fbpx

May 21, 2012

Haredim fill N.Y. baseball stadium to decry error of Internet’s ways

The sellout crowd that filled Citi Field on Sunday night wore black and white, not the New York Mets’ blue and orange.

And instead of jeering the Philadelphia Phillies or Atlanta Braves, they faced a foe that was, to hear them talk about it, far more formidable: the World Wide Web.

“The Internet even with a filter is a minefield of immorality,” said Rabbi Ephraim Wachsman, a haredi Orthodox lecturer. “This issue is the test of the generation. Your strength at this gathering will determine what Judaism will look like a few years from now.”

The rally to caution haredi Orthodox Jews about the dangers of the Internet drew a crowd of more than 40,000 men to the stadium, most of them wearing black hats. The group organizing the rally, Ichud HaKehillos LeTohar HaMachane, or Union of Communities for Purity of the Camp, barred women from attending—consummate with the haredi practice of separating the sexes.

In Yiddish and English speeches, rabbis from haredi communities in the United States, Canada and Israel decried the access that the Internet gives haredim to the world outside their community. Speakers called the Internet “impure,” a threat to modesty and compared it to chametz, or leavened bread, on Passover.

Almost no rabbi directly addressed pornography, which is prohibited by traditional Jewish law. Several speakers also lamented the Internet’s potential to distract men from learning Torah.

To a man, each of the rabbis who spoke said that Jewish law forbids Jews from browsing the Internet without a filter that blocks inappropriate sites. The speeches in Yiddish were broadcast with English subtitles on the stadium’s JumboTron.

Rabbi Yechiel Meir Katz, known as the Dzibo rav, compared the threat of the Internet to the dangers that Zionism and the European Enlightenment posed in the past to traditional Jewish life.

“A terrible test has been sent to us that has inflicted so much terrible damage” on haredim, Katz said. The Internet poses a greater threat to haredim than secularism did, he said, because “in previous challenges we knew who the enemy was. Today, however, the challenge is disguised and not discernible to the naked eye.”

The crowd ranged in age from small children to senior citizens. One participant, Yitzchak Weinberger, said that although the speakers focused on the Internet problem rather than solutions, the event was “inspiring.”

“This is a beginning,” said Weinberger, 43. “They’re coming to raise awareness. Every situation is different, everyone requires some filter.”

While haredim must limit their internet access, “many people do need to use it,” he added.

Before the rally began, about 50 people protested the event across the street from the stadium. Later, the counter-demonstration reportedly grew to some 300 people. Many of the protesters came from Footsteps, a local organization that helps those who leave haredi Orthodox life integrate into non-haredi society. In particular, they complained that Ichud HaKehillos invested money in the rally rather than in preventing child molestation in the haredi community.

“Their priorities are messed up,” said Ari Mandel, a former haredi. “Not only do they ignore child molestation, but they intimidate victims. If your house is on fire, you don’t worry about leaking pipes.”

The rally came after a series of reports in The New York Jewish Week, the Forward and The New York Times about haredi intimidation of victims of sexual abuse who have gone to the police to report their haredi tormentors.

Haredim fill N.Y. baseball stadium to decry error of Internet’s ways Read More »

An angry Netanyahu is good for Iran negotiations

WASHINGTON – Once again nuclear negotiations are taking place, and once again there’s a gap ‎between the gloomy tone of the Israeli observers and the optimistic, albeit guarded, ‎noises on the American side. It’s doubtful that anything concrete will come of Wednesday’s ‎talks with the Iranian leadership – that’s the message from Jerusalem. The more blunt ‎would add: the Americans, naive and without clear guidelines, are yet again falling into a ‎trap. In Washington the administration is broadcasting great caution, almost anxiety, over ‎the raised expectations.‎

There’s no chance that the issue will be resolved this week; the talks in Baghdad are just ‎the start, and essentially a test – of the Iranians of course. But in any case, tendrils of hope ‎are starting to creep in: The sanctions are undoubtedly working, and the Iranians are ‎awaiting with dread the oil embargo that comes into effect at the start of July; oil prices are ‎dropping, and for the time being theEuropeans aren’t blinking. Neither for that matter are ‎the Chinese or the Russians. And now the International Atomic Energy Agency is speaking ‎of progress in parallel to the talks with Tehran – a further sign that someone is looking for a ‎way to climb down from the tree.‎

And what of the warning voices of the Iranian leadership, what of the tough talk, the ‎arrogant public posturing? Even in this Washington sees a positive, a laying of ground for ‎capitulation – such vociferous barking could signal a lack of willingness to actually bite.‎

Have something to say about this? Join the debate at Rosner’s Domain on Facebook

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who visited Washington last week to thank his American ‎counterpart Leon Panetta for funding to preserve Israel’s military edge in the region, did ‎not forget to bring up what Israel wants. Again, judging by public statements the gaps are ‎there: the Americans are hopeful, the Israelis skeptical; the Americans are ready for ‎compromise, the Israelis believe compromise is dangerous.‎

The issue is that when Washington talks about success, they mean an agreement from Iran ‎to halt uranium enrichment to 20 percent or higher. In Israel, the equation for success is ‎zero percent enrichment. When in Washington they talk about success, it means ‎inspectors at Iran’s nuclear facility in Qom; in Israel, it means dismantling the nuclear facility ‎in Qom. These are, without a doubt, significant differences. Israel believes that if there is ‎no insistence on red lines, it is likely that the Western position will be eroded, and the ‎Iranians can be expected to exploit a loophole that would allow them to carry on making a ‎mockery of the rest of the world until their aims have been met.‎

Washington sees Israel’s public position as unrealistic. If it’s a position for the purposes of ‎negotiations, one intended to make clear there will be no agreement to a dangerous ‎compromise (as officials in Washington believe it is), then this position can be ‎circumvented somehow. But if this is a fundamental position, and Israel will not agree to a ‎compromise that includes low level enrichment plus inspections, then expect problems – ‎not between the United States and Iran, but rather between the United States and Israel.‎

No one believes that Iran can be persuaded to compromise without any of its conditions ‎being met. Any Western compromise will include concessions that let Iran claim victory, at ‎least in part. For example, if the decision is made to allow low-level uranium enrichment, ‎then Iran can flaunt this as finally having won international recognition of its right to enrich ‎uranium. Given that from the outset the Iranians have rejected claims that they are ‎seeking to develop nuclear weapons, they can present this agreement as an achievement: ‎We did not give up anything – the West are the ones that understood they had no choice ‎but to allow us to enrich.‎

A vigorous Israeli opposition will contribute to Iran’s ability to present any compromise as a ‎victory. The unhappier Netanyahu is with an agreement, the easier it will be for Tehran to ‎find it acceptable. And so this is another dilemma the US is now facing: Is it worth upsetting ‎the Israelis in order to score points during negotiations? Maybe it’s better to coordinate in ‎advance, so that Israel pretends to be unhappy and the same advantage is gained but ‎without the danger of a genuinely angry Jerusalem deciding to take military action.‎

A pretense of this nature requires a high level of mutual trust – trust that might well exist ‎between Barak and Panetta, but hard to muster between Obama and Netanyahu. A ‎pretense of this nature would also demand absolutely no leaks, which is always difficult to ‎achieve. ‎

It could also be politically risky for both sides: a convincing display of dissatisfaction by Israel ‎could damage Obama’s chances in an election season, and a believably irate Israel that ‎does not act afterwards could raise questions domestically about Netanyahu’s own ‎credibility.‎

An angry Netanyahu is good for Iran negotiations Read More »

U.N. nuclear chief holds talks in Tehran, hopes for deal

The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief held rare talks in Tehran on Monday after voicing hope for a deal to investigate suspected atomic bomb research – a gesture Iran might make to try to get international sanctions relaxed and deflect threats of war.

International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Yukiya Amano began discussions with the head of Iran’s nuclear energy organization, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a few hours after his pre-dawn arrival, according to ISNA news agency.

Amano, who was on his first trip to Iran since taking office in 2009, a period marked by rising tension between the IAEA and Tehran, was also due to meet Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi on Monday. There was no word on the course of the talks by mid-afternoon.

“I really think this is the right time to reach agreement. Nothing is certain but I stay positive,” Amano, a veteran Japanese diplomat with long experience in nuclear proliferation and disarmament affairs, said before departure from Vienna airport. He added that “good progress” had already been made.

But while Amano scheduled Monday’s talks with Iran at such short notice that diplomats said a deal on improved IAEA access in Iran seemed near, few see Tehran going far enough to convince the West to roll back swiftly on punitive sanctions when its negotiators meet global power envoys in Baghdad on Wednesday.

“We are not going to do anything concrete in exchange for nice words,” a Western diplomat said of the Baghdad meeting, the outcome of a big power session with Iran in Istanbul last month that ended a diplomatic freeze of more than a year.

Two days after seeing Amano, Jalili will hold talks in the Iraqi capital with Catherine Ashton, the European Union foreign policy chief heading a six-power coalition comprised of the five U.N. Security Council permanent members – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – plus Germany.

By dangling the prospect of enhanced cooperation with U.N. inspectors, diplomats say, Iran might aim for leverage for the broader talks where the United States and its allies want Tehran to curb works they say are a cover for developing atomic bombs.

Pressure for a deal has risen. Escalating Western sanctions on Iran’s economically vital energy exports, and threats by Israel and the United States of last-ditch military action, have pushed up world oil prices, compounding the economic misery wrought by debt crises in many industrialized countries.

HOPE VIES WITH MISTRUST

Some diplomats and analysts said Amano, given a recent history of mistrustful relations with Iran, would go to Tehran only if he believed a framework agreement to give his inspectors freer hands in their investigation was close. Iran has been stonewalling IAEA requests for better access for four years.

“Amano would not have travelled to Tehran had he not been provided with assurances that progress could be made. If he returns to Vienna empty-handed, the embarrassment will be more damaging for Tehran than the agency,” said Ali Vaez, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group.

“However, if the IAEA is satisfied with Tehran’s cooperation, Iranian negotiators will have a new trump card to play at the negotiating table in Baghdad.”

The U.N. watchdog is seeking access to sites, nuclear officials and scientists and documents to shed light on work in Iran applicable to developing the capability to make nuclear weapons, especially the Parchin military complex outside Tehran.

Two meetings between Iran and senior Amano aides in Tehran in January and February failed to produce any notable progress. But both sides were more upbeat after another round of talks in Vienna last week, raising hopes for a deal.

“We need to keep up the momentum. There has been good progress during the recent round of discussions between Iran and the IAEA,” Amano said, stressing that he did not expect to visit Parchin during his short, one-day stay in Tehran.

“We regard the visit … as a gesture of goodwill,” Salehi said. He hoped for agreement on a “new modality” to work with the IAEA that would “help clear up the ambiguities”.

DOUBTS

Yet while an Iranian agreement on a so-called “structured approach” outlining the ground rules on how to address the IAEA’s questions would be welcome, it remains to be seen how and when it will be implemented in practice.

“We’ll see if the Iranians agree to let the agency visit Parchin. I have my doubts, no matter what any agreement says on paper,” said one Western envoy ahead of Amano’s visit to Iran.

Such a deal would also not be enough in itself to allay international concerns. World powers want Iran to curb uranium enrichment, which can yield fuel for nuclear power plants or for nuclear bombs, depending on the level of refinement.

Iran, to general disbelief from its Israeli and Western adversaries, insists its nuclear program is intended only to generate electricity in a country that is one of world’s top oil exporters and to produce isotopes for cancer treatment.

Unlike its arch-enemy Israel, assumed to harbor the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, Iran is a signatory to treaties that oblige it to be transparent with the IAEA.

ISRAEL SKEPTICAL

Leaders of the Group of Eight, worried about the effect of high oil prices on their faltering economies, turned up the heat on Iran on Saturday, signaling readiness to tap into emergency oil stocks quickly this summer if tougher new sanctions on Tehran threaten to dry up supplies of crude.

Israel, convinced a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a mortal threat, has – like the United States – not ruled out air strikes to stop Iran’s atomic progress if it deems diplomacy at an end.

Israel believes Iran is using the talks only to buy time.

In Baghdad, the powers’ main goal is to get Iran to stop the higher-grade uranium enrichment it started two years ago and has since expanded, shortening the time needed for any weapons bid.

“What the powers are proposing right now is a kind of interim arrangement … (but) this certainly is not sufficient to stop the military (nuclear) project in Iran,” said Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon.

“Our fear is that from Iran’s perspective this is a sort of sacrifice of a pawn in a chess game in order to protect the king. We are not voicing satisfaction with this move, if it is the final move,” he told Israel Radio.

Iran says it needs uranium enriched to a fissile concentration of 20 percent for its medical isotope reactor. Enrichment to 5 percent of fissile purity is suitable for power plant fuel, while 90 percent constitutes fuel for bombs.

The IAEA wants Iran to address issues raised by an agency report last year that revealed intelligence pointing to past and possibly ongoing activity to help develop nuclear explosives.

Iran says the intelligence is fabricated, and has so far resisted requests for inspectors to examine Parchin, maintaining that it is a purely conventional military installation outside the writ of nuclear inspectors.

Additional reporting by Justyna Pawlak in Brussels, William Maclean in London, Patrick Markey in Baghdad, Ori Lewis and Dan Williams in Jerusalem; Editing by Mark Heinrich

U.N. nuclear chief holds talks in Tehran, hopes for deal Read More »