Tuesday, April 23, 2019

A New Martyr

First, there was Sharansky. A true hero and martyr, the problem was that he was old news. And he wasn't especially frum. So then, the yeshivish community came up with a new martyr and hero: Shalom Rubashkin. And now, there's another one.

The Pesach edition of Hamodia has a feature story for the festival of freedom, "Bowed But Not Broken: Mr. William Rapfogel Shares His Journey Of Endurance And Growth Through The Prism Of Prison." For those who are unaware (such as readers of Hamodia, which never reported this story), Rapfogel was the CEO of the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty. In 2014 he was convicted for a grand larceny scheme over many years involving millions of dollars. Rapfogel conspired with an insurance company to have his organization pay inflated insurance premiums, for which he received cash kickbacks.

Now, first I must say that there is a world of difference between Rapfogel and Rubashkin. Rubashkin, in everything that he has ever written and said (except to the judge), never expressed any contrition. In contrast, Rapfogel says that he made mistakes, that he let people down, that he hurt people. Halevay that we should ever hear such words from Rubashkin.

On the other hand, Rapfogel claims that the only thing he did wrong was tax evasion and that he had nothing to do with the grand larceny scheme for which he pleaded guilty and was convicted. Now, personally, I don't understand why Hamodia expects us to believe this. According to the press reports, quoting the attorney general, Rapfogel was receiving cash kickbacks to the tune of approximately $30,000 a month, and they found $400,000 in cash in his various homes. In court, Rapfogel said “I knowingly stole more than $1M from the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty as part of a scheme in which insurance premiums were inflated.” I'm not sure why Hamodia sees fit to completely believe Rapfogel's current denial and not mention the crimes for which the courts convicted him. Furthermore, assuming that the court verdict was based on truth, he wasn't just doing tax evasion (which itself is a much more serious sin than the yeshivish community generally considers), but he was actually stealing millions of dollars from charity funds intended for the poor.

The general problem here is that yet again we have the charedi community making a martyr and hero out of a criminal. The narrative is all about how the Big Bad Goyim are out to get the Jews, and how this ties in to Zman Cheruseinu. It reinforces the message of the Rubashkin debacle, in which the responsibility for tzorres lies with the goyim, not with the brave, faithful Jews. The thing that needs to be done, says Rapfogel, is that the Jewish community needs to fight to change the law, such that people who are not actual murderers do not go to prison and should instead do community service. There is no mention of educating people to, y'know, not cheat and steal.

In the interview, Rapfogel complains about "the feeling of repugnance on the part of the community towards people who go to jail.... There's a real stigma when people come back; we need to fight that." Actually, I think it's fantastic that the Modern Orthodox community, of which Rapfogel is a member, generally has a social stigma against convicted criminals. If only such a stigma would exist among the Hamodia readership, then perhaps we would see less frum people in prison.

55 comments:

  1. Nathan, I don’t know how you can compare Rubashkin to this case. To the best of my knowledge Rubashkin broke federal and Labour laws, but never stole from people....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Undocumented) workers were maimed at Rubashkin owned properties owing to lax practices....he stole in the sense that he did not hire legitimate workers in some cases and underpaid those he did do gain a pecuniary advantage illegally. Of course he stole.

      Delete
    2. Many federal crimes, like employing illegals, ultimately mean stealing from people-e.g., taking jobs from Americans.

      And almost by definition labor laws involve stealing from people, i.e. employees.

      Delete
    3. Shaun: Fraud isn't a form of stealing?

      Delete
    4. He was found innocent of the labor law violations, after a trial.

      Can't fault him for that.

      Delete
    5. He was found "not guilty" on STATE Labor Law charges- He was never tried on the Federal Labor Law charges

      Delete
  2. Look on the bright side, they are calling this man a hero and martyr and he is without beard and peyos

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's time to go shout it from the rooftops: the charedim and their media ate intellectually dishonest, krum and must be distanced from until they do teshuva and acknowledge that the Torah forbids theft from all victims, Jew and non-Jew alike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What brocha does one make on krum? Also, does intellectually dishonest krum taste different than regular krum?

      Delete
    2. More important, what is a Kezayit of Krum.

      Delete
  4. The general problem here is that yet again we have the charedi community making a martyr and hero out of a criminal.
    =========================
    to me the problem is we have a culture where an individual who has been found guilty of such acts is comfortable with (and our society encourages) such exposure.

    In the immortal words of Joseph Welsh:
    If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.
    When McCarthy tried to renew his attack, Welch interrupted him:

    Senator, may we not drop this? ..... You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

    Moadim Lsimcha
    Joel Rich

    ReplyDelete
  5. It would seem, Slick Willi's legal troubles and jail stint have pushed him closer to the chareidi world, where doing time is a right of passage for some.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Generally agree except for the praise of the Modern Orthodox stigma. Not sure why once someone is punished do we still need to stigmatize them. There is a middle ground between making a hero and making a villain.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Taanit, page 7B:

    Rabbi Ami taught:
    Rains are withheld only because of the sin of theft.

    ===================================
    Babylonian Talmud, tractate, Sotah, page 12A:

    Rabbi Elazar taught:
    The righteous love their money more than they love
    their bodies, because their hands never touched theft.

    ===================================
    Midrash Rabah, Kohelet, chapter 1, paragraph 34:

    Rabbi Pinchas taught in the name of Rabbi Yochanan:

    Nothing is worse than idol worship and adultery and murder, except theft.

    ===================================
    Kav HaYashar, Chapter 8:

    A person who trusts in G_d will surely
    conduct his affairs in good faith and
    refrain from pursuing unethical gains.

    ===================================
    Shevet Mussar, Chapter 6, Paragraph 8:

    Nobody is as poor as the person who became wealthy from theft.

    ===================================
    Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy was a French Tosafist who studied under Rabbi Yehudah HaChasid (the author of Sefer Chasidim who lived from 1150 CE to 1217).

    Rabbi Moses ben Jacob was alive in year 1242 of the Common Era when all Talmud manuscripts in France were confiscated and burned.

    Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy taught, in his Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Chelek Mitzvot Aseh, Mitzvah 74, that deception and theft prevent the messiah from arriving, especially when Jews cheat or steal from Gentiles.

    ===================================
    Emanuel Miller (a writer for www dot
    HonestReporting dot com) said:


    “Repeatedly, New York Times writers side with
    those who seek to spread the poison of anti-Israel rhetoric.”

    SOURCE: Buying the BDS Lies — Hook,
    Line, and Sinker
    by Emanuel Miller, 2019 April 22
    www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/22/buying-the-bds-lies-hook-line-and-sinker/

    ===================================
    New York Times hates Zionism and Israel:

    www.algemeiner.com/2019/03/13/journalisms-longest-war-the-new-york-times-versus-zionism-and-israel/

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I think it's fantastic that the Modern Orthodox community generally has a social stigma against convicted criminals."

    I don't. I think petty vindictiveness is the mark of a very low individual. I review work applications, almost literally every single day, from people with criminal backgrounds. Someone like you would want people's lives destroyed because of one mistake. God doesn't operate that way. It's a very non-Jewish way to think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem you're making is calling it a "mistake." Crimes of this nature require planning and forethought; it's not something that happens by accident. If he's remorseful and regrets his actions, sure, he's been punished enough. How many Orthodox Jewish criminals regret their crimes? There's no requirement to feel bad for someone who would do the same thing again if he could.

      Delete
    2. The fact that they have to put that information on their job applications is itself a stigma. Stigma is latin for tattoo, a mark you bear. Perhaps you should be lauded for your rachmanus on those who bear that stigma. Still, the Jewish response to a criminal conviction should not be "whatever."

      Delete
    3. And do you then give these ex-cons glowing articles in religious magazines? Rapfogel is free to live his life and get a job. That doesn't mean we have to fete him.

      Delete
    4. Not Charedi - As you note Willie's crime was anything but a mistake. The irony is Willie could have been a hero - the inflated insurance premiums/kickback scheme was going on before Willie ascended to his position at the Met Council. He could have put an end to the thievery. Instead, he jumped in with both feet - eyes wide open. He wasn't satisified with a annual salary and benefit package in excess of $400K - after all he was part of the triad that ruled the Lower East Side (with the late H. Jacobs and the now disgraced Shelly Silver) and he deserved to live like a king and he deserved to use other's money to buy his children homes. But weep not for Willie - his friend Howard Jonas created a job out of whole cloth for Willie (alas Willie has to commute to Newark)

      Delete
    5. Nachum, did you read the article? I didn't. But I highly doubt it was a "glowing article". Our host on this blog is prone to exaggeration, and similarly misportrayed the community celebration of Rubashkin's release.

      JD - no one I know of suggests a "whatever" response to Rapfogel. Precisely because we are NOT God, we cannot imitate Him perfectly and wipe away the slate as if it never happened. He would never again be a shul president (for example) or be put in a position of community leadership. But we can and should follow the divine example to forgive as much as possible, and at minimum, that means compassion. Not stigmatizing.

      Delete
  9. Rubashkin was running an organized criminal enterprise for decades, a criminal enterprise whose violations of halachah and secular law drove competitors out of business. His influence peddling got home a near monopoly on all kosher meat in the US; I personally heard community leaders say that his brand was the only reliable kosher meat for frum people.

    I became vegetarian a few months after the raid.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This blog is sounding more and more like failed messiah. sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To be fair, the scheme was in place when rapfogel joined the met council. He had the choice of turning in his predecessor or keeping quiet and pocketing millions. He obviously made the wrong choice, but I am not sure how many would have made the right choice

    ReplyDelete
  12. How does one know if a convict has put his criminal ways behind him? I guess the only way to know is to give him another chance at life and a livelihood. The question is: who is brave enough or has the wherewithal to absorb the damage if he hasn't? Social contracts have at least a partial basis in trust and trust is a fragile thing. It is easily broken and not so easily fixed. If a person willingly decided to break that trust, is he not fully responsible for the repercussions? It wasn't and accident, after all. He wasn't coerced. Why do we have to feel obligated to take a chance on someone who has proven that they have a broken moral compass? It may be compassionate to him but perhaps not to those who may be hurt by him yet again. He has to rebuild society's trust in him before he can expect to be trusted again.

    There is also this attitude that often surfaces in some cases that since it is only goyim who were harmed it is somehow not so bad. I can understand this attitude in times and places where Jews were not treated equally under the law and in the courts. Not that I approve of it even then, but I can understand it. However, now a Jew can expect, even demand and get, equal treatment so this flimsy rationalization has no basis. However, since it seems that there are halachas that allow an unequal treatment, people feel justified in cheating goyim. I was thought to be a bit foolish once a few years ago because I refused to steal from a goy when I could have easily gotten away with it. I was undercharged by $120 at a tire store and when I noticed the mistake, I went back to the store and paid my debt. It turned out to be a great Kiddush Hashem but my only consideration at the time was that I am not a thief and I will not steal. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to think that most of us would do the same and that such honesty isn't unusual.

      Delete
  13. Failed Messiah could never be more than the level of National Enquirer. He would stick with a wrong piece of info that he would be responsible for no, matter how obvious the negligence on his part. As a result it was hit and miss with his accuracy. He probably had a better track record because he was trying to be accurate but was too blinded for the goal. I'd like to think this site doesn't make egregious errors like Failed Messiah did.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It seems he knows stuff. A lot of people defended him at the time. His wife is well connected and back at work lobbying. She no longer works for Sheldon Silver, obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "First, there was Sharansky...and he wasn't especially frum"

    Interesting how you had to throw in the word "especially". The implication is that while he was frum, he wasn't frum enough for people.

    How about calling a spade a spade? If the man does not keep the Mitzvos, then he is not religious. There is no need for adjectives and adverbs to make it like he really is religious.

    According to Wikipedia, "His wife had become religiously observant during his detention, but he did not follow her on this path."

    If the man is still not religiously observant, then he is not frum, not matter how you spin it to make the Yeshiva world look bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where do you draw the line? If someone keeps most of the mitzvos, is he still not frum? What about the big 3? What if he does things slightly differently than you? What if he doesn't keep all the chumras? It's not our place to decide if someone is frum enough, hence why RNS uses the adverb "especially," since he's describing how the charedim would see it. Nobody keeps everything perfectly (which is what makes us human, not angels), so by your definition, nobody is frum.

      Delete
    2. The classic baseline definition is shomer Shabbos which, unfortunately Sharansky isn't.

      Delete
    3. I never denied that. My point was that trying to label people is an inherently flawed system, because nobody will meet 100% of any criteria that is suggested (such as "does not keep the mitzvos"; most people do not keep all the mitzvos as the Torah demands). RNS was making the point that charedim disparage anyone who isn't like them, regardless of how religious (or not) that person actually is.

      Delete
    4. Of more importance, to connect Sharansky, for whom people (myself included) were going to bat in the FIRST REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, with Rubashkin, nearly FORTY YEARS later, is beyond absurd. No one in the world has ever dreamed of any such connection. Yet according to RNS, the "Yeshivish" community felt compelled to come up with a hero in the latter (having apparently bided its time all these decades) because the former wasn't good enough.

      It's a pretty good indication of how RNS, with regard to this tired topic at the least, has completely lost touch with reality.

      Delete
  16. Rabbi Slifkin you had written:"...I fully agree that it's not healthy for me (or anyone) to obsess over the shortcomings of others, and I need to work harder to make this blog more positive. On a personal level, as is well known, I have been through some hardship as a result of charedi society's flaws. This has inevitably created some bitterness in me, that I strive to overcome." Have you had any progress?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Glad to see a reaction to the Hamodia article

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hilarious. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I read the article. It does not make him a hero or a victim. He has an opportunity to try and mitigate his crimes, but his focus is on the evil vindictive arbitrary justice system that exists in America. Make no mistake, other Western countries are nowhere near as bad and primitive as the US. England and Israel are gold compared to this. And that is progress that has to be reached in this country, for the benefit of all of us. The justice system allows innocents to be incarcerated too, and even the guilty do not deserve death or torture. Most civilised countries do not treat financial crimes worse than physical ones, as opposed to the US, where child molesters and rapists receive suspended sentences, and people who fudge numbers on loan applications are sentenced to torture by redneck guards in for profit jails.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I find all of your articles on this topic (Rubashkin etc.) rather mean-spirited. Hamodia interviewed this fellow regarding his prison experience - that was the main point. They did not claim to be reporting objectively on the general background of his incarceration - they merely presented his claims regarding that as well.
    No one is justifying crimes. But Rapfogel did encounter anti-semitism.
    And Rubashkin was treated extremely unjustly, probably due to anti-semitism.
    The frum press did not present these cases as a "big bad goy" narrative. In the case of Rubashkin it presented someone who did commit crimes that deserved a sentence of 2-4 years and was sentenced to 27. Non-Jewish law professionals smelled a whiff of anti-semitism in this exagerated sentence and heroically extended themselves to help him out. His crimes were not justified - neither by the many who helped him nor by (at least most) of the frum press. He was lauded for his bitachon and simchas hachaim in the face of gross injustice. And it is not only the frum press that viewed his sentence as gross injustice. (Is Alan Dershowitz a paranoid frum Jew?) That is why askanim were able to build such strong support for his pardon within the legal community.
    Sometimes I get the sense that you are developing into a self-hating Jew. I sincerely hope you are not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right-wing Jews tend to whitewash crimes that are committed by "observant" Jews. That was the only point being made. Nobody denied possible anti-Semitism in the sentencing. The point was that Rubashkin committed a crime and was turned into a hero, not that his sentencing was extreme.

      Delete
    2. Again, no one ever justified his crime.Just because one has committed a crime does not mean his later behavior cannot be admirable.

      Delete
    3. Lots of charedi Jews say his crime wasn't so bad because it only involved non-Jews, the banks aren't people, the judge had it in for him, etc. They're ignoring the simple fact that he violated the law, and they only care about his "emunah," completely failing to address that he wouldn't have had to have such emunah if he hadn't been jailed in the first place. His emunah or strength in prison is irrelevant; the fact that he's being paraded around as a hero certainly makes me think that people don't care about his crime. I don't care how strong someone's emunah is; Rubashkin was a nobody until he got arrested, so glorifying him now certainly indicates that people don't care about his crime.

      Delete
    4. To "not chareidi":

      "Lots of charedi Jews say..."

      I don't know who your chareidi acquaintances are, but they apparently don't write for Hamodia or Mishpacha, the targets of these posts, because neither of these publications ever advanced such justifications.

      "...completely failing to address that he wouldn't have had to have such emunah if he hadn't been jailed in the first place."

      Indeed, his bitachon would have been far less impressive had he been sentenced to the 2 to 4 years considered appropriate for such a crime rather than TWENTY SEVEN.

      Rubashkin did not come to be viewed as a victim until the prosecution asked for a life sentence (Later, they reduced that to 25 years after a public outcry, but the judge exceeded the request.) Once he was recognized as a probable victim of anti-semitism, his plight naturally aroused the sympathy of many Jews, despite his wrongdoings. That sympathy grew over time and was coupled with admiration as he sat in jail past the normal 2-4 year sentence, with little hope of reducing his grossly exaggerated sentence, and did so with great bitachon, somehow avoiding both bitterness and despair as appeal after appeal was rejected. During this period, it came to light that the prosecution had deliberately hindered the sale of Rubashkin's company in order to increase the loss of the bank, in order to increase the severity of his sentence – a double evil, victimizing both the bank and Rubashkin. Still, he did not become embittered, as most of us would. If you truly cannot find room in your heart to sympathize with the man under these circumstances – yes, despite his wrongdoings – I pity you.

      "...the fact that he's being paraded around as a hero certainly makes me think that people don't care about his crime."

      Oh, I hear your logic. So, if I admire the accomplishments of an Israeli politician or soldier whose frumkeit is known to be sketchy, it shows I don't care about Torah and mitzvos. Wow… pretty shtark. (The above-mentioned publications often publish positive articles about such political and military figures. I guess they're not so "shtark", they're a bit nuanced. Maybe you can learn from them).

      Delete
    5. Keep being an apologist. Someone who committed a crime does not deserve honor and respect, period. You seem to have missed the numerous articles and speeches on behalf of Rubashkin where people claim the judge was anti-Semitic and colluded with the prosecution in order to "get" him. As to your mental gymnastics about how his bitachon was so much greater because of his long sentence...you really don't get it, do you? His sentence is irrelevant. He would not have been paraded around without being convicted, and since he was convicted of a crime, he should not be rewarded with a lecture circuit and accolades. His bitachon is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and shouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

      Your last bit of "logic" is twisted on multiple levels. Just to put it right for you: admiring someone's accomplishments purely because of those accomplishments is justified. The question is how that person achieved those accomplishments. To correct your example, if someone isn't religious but accomplishes good things anyway, that's well and good. The issue is if he specifically uses his lack of religion to accomplish something (such as creating a non-kosher restaurant complex, which later becomes successful, just to hate on religious people); admiring that would be as unacceptable as admiring Rubashkin for his bitachon specifically because he committed a crime. To rephrase your example: "If you admire the results of an Israeli politician who achieved greatness due to financial fraud, it shows you don't care about his crime." Or, in keeping with your specific example about mitzvos: "If you admire an Israeli politician who uses his lack of religion as a weapon to achieve his goals, you don't care about the Torah." Rubashkin is more analogous to my earlier example, and your example doesn't fit either scenario; straw man arguments do not work.

      Just to say it clearly: If Rubashkin hadn't committed a crime, there would have been no need for his bitachon. Once he did the commit the crime, anything he did or accomplished as a direct result of that crime should not be rewarded. His bitachon was a result of that crime, and is therefore not an accomplishment worthy of respect.

      Delete
    6. I did not miss any point. I just disagree. 27 years for Rubashkin's crime was neither a reasonably expected result, nor a just one. The mere fact that a series of events was set of by one's crime does not exclude the potential for admirable behavior in response to those events. If one was pulled over for driving 20 mph over the speed limit, and then beaten up to the point of disability when the policeman saw his kippah ("You filthy Jew, why can't you follow the law!"), I would sympathize with him. If he accepted his disability as min hashamayim and managed not to become embittered, I would admire him. This is so even though I do not at all approve of his initial action, which endangers himself and the public, and he never would have been beaten up to begin with had he not been speeding. If you would indeed not sympathize with and admire this hypothetical driver, or if you cannot perceive that a 27 year sentence in place one of 2-4 years is the equivalent of being beaten up and disabled, I guess we just have different attitudes towards people. Yours strikes me as rather harsh.

      Delete
    7. You need to stop with the false analogies. Being pulled over is far, far different from wilfully committing fraud. Specifically in your example, the punishment meted out by the cop is not similar to receiving a prison sentence from a judge; both results, specifically in your example and regarding Rubashkin, were disproportionate, but in Rubashkin's case, he deserved at least an initial sentence. In the case of a motorist being beaten by a cop, the cop had no authority to do more than write a ticket; in Rubashkin's case, the judge was permitted to require a severe sentence, however unjust it may have been. Being beaten up by someone who had no authority do so is not the same as receiving a prison sentence from one who is allowed to deliver such a sentence.

      The reason I don't respect Rubashkin's bitachon is for the simple reason that I do not admire someone's actions if they were a result of dishonesty. If Rubashkin had truly been innocent, then yes, I would say he deserves admiration. However, his illegal and dishonest actions negate any reason for us to admire him. Similar to the concept that doing an aveirah negates any mitzvah that follows from said avairah, Rubashkin does not deserve admiration for putting himself in a situation that he could have avoided if he simply followed the law like the rest of us. Rubashkin broke the law and received the appropriate punishment (i.e., prison time. The exact length may have been harsh, but he deserved an initial sentence, which was entirely his fault and does not allow him to preach about anything; your fake motorist did not deserve his "punishment" in the first place).

      Delete
    8. You need to stop with the irrelevant distinctions and to stop trivializing the excess 23-25 years of imprisonment the judge and prosecution attempted to impose on Rubashkin. You say the judge had a right. Alan Dershowitz says it was one of the worst legal injustices he has seen in his career. Many other impartial legal experts, including some with former careers in prosecution, share his view and invested their valuable time in rectifying the terrible injustice. Are you aware of all of this? If not, please take a the time to read the articles in Hamodia, Mishpacha or Zman published after Trump freed him before you comment on this issue. If you have already done so, and nonetheless characterize the 27 year sentence as "may have been harsh" you are apparently unreasonable, biased against chareidim or just plain mean.

      Delete
    9. >Similar to the concept that doing an aveirah negates any mitzvah that follows from said avairah.

      You're comparing this to Mitvah Habo B'Averah? Talk about false analogies....

      Delete
    10. You must have missed the part where I said that his sentence is irrelevant. I am talking about how he is being revered as a hero. The length of his sentence doesn't negate his crime, although you seem to think it does. I don't have to feel bad for someone who commits a crime. You keep ignoring that I said his sentence was too long (is that clear enough for you this time?), and you also seem to think that a long sentence mean we must feel compassion despite the crime; should we feel compassion for rapists who get 20 years in prison compared to rapists who get 5? Just because someone's sentence is longer than usual for the crime doesn't negate the crime.

      Dershowitz and those prosecutors aren't judges. They can use fancy words to say how upset they are, but at the end of the day, the judge's sentence was legal (no matter how "unjust" it was, that doesn't make it illegal). Rubashkin willfully committed a crime, period. He knew he could have gotten a long sentence; he took his chances, and he lost. Just because it was harsh doesn't mean we should suddenly vindicate him.

      Delete
    11. Your cavalier dismissal of the opinion of many widely respected legal experts, who not only expressed their horror at the ridiculous 27 year sentence, but suited action to word by selflessly giving of their time and resources to help him (some even intimated that there are grounds for legal action against the prosecutors) confirms for me what I had begun to suspect: you are UNREASONABLE. Thank you for making that "clear enough for me".

      I hereby withdraw from our little debate. Sayonara!

      Delete
  21. Right-wing Jews do not tend to whitewash crimes committed by observant Jews. Talk to real live ones and you'll see there is no unified or typical response. This is just stereotyping nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you seen the response of Agudath Israel? Have you read the charedi magazines and newspapers? Have you heard what the charedi schools tell their students? You seem to be a little out of touch.

      Delete
    2. From talking to actual Chareidim and even from doing reading? No.

      Delete
  22. The modox do the crime, The ultra-orthodox bear the blame?
    Trotzkys make the revolution but the Bronsteins bear the brunt

    ReplyDelete
  23. How can you completely ignore the 27 YEAR SENTENCE handed down in the Rubashkin trial? Much is made of the seeming lack of contrition he showed- but 27 YEARS?! Whether one is a Rubashkin fan or not that sentence was one of the most draconian miscarriages of justice in recent American history- shame on you for glossing over that fact as that was a major reason behind the groundswell of support for Rubashkin.

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Under the Black Hat

Yesterday I had the most fascinating miscommunication. Some of you might laugh at me, but it's really a powerful testimony as to the dis...