own material and never hide the fact that I’m Jewish. In fact, I make jokes all the time about being a Jewish mother and include humor about my family in every show, even if there are no Jews in the audience. Like the matriarchs Belle Barth and Joan Rivers, I’m also bawdy but coming across as a “Jewish mother” makes the material even funnier.
I book a comedy show once a month, and every show since March has been a complete sellout. In fact, I’ve been referred to as “the funny Jewish woman” when people can’t remember my name. Personally, I’ll take that as a compliment.
Jewish comedy and humor has always been irreverent, as all good comedy should be — whether performed by a Jew or gentile. In fact, it was George Carlin who said, “A good comic should find the line — then deliberately cross it.”
I use this advice all the time. The only difference is, I’m a Jewish mother, so I look both ways before I cross.
Linda Belt
West Hartford, Conn.
Represent Real Position Of Former Rabbi, Torah
A September 23 article on Alan Stadtmauer showed many sides to the issue of gays within the Modern Orthodox world, but it unfairly misrepresented the former rabbi’s position (“Ex-Yeshiva Head Outs Himself, Leaves Fold”). I am one of his former students, and a close friend with whom he felt comfortable coming out to. In light of that, it troubles me to see the lack of sensitivity coming from the fellow members of my school and overall religious community.
The students quoted in the article who were bothered and surprised at Stadtmauer’s leaving have not internalized his decision. Imagine being gay, but still loving a religion that informs you that God, who created you, finds your natural way of seeking love and affection an abomination, and something to be repressed. He held on to Judaism for as long as he could, but at some point he needed to free himself from the terrible contradiction our community placed him under. It is any surprise why someone would leave a religious community that says it loves him, yet forces him to suffer?
And for an alumnus of Flatbush to say that the Orthodox community supports all people in their uphill battles within the religion shows his or her blindness to the level of homophobia in the community. While most Modern Orthodox parents know their children have sexual relationships with each other — in ways clearly against the written word of the Torah — and turn a blind eye to it as an inevitable aspect of being a part of modern society, hardly any arms are open to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. The level of taboo is still high, as the newsworthiness of the article shows. There is nothing technically worse about homosexuality than premarital sex from a halachic perspective, yet the latter is quietly and privately accepted, while the former is still “surprising.”
A truly moral and sympathetic community would seek to understand the suffering of homosexuals in their midst and openly empathize with them, instead of holding them to a standard higher than they hold themselves and their loved ones.
Nachshon Rothstein
Riverdale, N.Y.
The Forward quotes Rabbi Dov Linzer, rabbinic dean at the Orthodox Yeshivat Chovevei Torah seminary, as saying that “while homosexual sex is prohibited by the Torah, synagogues should not judge homosexuals any more harshly than those who transgress rabbinic law in other ways.”
While it is not necessarily for us to judge who is a “severe” sinner and who is a “light” sinner, sometimes the answer is provided for us. The homosexual act is referred to as a “to’evah.” This is commonly translated as an “abomination,” but a more precise definition of the word is “distanced,” “rejected” or “repellent,” as in the prohibition against rejecting converts from certain nations, where a similar construct is used.
The homosexual act is one that is repellent to Hashem and distant from the order of nature that He created and commands us to observe (see Deuteronomy 23:8). One who engages in such an act as a lifestyle thus becomes a “to’evah,” a reject from a moral, civilized community — regardless of how friendly this person may be. The Torah is our moral compass, not artists in San Francisco or fashion designers in Paris.
Furthermore, the homosexual act is juxtaposed with offering one’s own children to molekh, which is most commonly defined as passing the child over or through an inferno as a sort of sacrifice. Surely if homosexuality were an accident of genetics or a relatively tame rabbinic law, the Torah would not mention it in the same breath as burning one’s children alive.
Regardless of how American and European society may view homosexuality, the Torah and its Author take a somewhat less magnanimous approach to it. If we don’t like it or fully understand it, if this approach is inconvenient for us at times, the problem is with us, not the Torah — and it is our views that must be altered, not those of the Torah, whose view could not be stated more clearly. I have great sympathy for those who struggle with homosexual urges, and do not claim to fully appreciate the challenges and shame that they face. Nevertheless, to argue that homosexuality is just another sin, rabbinic or otherwise, is a defilement of the sacred.
Chananya Weissman
Via e-mail
Orthodox Big in L.A.
A September 23 article on new pulpit rabbis in Los Angeles reports that “Orthodox synagogues are a much smaller slice of Los Angeles life” (“Next Generation Of Pulpit Rabbis Shakes Up L.A.”). As a member of an Orthodox synagogue in Los Angeles, I wonder to which “slice” the Forward refers.
Might it be attendance on any given Shabbat? No. How about involvement in synagogue activities, such as regularly scheduled classes or synagogue-associated projects? No. It’s none of those either — far more Orthodox activity there.
In fact, unless one counts paid membership, independent of any activity affiliated with the synagogue, then the “slice” currently occupied by the Orthodox would be rather substantial. Oh, and hold the pepperoni.
Manny Saltiel
Los Angeles, Calif.
A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.
If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
