Discussion on Neturei Karta

Here's a discussion I've been having on the issue of the Neturei Karta delegation that went off to Iran recently on MailJewish:-

A.

From: Yisrael Medad
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:54:24 +0200
Subject: Just How Jewish?

Martin Stern has published a letter in the Jerusalem Post on March 13 in which he writes about denunciations of Neturei Karta in responses to an op-ed by Michael Freund. He considers them completely out of proportion to the significance of the Neturei Karta.

He then draws a comparison:

"This is especially so when compared to the relatively small reaction to left-wing intellectuals who make such a fuss over the alleged violations of the Palestinians' human rights. These groups, with their constant harping on "the illegal occupation," and "the apartheid wall" are a far more serious threat to Israel than the Neturei Karta."

And then draws this conclusion:

"Both may be anti-Zionist but the leftists oppose Zionism because it is too Jewish, the Neturei Karta because it is not Jewish enough."

Now, while this forum is devoted to Halachic issues, I think it does have room for discussing just how Jewish does Israel have to be so that the Neturei Karta will not have to travel to Durban or Iran to protest its 'lack of Jewishness' or, more to the point, has Martin erred by perhaps misinterpreting Neturei Karta dogma which, I would suggest, discounts and negates any state of Israel - Jewish more or less - before the arrival of a Messiah and has nothing to do with quantitative or
qualitative "Jewishness". As to which is worse, Left-wing antiZionism or Neturei Karta antiZionism, I will leave for another discussion although the "Jewish" element cannot be disregarded.

Yisrael Medad
(and no, this is not a Purim contribution)
-----------------------------------------------------

B.

From: Martin Stern
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:46:39 +0000
Subject: Re: Just How Jewish?

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:54:24 +0200 Yisrael Medad wrote:

> Martin Stern has published a letter in the Jerusalem Post on March 13 in which he writes about denunciations of Neturei Karta in responses to an op-ed by Michael Freund. He considers them completely out of proportion to the significance of the Neturei Karta.

Unfortunately certain parts of my original letter were removed by the editor which changed the tone somewhat. This is how I originally wrote it, the excised parts being in brackets:

Michael Freund's article, Neturei Karta sect pays visit to Iran (9 Mar), has {so far (12 Mar. 6 a.m. GMT) received 200 responses on Talkback on the Internet, mostly hostile to this miniscule fringe group} [edited to 'garnered hundreds of "Talkback" responses on the Post's Web site,'] far greater than any other article [Editor's insert: 'on the Web site at the time', to which I might comment: I can't remember any article ever getting even half that number of responses]

{While I abhor their giving public support to a bunch of murderers like Hamas whose name, after all, means 'violence' and is used to describe the state of affairs leading up to the Flood (Gen. 6.11,13),} the vehemence of some of these enunciations is completely out of proportion to the group's significance.

This is especially so when compared to the reaction to the left-wing intellectual fellow-travellers who make such a fuss over the alleged violations of the Palestinians' 'human rights', {presumably including the freedom to move explosive devices without being stopped and 'harassed' by the security forces}. These groups with their constant harping on 'the illegal occupation', 'the apartheid wall' and other similar propaganda slogans are a far more serious threat to Israel than the Neturei Karta.

Both may be anti-Zionist but the leftists oppose Zionism because it is too Jewish, the Neturei Karta because it is not Jewish enough. {Is this the reason why the latter are so violently opposed?}

> Now, while this forum is devoted to Halachic issues, I think it does have room for discussing just how Jewish does Israel have to be so that the Neturei Karta will not have to travel to Durban or Iran to protest its 'lack of Jewishness' or, more to the point, has Martin erred by perhaps misinterpreting Neturei Karta dogma which, I would suggest, discounts and negates any state of Israel - Jewish more or less - before the arrival of a Messiah and has nothing to do with quantitative or qualitative "Jewishness". As to which is worse, Left-wing antiZionism or Neturei Karta antiZionism, I will leave for another discussion although the "Jewish" element cannot be disregarded.

I would agree with Yisrael that the Neturei Karta would not be satisfied with any pre-Messianic Jewish state. However they are such an insignificant group that it is not worth giving them any publicity. Their influence on the non-Jewish world is negligible, unlike the leftist anti-Zionists, yet the latter do not arouse anything like as much hostility. My last (excised) question was suggesting the reason for
this.

The editor's changes might have suggested that I sympathise with their actions in associating with genocidal groups like Hamas and the President of Iran, which I do not, though I can understand their theological position which does, whether we like it or not, have a basis in Talmudic sources.

Martin Stern
--------------------------------------------

C.

Yisrael Medad
(sent last night)

While I sympathize with Martin as a result of his letter undergoing editing, as an editor and as someone who has had his own letters edited, I would have to go with the editor on this. I can discern no real alterations of content or intent. Even the feeling that the alterations might have led someone to assume that Martin had "sympathies" I don't think is justified but, I will admit, that's a subjective matter.

I thank Martin for agreeing with my grasp of NK ideology (40+ years after first buying "VaYoel Moshe" I have not yet finished reading it, for many reasons, some of which I permit all to assume). But, I do wish to challenge two points he raised:

a. he writes: "Their influence on the non-Jewish world is negligible, unlike the leftist anti-Zionists". I beg to disagree. Their influence is not only significant but is actively sought and they, the NK, actively seek it to expand on their antizionist ideology and give it credence. In my understanding, the NK feel that the negation of the State of Israel is so worthy a goal that the goyim's support and cooperation of their activities actually is proof of the rigthness of
their cause. This is a symbiotic relationship and leads into my second point.

b. Martin further writes: "though I can understand their theological position which does, whether we like it or not, have a basis in Talmudic sources." This, of course, is true as far as it goes although I must admit, I do not understand their theological position. But if we stop at the Talmud, well, we'd all be stuck in time. The whole matter of the Three Adjurations has been dealt with most extensively in a summary by Rav Shlomo Aviner that has been recently translated (see Kuntres She-Lo Ya'alu Ke-Homah [Do Not Ascend Like A Wall] at Gil Student's "Hirhurim" Blog) and, as Prof. Aryeh Morgenstern has pointed out, the pupils of the Vilna Gaon invalidated them by claiming that this was supposed to be a
"package deal" and if the goyim don't keep their end of the bargain, well, Bnei Yisrael surely have a right to immigrate to Land of Israel and build it up (see in his book "Geula B'derech Hateva", pgs. 7-9).

To summarize, if the NK really had a Yiddish Kop, they wouldn't associate with Jew haters in Iran period which brings us back to my question: Just how Jewish are the NK?

Yisrael Medad
--------------------------------

(to be continued)