The terrorists have won.
YES, YES, YES, YES,Y ES. It’s called a civil war, the
Fort Sumpter of which was a bullet to chest of Yitzhak Rabin delivered by some inhuman monster, and the ultimate objective of which is the destruction of Israeli democracy. And the longer its intended targets keep their eyes closed to the caculated, organized, and ruthless character of this campaign , the less chance they have to ultimately prevail.

What exactly is wrong with sodomy and oral sex?
‘wrong’ hole, to some people…
I have a relative who has worked for the Good Samaritan help line (Ezra Rishona Nafshit). There were enough Haredi callers who were so troubled with guilt and self-hatred becuase they were gay and could not reconcile thier natural urges with their unquestioned dogma, to merit founding a special training for religious listeners on a special help line.

Adultery is having sex with a man not your husband. All the rest may be prohibited but not adultery.
We don’t stop the christians because they give us money. of course we could stop them if we wanted to – we just have to stop taking their money.
And with the “homes”? that’s just nonsense.
(and we all know why: because the mere existence of those “homes” was a war crime)

“I still don’t get it.
What exactly is wrong with sodomy and oral sex? ”
One might say, smoking crack, on your own time, in your own house, is your own affairs. One might also say that consentual sex with adults and teens…hell, even pre-teens, might be ok. Ah heck, anything that doesn’t severly maim, kill and or insult minority groups is ok these days.
But I feel many of these things belong in a bedroom, and not in a parade on a Sunday afternoon. I believe overt sexuality harms, not promotes, intimacy, eroticism, etc. In other words, less is more…for our families, relationships and communities. My gay friends would disagree. But I’m not sure I’d ask the gay community for advice on monogamy and intimacy.

left and right keep announcing the death of democracy in Israel. I don’t buy it. Sure, there are battles, but death?

I can see it now:
“Jerusalem’s gay and lesbian synagogue attempted to hold their court-sanctioned community celebration and torah reading at the Western Wall yesterday. In response, thousands of angry haredim hurled soiled diapers, bottles and stones while screaming ‘gevalt.'”
Let’s face it… the haredim would go nuts even if a bunch of elderly married homos dressed in suits and silk kippot tried to read torah together. It would please me to watch the film clip of haredim beaten and defeated as proud Jewish police, including GLBT officers in rainbow hats with insignia, protect the gay worshippers at the Wall. The tears would be tears of defeat, signifying the emergence of a triumphant, tolerant Judaism….

In addition, it should not “please” anyone to watch anyone get “beaten” by Israeli officers.

It seems, according to Haaretz, that R. Elyashiv and R. Ovadia Yosef were willing to negotiate a compromise. Now, I understand that isn’t what many want, but the fact is, this is quite different than condoning violence. It is, from where they are standing, perhaps quite a reasonable request, and more importantly, implicitly signals some level of tolerance.
See the “Ultra-Orthodox agree to compromise” section.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785989.html

TomC,
You said, “Out of respect the LGBT community chose to ensure their proposed route would not go through religious neighbourhood. This is not something that they had to do.”
But it was something that was proper to do. To not to do would be insensitive. Not a good idea when you are demanding sensitivity.
“The Orthodox Community DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT to not be confronted by a peaceful demostration they disagree with.”
They have every right to peacefully request that their own space me respected.

Rarely do I find an occasion to give DK as much love as this.
Thank you for posting comment #20.

In North Dallas Forty, one of the great sports movies ever made, one of the football players was protesting in disgust at the team owners’ hypocrisy in rejecting their demands for fair salaries, on the one hand, yet cynically demanding their loyalty, on the other: “Whenever we say it’s a game, you say it’s a business; whenever we say it’s a business, you say it’s a game.”
In commenting on the assertion that organizers of the parade compromised by avoiding a direct path through religious neighborhoods, Kelsey notes,
it was something that was proper to do. To not to do would be insensitive. Not a good idea when you are demanding sensitivity.
Fair enough. The problem, however, is that the time for compromise on the part of the Religious Right never quite arrives. Immediately following the demand for “sensitivity” on the part of their opponents, the focus suddenly shifts to the rights of the charedim to preserve the sanctity of their communities and their halachik proscriptions against homosexuality with all legal means at their disposal. Indeed, just after his insistence on sensitivity, Kelsey defends the charedim by stating,
They have every right to peacefully request that their own space me respected (emphasis added).
Sorry, but they doesn’t get it both ways. If the appropriate standard is the rights of the respective parties, the parade organizers owe the charedim absolutely nothing beyond the bare minimum required by law. If the standard is one of sensitivity – i.e., what is “proper,” as Kelsey says – then the charedim must compromise to the same extent as they demand from others.
They never do.
The Religious Right believes compromise is always appropriate for others, never for them. Of course, that is largely the inevitable consequence of their belief that every bowel movement, every whim, every preference of any kind is a direct expression of the will of God Almighty. (Funny, too, how Hashem always wants exactly the same thing they do.) Very much like the Republican Party; the Democrats are invariably expected to act in the spirit of compromise and consensus, in the interests of the nation as a whole, but when it comes to Republicans, the “Decider” is the one in charge, and gets to set policy for all of us.
Y-Love argues that the charedim are being unfairly portrayed as monolithic:
the real Chassidim (ppl striving to make their will into Hashem’s will, not gangstas-in-bekitsches with guns) were saying a lot like HaYom, shrei-ing “what is this violence going to accomplish!” (emphasis added).
Fine. But where is the very next logical step: if the murderous thugs are not the real Chassidim, then who the hell are they? I hope to God your not claiming that they’re merely some bad seeds, some random element being used to slander the peace-loving ultra-Orthodox community as a whole. If these are not the real Chassidim, then, from an insiders perspective, please let us know what we call them and what we do about them. Oh, yes, and what role exactly are the real Chassidim prepared to play in the fight against these thugs?

DK,
Yes, I’d agree that you’re points are well-taken; indeed, I think we’re almost completely in agreement, but that we were, to a degree, speaking at cross-purposes.
First, though I quoted your comments to illustrate my belief about the hypocrisy in the standards applied to the conduct of the charedim, I do not believe that you were engaging in or excusing such hypocrisy yourself. Clearly you’re no Charedi apologist, and I should have made that clear.
When I ask who the real Chassidim are, I meant ideology, not identity. In other words, I wasn’t referring to distinctions among assorted sects based upon doctrine, geographical origin, or the like, but to the assertion by Y-Love that the reliance upon or justification of violence is a perversion of authentic Orthodox belief, no matter who embraces it. Fair enough; but that’s just not enough. It strikes me as absurdly inadequate to note what the ideology of violence isn’t – i.e., real Chassidism – without also pointing out what it is, and what the hell we do about it.
You note the efforts of Rabbis Elyashiv and Ovadia Yosef to negotiate a compromise in order to avoid violence. That, too, is fair. Though I’d almost certainly find their views about homosexuality to be repellent, they are clearly entitled credit for actively trying to avoid the violent imposition of those views on others.
Alas, it’s my view that such gestures, though commendable, aren’t enough, and this is the main area where I disagree with your comments. You said,
[This] doesn’t mean they will do the right thing and turn in those committing violence. That might not happen, and that’s a big problem. But that’s a different, if related, discussion.
Frankly, this strikes me as being part of precisely the same discussion. After all, we’re talking about the coordinated activities of what is a pretty damn cohesive community, notwithstanding certain real differences, such as those referenced above. Accordingly, it’s hardly sufficient for the community’s leaders to say, “Sorry, but all we know is the rioters aren’t followers of our Rebbe or our doctrine. Sure wish we could be of more help.”

mobius: “lo tin’af” you shall not commit adultry, shemot 20: 13.
“lo takhmod” (“thou shalt not covet”) of verse 14, refers to jealousy. you actually intimidate me with your super self-confidance but never bother to check up the source.
but here i should admit, that rashi points out that adultry in this verse only refers to another mans wife. never the less, you can check up Va’yikra 18: 22-30. this may give you something to ponder.

DK,
Of course, I have no reason at all to doubt your description of the internal dynamics of the communities at issue. I will say, though, that perhaps the salient issue is one of perception, as much as it is the actions of these particular leaders and their respective followers. By perception, I’m talking about the issue that comes up in a number of conversations I’ve had with TM and others at Jewlicious. To wit, when it comes to various expressions of extremist ideology among the ultra-Orthodox, the constant refrain is that those embracing such views represent a miniscule portion of the communities in question, just as Y-Love stated here:
This talk of “the charedim” as this monolithic group really has to stop.
Perhaps the extremsits are, indeed, no more than a tiny frange, but that claim seems rather implausible in light of the virtually complete absence of any publicly expressed dissenting voices from community members. Forget about “turning in” those among thier neighbors and customers and Yeshivot students responsible for acts of violence and incitement, but can you really point to any leaders within the ultra-Orthodox that have — beyond generic condemnations of violence — publically denounced attacks on “immodest” women and homosexuals as desecrations of Torah; as expressions of sordid bigotry; as intolerable violations of assorted halachik provisions? Any demands for unqualified allegience to the rule of law and democracy in Israel?
I can’t even claim that such public condemnations of fanaticism are few and far between.
Instead, the public responses from community members seem to range from enthusiastic approval of such conduct, to defensive pleas for greater understanding of those “driven” to violence by frustration and excessive piety. To put it mildly, such consistency hardly reinforces the assertions of ideological diversity among the ultra-Orthodox.

oy, david smith, oy vay vay david smith. why the negativaty? all i did was quote a few verses and didnt interpret them at all. you can interpret them however you wish. i just put them up.
but as jews, we have a strict moral code first given on mount sinai and than broken down in detail by our rabbis (whom we’re obligated to obey according to the written law, from the verse “lo tasuru min ha’derech…..”do not stray from the path….wich they (the rabbis) command you).
if you dont want to listen to them, thats fine, but why get so upset when they protest a parade that symbolizes the very reason the jews were spit out of their land? (like in the verses mentioned above).
interpret ’till you’re blue in the face, the rabbis set the path, not you and me.
and if this country is a democracy, than just as the paraders are allowed to parade in this country, so are the opposition allowed to protest.
and in the states (not mecca) this parade can be categorized as defiling a holy sanctuary even though its a public domain. not allowed. although i would have to check that up.
my point is; this isnt 5th ave., its jerusalem. dont get so upset that the parade folded, what did you expect?
anyhow you have to lighten up.
orthodox jews arn’t as bad as you’d like them to be. shalom

In light of the fact that David Smith is foaming with anti-Charedi prejudice, I feel some statements should be made:
a) When I referred to “real Chassidim”, I was referring to Chassidim as per the definition of “Chassid” from Sefer Chassidim by R’ Yehudah ha’Chassid, the main post-Chaza”l, pre-Ba’al Shem Tov definition of “what is a Chassid” that is extant. If you know of another post-Chaza”l definition of “Chassid”, please let me know.
b) As I noted on thisisbabylon.net, R’ Weiss of Bada”tz had to personally take himself to Ge’ulah to see to it that no further protests would be made. (For those familiar with the status of rabbis in the Charedishe velt, this alone is astounding, that he had to PERSONALLY go Kikar Shabbos to protest.) People didn’t listen to his words (evidently, b/c he said not to be violent) and he refused to just let the violence go on, so he wanted to “put a stop to it.”
I can’t imagine, beyond this, what you would “want to see”. A stinging condemnation in the secular Israeli media — the same media most Charedim emphatically do not patronize? A reconciliation vigil? What crime of omission are you decrying?
And, “radicals” and “violent radicals” are two different things. One is potentially not a rasha, the other is most likely violating chapter after chapter of the same Shulchan Aruch that Bada”tz said to uphold.
And yes I am claiming that these are bad seeds — although I would wager, not so “random”. Fringe elements arising against Torah leadership have plagued religious Jews since time immemorial. How could one blame the Torah leadership for the actions people doing specifically what they were told not to do?

The reason I keep bringing up the prejudice thing is because I want you to see it as a prejudice just like any of the “major -isms”.
Obviously I wouldn’t expect everyone to view R’ Weiss from Bada”tz the same way a Charedi Jew in Yerushalayim would. But the point I was trying to bring out is that, to some degree, “what you would like to have seen happen” in fact was happening.
I will concede that the extraneous propaganda was tragically left largely unaddressed (even the actual bounty for killing someone got glossed over in the media and was ridiculed soundly in Meah Shearim as being the work of some external rabble-rouser and not indicative of an issue) but the rabbinical decrees contained the “don’t be violent” caveat.
That’s what Bada”tz does. They make decrees and decide on issues of Jewish Law. Already in 5766 they addressed the issur of Jew-on-Jew terrorism and codified that, so to come out and make a decree now would, from their point of view, be redundant and takeh insulting (“you mean the ppl STILL aren’t listening?”)
And about the educational intervention: the crying shame is that oftentimes they are intervening. And the fact that so many ppl just aren’t listening and are following these demagogues riling them up is just a wrist-slitting epic tragedy. For example — R’ Nosson Tzvi Finkel of the Mir gives a schmooze every week in his house for all Mir bochurim interested in attending. During the time preceding the rioting, attendance at the shiurim dropped — precisely during those shiurim where he addressed, quite negatively, the violence. (Perhaps they had to do more review or say Tehillim those nights.)
I think Bada”tz would probably like to take a rest from secular media for a bit. The epilogue to this story will most likely not be played out in view of the secular public, but rather around Shabbos tables and in pulpits.