Dear AJN Watch.
A friend has just sent me a scan of the comments by Danny Lamm and Philip Chester re the statement by our Rabanim against renting properties to undersirables. I would appreciate if you could post these few words on behalf of all ex-Aussies in Israel.
-Former Melbourne Bnei Akiva member
Fancy issuing a statement welcoming potential crooks and murderers into our cities and our neighbourhoods!
Do Lamm and Chester have any family members in Israel? And if so how many Sudanese or Arabs live in their street? And what do those family members think about their view?
The rabbis here, together with the community leaders know exactly what problems they create - both gashmiut and ruchniut, as well as the crimes and attacks perpetuated by these people.
Sitting in your safe Caulfield mansions and preaching to us is not welcome.
In future, please keep your useless and unhelpful advice to yourself.
Well stated.
ReplyDeleteGiving eitzes to israelis from teh fleshpots of Australia is a big no no.
And since when have Danny Lamm and Phillip Chester been greater authorities on Jewish values than our Rabbonim ?
ReplyDeleteB'H
ReplyDeleteOh to be more politically correct than the politically correct lobbyists!
This is a difficult one. Who are we opening our doors to?
We want certain things for our children and our families and if certain people cannot keep to a certain code of conduct and espouse Jewish values, then we have a right to exclude them from our homes and streets. In a religious household there are certain expectations and if a boarder or inhabitant of that same dwelling goes against what the householder sets down as the rules of the house, then the house holder has the right to ask him or her to leave or not have him in the house.
Once we start allowing an erosion of values, it continues to unravel like a loose thread that will unravel the whole garment if allowed.
D. We received your comment.
ReplyDeleteWas it for publication?
As a recent arrival to the Antipodes, I am shocked, and if I had a stronger word to use, I would. at the diatribes of supposedly religious people, who are supposed to be "A light unto the nations". I can recall quite clearly reading about my ancestors being called vermin and worse by the residents of a new land. In fact, much of the criminal population at that time was made up of Jews. No wonder there were quotas placed on Jewish populations in the US. But somehow this was overcome. The commentators on this blog as well as the B"Aniks should be ashamed.
ReplyDeleteN Kabak
What would the Arab residents say if the Jews started moving into their strongholds of Coburg or Moonee Ponds? Does anyone think they would welcome us? They definitely would not, no doubt, they would run us out of town faster then you could say 'Allah akbar!".
ReplyDeletecorrect me if I'm worng, but Dr Lamm and Mr Chester are in good company. Aside from hundreds of American Rabbis who agree with them and have written a letter this week to the Israeli Government, Rabbi's Elyashiv, Stinman and Chacham Yosef have all refused to sign the petition. This has caused 5 of the original signees to retract
ReplyDeleteI hope The Loyal Opposition will forgive my obtuseness, regarding the claim that Arab residents of Coburg would drive out the Jews.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that would be acceptable behaviour? That you would regard that as anything other than baseless racism and unacceptable antisemitism?
Or are you saying that it provides the model of social norms on which Israel should base itself?
I am bemused by the statement in the base posting of this thread: "Fancy issuing a statement welcoming potential crooks and murderers into our cities and our neighbourhoods".
I didn't realise that it was acceptable to exclude people on the basis of their potential to act as criminals, rather than on their actual behaviour.
If I wanted to move into the neighbourhood, how do I prove that I am not "a potential crook"?
WW - you obviously have no idea what is going on in Israel.
ReplyDeleteIn all areas where these illegals from Sudan and other parts of Africa have settled - the crime rate has shot right up.
Do some research and you will be shocked. And then tell us that you'd like to live together with these people.
absolutely right waldo..who needs Sudanese when we have a Madoff,a Rubashkin and similar in our midst. we have enough of our own crooks we don't need anymore right?
ReplyDeletecorrect we have enough crooks and don't need to import any more.
ReplyDelete(And btw, madoff rubashkin etc don't murder, rape or do other violent stuff.
Sorry, people, this is not a matter of opinion, it's a clear halacha in Shulchan Aruch. The same Shulchan Aruch you rely on for shabbos and kashrus and niddah and every other aspect of halacha. You don't get a choice on whether to accept it or not. If you think you have the right to criticise this psak din, then you may as well eat chazer. As for those rabbis who have withdrawn their signatures under political pressure, they have transgressed on "lo taguru", and will have to account for it Above.
ReplyDeleteHmmm Waldo. So here is the choice you are offering me. Do I want to live with
ReplyDeletea) people who have fled a country full of persecution and murder; or
b) people who discriminate against the stranger not for who they are or what they have done, but for who they might be or what they might do.
I'll get back to you.
No, Watcher, your choice is do you obey the Torah or wage war against it. These brave rabbonim are taking a serious risk to their livelihood and even their freedom by doing their jobs and paskening a halacha to prevent people from sinning; their critics elevate goyishe values above those of the Torah, and worry about how it will look to the elites whose favour they seek.
ReplyDeleteCorrect Mihouse, the choice is indeed to obey the Torah or wage war against it.
ReplyDelete"When a stranger dwells with you in your land, do not oppress him. Treat the stranger like a fellow citizen; you shall love the stranger as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Or do you regard that as an elevated goyish value?
Watch out for "Watcher's watcher"
ReplyDeleteThis person may be a missonary - as the pasuk quoted is being used way out of context with no understanding of Torah.
Sounds like the way goyim use TaNaCH to prove their narishkeit!
HILARIOUS! What a brilliant riposte! What a wonderful way of addressing the issues! Not by pointing out the errors of the argument; not by quoting other Torah passages "in context"; not even by citing the reasoning of the rabbonim who put out the decree - but by warning that I "may be a missionary".
ReplyDeleteI suppose if you are defending a position that says people should be excluded from a neighbourhood (or country) because they are "potentially crooks or murderers" then it is reasonable to attack someone because they "may be a missionary".
You are right Anonymous...I might be a Christian missionary. I could be a Hindu terrorist. It's even possible that I'm a devout Khosid.
And you might be any one of those things too.
Watcher, a ger is just as Jewish as a born Jew. We are not talking about gerim, we are talking about goyim, and it's clearly paskened in Shulchan Aruch that one may not sell or rent them housing in a Jewish neighbourhood where it's likely to harm our fellow Jews, and one who does so is in niduy. It's also a possuk that one may not sell them land for residence in Eretz Yisroel at all. You are not entitled to argue against the Shulchon Oruch.
ReplyDeleteMilhouse,
ReplyDeleteIf Watcher is indeed a goy like I suspect, be careful addressing your comments to him.
Hi Milhouse,
ReplyDeleteRav Aharon Lichtenstien who was the former Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva University has responded to the ruling banning renting homes to gentiles as follows:
(The Rabbis letter presents} the prohibition of selling homes to gentiles as the exclusive halakhic position, and the voice that bursts forth from the throats of the signatories is made to sound like the single unequivocal word of God, that is, halakha. Here one asks, is that indeed so? Without a doubt, the position expressed in the letter is based on rabbinic sources and a long halakhic tradition. Yet taken as a whole, the document leaves one with the impression that its conclusions are based on presumptions that characterize a particular—but not exclusive—halakhic approach. This impression is generated in part by what the document states, and no less by what the document omits. For example:
Continue reading here:
http://kolharav.blogspot.com/2010/12/rabbi-aharon-lichtensteins-response-to.html
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the opinion of rav lichtenstien, who unlike some other commenters on this thread, bases his opinion on halacha.