Do We Really Need Another Round of Shafran v. Rosenblum?

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Bob Miller says:

    Since I can’t post a comment to the original article by Rabbi Shafran, I’ll try it here.

    I’ve been wondering if that was an attempt to prevent a communication breakdown between our “black hat” communities (and their organizations such as the Agudah) and Obama. Jews in golus are very familiar with the fallout when we get on the wrong side of a head of state.

    Anyway, that’s my dan l’chaf zechus position about an article that had little technical merit. The best baseball analogy might be September/October for the Mets.

  2. Avi Shafran says:

    The answer to Jonathan’s question “Do We Really Need Another Round…? is, at least in my opinion, no.

    And so I won’t tax readers with rebuttals to his rebuttals (though I have them aplenty!).

    Instead — and I think Jonathan and I can agree on this — I would simply suggest that anyone who is interested in formulating a truly informed opinion on any of the points about which Jonathan and I disagree undertake some independent research. That means reading as many news reports on the point as can be summoned, as well as various “takes” on them among commentators (bearing in mind, of course, where the commentators “are coming from.”

    And then objectively and honestly put yourself in President Obama’s place.

    You may end up agreeing with Jonathan; you may end up agreeing with me. Either way, though, I think you’ll be making an informed judgment — something, as my point all along has been — too few of us make often enough.

  3. Ori says:

    Rabbi Shafran makes a good point, but I’d like to add another one.

    Rabbi Avi Shafran: That means reading as many news reports on the point as can be summoned, as well as various “takes” on them among commentators (bearing in mind, of course, where the commentators “are coming from.”

    Ori: That is a lot of work. A Google search for “Obama Middle East” returns 23 million results. For most of us, we can probably do more productive work for now, and only form opinions in late 2012, when they’ll actually make a difference.

  4. DF says:

    I’m not sure many of Obama’s detractors are, in fact, making an uninformed judgment. There’s a diffrence between democrats and republicans, or if you prefer, between liberals and conservatives. The former group is very often oblivious to the the arguments of conservatives, because they currently control legacy media outlets. Whereas it is quite impossible for conservatives not to be aware of their opponent’s ideas. Maybe its a “generational thing”, but anyone under the age of 50 – i.e, who uses the internet regularly – is usually pretty well informed. If our community in the whole doesnt like or trust Obama , it’s probably for pretty good reasons. Remember, Obama was elected in part because of Bush fatigue and a not-very-popular candidate in John Mcain, and also on the basis of voters who for the most part didnt know and couldnt care less what Obama’s positions were. There are tens of millions of non-Jews who also dont like him. I would prefer Rabbi Shafran recognize the intelligence and independence of his own community, rather than attribute their disagreements with him to uninformed-opinion making.

  5. rephoel greenman says:

    What to me is most troubling and dangerous about this “debate”is the implication that if one was somehow convinced by Rabbi Shafran that Obama does not harbor deep animosity toward Israel we as orthodox Jews could then relax our feelings of animosty towards Obama.Lets then grant Rabbi Shafran his “weak” terutzim on the Israel issue and see what we have.(This alone is somewhat delusional for the many reasons mentioned by Rabbi Rosenblum,in addition to the fact we would have to ignore all the vile anti-israelites/semites that Obama has “learned by”;wright,ayres khalidi,said ect)1.Can we support someone who believes in unqaulified unconditional abortion accsess? 2.Can we support someone who refuses to recognize the threat posed by islamic radicals.4.Can we support a president who would cut in half tax exemptions to charity?5.Can we support somone who as a matter of policy wants gas and electricity prices to be prohibitivly expensive.5.Can we support somone who is completly beholden to teachers unions and thus a sworn enemy of advancing private schools?6.Most urgently,can we support somone who is a proponent of single payer healthcare ie.ratioining vital treatments based on cost analysis and encouraging euthanaia ie.shfichas damim?I would say the answer to all these quistions is a resounding NO.No politician will ever be 100% in line with all our hashkofos but someone who is so antithecal to us on all major issues deserves nothing less than than unadulterated derision.Rabbi Rosebnlum aludes to the argument that these debates are pointless on a practical level but I would suggest that they are not only pointless but an obligation.In a time when so many high profile Jews in politics are seen promoting shamefull views and policies(emanuel,axelrod,boxer,shumer,krugman ect)we have to demonstrate that by no means to they represent all Jews or Torah values.

  6. David F. says:

    Sure, why not? It’s been entertaining and informative so far and I for one, would love to see it continue. Most of us do not have the time and resources to delve into this subject too fully and appreciate the efforts and writings of those who do. Gentlemen, please continue!

  7. Avi says:

    If Obama had two white parents instead of just the one that raised him, the opposition in the Ortho community would be twice what it is. For the last 30 or so years accusations of ” racism” have become the new McCarthyism. People are intimidated out of speaking their true opinions lest they get called racism. We have seen Obama, his admin, his supporters and his media, play the race card against the Clintons and the Republicans. We have seen the MSM parrot disproven accusations of racism against the Tea Party.
    Many Orthos are afraid to speak out lest they get called racist. Others who do speak out temper their statements ( but would never pull their punches against Jimmy Carter) and become wishy washy, and others accuse other people of being racist as to inoculate themselves from the same accusations. This is akin to the appeaser feeding others to the crocodile.
    No the opposition to Obama is not because of racism, but the less than appropriate opposition is from fear of being called racist. If both his parents were white the opposition would double and we wouldn’t be discussing this.

  8. HESHY BULMAN says:

    Re: The contention that open-mindedness is of overarching importance – it is at times the slippery slope to moral equivalence. Jonathan is absolutely correct in his contention that the case for our historical right to E”Y must be made loudly and clearly by any friend of the Jewish people, perhaps most of all in the midst of its foes. But then, it must be with the understanding that in the mind of the Arab world, there can be no other case made in any event. One who feels that persuasion is at all possible on the basis of the suffering of the Jewish people is hopelessly deluded and impossibly naive. Avi Shafran may not be – Barak Obama and his ilk, are, and it is critically important that we clearly recognize where danger lies, intended or otherwise.

Pin It on Pinterest