Why the Radical Politics of WoW’s Leaders Matter
Is it merely a coincidence that so many of Women of the Wall’s leaders have numerous close associations with radical, anti-Israel groups? Or could it be that WoW is a useful vehicle for advancing an anti-Israel narrative that leaves Israel increasingly isolated internationally? Is concealing that agenda the reason why WoW tried to suppress the story of its leaders’ ties to fringe anti-Israel NGOs?
In early November, journalist Rachel Avraham posted a story at Jerusalem Online, the English-language website of Channel Two News, detailing the connections between WoW, vice-chairwoman, Batya Kallus and chairwoman Anat Hoffman and various anti-Israel groups.
As program director for the Moriah Fund, Kallus helps facilitate funding for such groups as Adallah, Ir Amin, Yesh Din, and Mossawa. Adallah rejects Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and has been active in promoting Israel Apartheid Week on North American campuses and in the dissemination of the Goldstone Report accusing Israel of war crimes in Operation Cast Lead. The Goldstone Report cited “evidence” provided by Adallah 38 times.
Yesh Din categorizes Israel as an apartheid state and supported Turkey’s position after the Mavi Marmara incident, in which Israel naval commandos attempting to interdict the Gaza Flotilla were set upon with iron bars and knives. Like Adallah, Mossawa rejects Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, and describes Israel as having been built on the ruins of the Palestinian people.
Kallus also serves as an advisor to Sikkuy, a signatory to the Haifa Declaration, which opposes the definition of Israel as a “Jewish state” and supports the right of return for Palestinians, which would spell the demographic end of the Jewish state. Sikkuy accuses Israel of exploiting the memory of the Holocaust for gain, and states that Israel’s has carried out “policies of subjugation and oppression in excess of those of the apartheid regime in South Africa [i]n the occupied territories.”
Kallus is the Israel representative of the Fohs Foundation, a major funder of the New Israel Foundation (NIF) and Sikkuy. Over 90% of the citations of Israel-based NGOs in the Goldstone Report were of organizations funded by the NIF. And prior to that, NIF-funded organizations played a lead role in planning the anti-Israel hate fest at Durban.
A taste of NIF’s orientation comes from a letter written to the Jerusalem Post by one Evalyn Segal over a decade ago. She relates how she was a “devout Zionist,” until she came to Israel on an NIF study tour and learned of the “racist contempt of the Israel government . . . toward Palestinians [and] how the founders of Zionism schemed from the start to take over, by any means necessary, the whole of Palestine and cleanse it of Palestinians.”
Anat Hoffman, the public face of WoW, is also the chairwoman of the Domari Society of Gypsies in Jerusalem. The Domari Society is part of the Grassroots Al Quds Network of NGO’s that coordinate activities and pool resources. The network’s mission statement supports “resistance to the occupation” and the Palestinian “right of return to Israel proper.” And it opposes the “Judaization of Jerusalem.”
Among the founders of the Al Quds Network are Micha Kurtz of Breaking the Silence, which accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing, and Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, one of the organizers of the Free Gaza Movement flotilla. The Networks’ website’s map of the Old City omits any mention of the Kotel and calls the Jewish Quarter the Sharaf neighborhood.
Among Kallus and Hoffman’s most revealing associations are those with groups opposing Israeli archaeological digs in Jerusalem’s Old City. Ir Amin, an NGO supported by the Moriah Fund, claims that Israeli archaelogical digs within Jerusalem are a “tool in the fight for control over the city.” Ir Amin opposes all Israeli construction in the Old City, and refers to Jewish occupied buildings in the Kotel Plaza as “settlement.” Leslie Sachs, CEO of WoW, is an Ir Amin board member. Serving on the board of the Domari Society, along with Hoffman, are Yonatan Mizrachi and Dafne Strauss of Emek Shave, an organization which has called for an international investigation of Israel’s archaeological work in Jerusalem.
NO ONE SUGGESTS that all, or even most, WoW members share Kallus and Hoffman’s far left-wing political views. Why, then, are those views relevant to a discussion of WoW?
Or, to put it another way, why was WoW so eager to prevent publication of Avraham’s article, which was almost entirely based on public information that can be readily gleaned from the websites of the organizations named or from documents on file with the Authority for Non-Profit Organizations? When Avraham’s piece first appeared, Shira Pruce, WoW’s director of public relations immediately contacted Jerusalem Online, claimed that the article contained libelous and slanderous statements, and demanded its removal. Without a budget for litigation, Jerusalem Online complied.
At that point, Avraham re-posted at the Matzav.com website, and Daniel Greenfield posted at FrontPage.com his own piece quoting extensively from Avraham and adding more information of his own. Pruce wrote to Matzav.com, “According to our lawyers, the statements made by the writer, which are fictitious, constitute slander and libel.” Significantly, she did not point to a single fictitious statement or make any attempt to refute Avraham’s research. Matzav did not remove the article.
AVRAHAM’S RESEARCH demonstrates that Hoffman and Kallus are political animals, not just spiritual-seekers motivated by their intense attachment to the Kotel. And it strongly suggests that the prime motivation of the leaders of WoW is to advance an agenda consistent with their other political work.
The power of the Kotel derives, in large part, from its role as a symbol of Jewish continuity, from the time of the First and Second Temples until today. Those who identify with organizations like Ir Amin and Even Shave, which oppose Israeli archaeological work in the Old City, as part of a sinister “Judaization of Jerusalem,” and who are allied with groups calling for the return of east Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and Kotel to Palestinian control, are apparently not terribly moved by Jewish continuity and its symbols.
In truth, Hoffman has always been rather forthright that the Kotel Plaza is of value in her eyes primarily as a place to make political statements – “to be seen,” in her words — and provoke confrontation. Hoffman admits that she feels no particular attachment to places, the Kotel included. And her Reform movement long ago declared, “One should not consider the Western Wall as possessing any sanctity.”
She has no answer for the question posed long ago by Hillel Halkin, “Are there no other places in Jerusalem to practice Jewish feminism that they must do it at the one site where it is sure to infuriate large numbers of Orthodox Jews?” – a question that gains special force from Hoffman’s admission that the Kotel has no special sanctity in her eyes.
Giving offense is not an unfortunate by-product, but the very purpose of WoW. Again, Hoffman admitted as much recently in explaining her theoretical acceptance of Natan Sharansky’s proposal for WoW to move WoW’s prayer rites from the current Kotel Plaza to a fully refurbished area further south on the Western Wall (albeit while conditioning that acceptance on 16 untenable conditions). “WoW,” she conceded, in explanation of the new approach, “is not the right group for bringing about change in the Orthodox world.”
In other words, the 25 years of confrontation were not, at least for Hoffman, about the yearning for proximity to the Kotel, but to “model” new and better modes of prayer for her benighted Orthodox sisters.
IT IS IMPORTANT to understand the ways in which WoW’s activities serve the radical agenda of Hoffman, Kallus, and Sachs. WoW serves to “kasher” many of the organizations with which it is associated, in particular the New Israel Fund, which serves as both a funder of WoW and a conduit for its tax deductible contributions.
WoW wraps itself in the cloak of religious pluralism. For most American Jews the belief that “there is no right way to be a Jew” is both the first and last of their theological principles. Accordingly, religious pluralism is as “American Jewish” as apple pie and motherhood – sadly, a good deal more so than the latter.
By selling itself as an organization committed to the benign cause – at least in the eyes of non-Orthodox American Jews – of religious pluralism, the New Israel Fund is able to obscure other parts of its agenda that might find less favor with many of its contributors.
But there is another more insidious way in which WoW helps to advance the radical Left agenda in Israel. Groups like B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence, which uses former IDF soldiers to advance a narrative of widespread Israeli war crimes, seek to alienate American Jews from their identification with Israel. By doing so, they hope to increase Israeli Jews’ sense of isolation and lack of international support, and to thereby convince them that the only way out is to conclude a “peace” with the Palestinians on almost any terms.
By casting herself as a second Rosa Parks circa 1956 in Birmingham, Anat Hoffman does the same thing by portraying Israel as a country in which women are “second-class citizens” and Reform Jews are not free to worship as they please. When former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton remarked that the treatment of women in Israel often reminds her of the status of women in Teheran, she indicated how successful Hoffman has been.
Such a state appears increasingly alien in the eyes of American Jews. And that, in turn, makes it easier for them to believe that their Jewish brothers in Israel are the most maniacal violators of human rights in the world, regularly and consistently treating Palestinians with inhumane cruelty.
Evelyn Gordon argues at length in the September Commentary (“Provocation at the Wall”) that Hoffman and other leaders of WoW have skillfully ridden a narrative of women’s exclusion from the public square in Israel that has little relationship to reality. That narrative, she demonstrates, started with the Left-wing media in Israel and has been eagerly picked up abroad.
And it is part of a pattern dating back to Menachem Begin’s election in 1977. As soon as the Left finds itself cast from the seat of power at the ballot box it propagates a “false narrative of Israel’s slide into fundamentalism and fascism.”
In sum, the radical politics of WoW’s leaders are not just a curious coincidence, they are an essential part of their agenda.
This article was first published in the Jerusalem Post.
“Women of the Wall” is not unique.
Throughout Jewish History, Jews have repeatedly
attempted to combine Judaism with Gentile values
that were popular at the time. Some examples:
In the times of the Prophet Elijah, Jews attempted
to combine Judaism with the worship of the Gentile
idol known as “Baal,” whose worship was popular
at that time.
In the times of the Maccabees, most Jews wanted to
adopt Greek culture, which was dominant at that time.
In the times of the Rambam (Maimonides) Jews
attempted to combine Judaism with the philosophy of
Aristotle, which was very popular at that time.
The 1800s, the early Reform Judaism movement attempted
to combine synagogue worship with organs, a musical
instrument which was very popular in churches at that time.
Other “improvements” adopted by the early Reform Judaism
movement included: crucifix-shaped synagogue buildings
and “Rabbis” who officiated while wearing clothes
similar to those worn by Christian ministers.
In the very early 1900s, some Jews attempted to combine
Judaism with Marxism, which was popular with Jews at that time.
(Marxism eventually became less popular with Jews because
of Soviet persecutions of Jews a few decades later.)
In the 1970s, Martin Rosen, a Baptist Minister of Jewish
birth, created “Jews for Jesus,” which combines popular
Fundamentalist Christian theology with Jewish symbols
and Jewish rituals.
In 1997, the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA)
was founded with the goal of combining Judaism with
Feminism, which was very popular at that time and still is.
Why should a religious faith like Orthodox Judaism,
which is more than 33 centuries old and the world’s oldest
surviving religious faith, be expected to comply with
the demands of American-style-Egalitarianism,
which is less than one century old?
“Why should a religious faith like Orthodox Judaism,
which is more than 33 centuries old and the world’s oldest
surviving religious faith……”
Because it has constantly adapted to the surrounding culture, but also protected its core.
If it hadn’t it would have disappeared along with the Saducees, Samaritans, Karaites, etc. etc.who all rejected the Oral law in favour of a rigid written law.
As a native if Montggomery,Alabama I am complelled to correct your error. Rosa Parks lived in Montgomery and not Birmingham. It is like mistaking San Francisco for Los Angeles or Brooklyn for Rochester. I vividly remember that period, I was a youngster at the time. I remember when my uncle was visiting from Cuba and the front of the bus was full and he asked me why Ididn’te sit in the back,where there were seats, I explained that we were not supposed to sit in the back of the bus. It was reserved for colored people. That is what they were called in the 1950’s and was not a pejoritive.
Little did I ever imagine that by becoming frum and joining the Olom Hayeshivos, I would on ce again be party to a culture that puts people in the back of the bus.l My collagues may laugh at me but I think that the trend towards segregation of females and obliteration of their images is a sacriledge. No one seems to care any more. No one fights it and we all seem to accept it as not offensive or wrong.
At least in Alabama, all humans can vote ,can sit wherever they want and are visable. Only in our world are we still the segregationists. What a shame.
“Only in our world are we still the segregationists. What a shame.”
Do you feel likewise about the fact that there was an Ezras Yisroel, Ezras Kohanim, and Ezras Nashim in the Beis HaMikdash? That was segregation of the highest order and its continued in shuls since that time. Was that also a problem?
I would normally mpt respond, but what you have done is set up a straw man, inother wordsmisrepresenting someones views so that he can then demolish the argument based on falsehood and pemeditated ill will. Do you honestly not know that the concept of seperate seating at weddings was the norm at the weddings of all frum Jews in America and in most of Europe except for the Chassidim. The absolute disgrace in our world which goes by without a wimper is the invisability cloak that we have been forced against our will to put on females in much of our media. Even when putting an obituary in Hamodia, the picture of the deceased is left out. This was not the mesorah of frum Judaism andit is a perversion of our religion. The Chassidim go further and mostly do not even mention the name of the female. If you read the announcements, they tell you the name of the choson but not of the kallah, only whose daughter she is. This is the extreme custom of some Chassidim and it has been forced upon the frum community in recent years by peer pressure, not by halacha or minhag.
Making women sit in the back of the bus is segregation and discrimination and reveals an attitude of either fear of women having equality or a b elief that they are inherantly subservient to males,just because they are males. Don’t confuse Torah tgrue Judaism with these innovations that are sweeping our world. Most of the people I speak to admit that it is morally wrong but claim we have to ape what they do elsewhere or our fair town will not be considered frum enough. It is social pressure not religion. These are my personal views and do not represent any organization or institution.
I made an error, I should have written seperate seating was not the norm. But,that is not really the issue, it is the ongoing adoption of ways of treating half the human race which existed in small towns in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania and making these extreme practices the norm in our community. each year,there is more and more copying on practices that are not our mesorah and which our gedolim never ever subscribed to or practiced even at their own chliden’s weddings.
The justification for this is modesty, but there is a difference between tzniyus and inviability. I went to a dinner in Boro Park last year and there was a high wall across the length of the room and the women were not able to see the head table or the guest speaker,except on video.
A prominent rabbi told me recently that he had heard from another very prominent rabbi that soon they will figure out a way to have a chasuna without the kallah being present.
All I did was quote your own words – how is that setting up a straw man?
Regarding the “custom” to have mixed seating at weddings – I fail to see how that was a “custom” at all. It was an unfortunate practice when people were often only nominally frum [many worked on shabbos] that has since been abandoned By your logic, it was also the custom for a married woman not to cover her hair. That too, has been abandoned thanks to greater sensitivity to the fact that it contravenes halachah. The fact that people behave a certain way does not mean that it’s a hallowed custom.
Leaving a picture out of an obituary is hardly a tragedy or an abandonment of a custom either. Pictures in obituaries [as well as obituaries themselves] are a relatively recent [as in 100 years] phenomenon.
No one makes women sit on the back of a bus. For every Mehadrin line, there is a non-Mehadrin line where women are free to sit where they wish.
The fact is that B”H Klal Yisroel has grown and there are many more Chassidim and Chareidim than previously. Yes – they have a more extreme view and approach on certain matters. I don’t even agree with much of what they do, but I do respect their right to do it and don’t begrudge them in the least.
Note that the high wall at the dinner was in Boro Park, not Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, LA or Denver. It was in a hall that is situated in a neighborhood heavily populated by Chassidim for whom this is important. Don’t like it? Don’t do it but don’t pretend that everyone is forced to do it because they’re not. Don’t like Hamodia, Ami, Mishpachah and their policies? Don’t read them. Read the Jewish Press and Jewish Action instead.
Those who do care about things that are important to them will enjoy their papers and you can enjoy yours. No one has forced anything on you and there’s no reason to begrudge people their lifestyle and chumras.
Jonathan Rosenblum wrote in part:
“Or, to put it another way, why was WoW so eager to prevent publication of Avraham’s article, which was almost entirely based on public information that can be readily gleaned from the websites of the organizations named or from documents on file with the Authority for Non-Profit Organizations? When Avraham’s piece first appeared, Shira Pruce, WoW’s director of public relations immediately contacted Jerusalem Online, claimed that the article contained libelous and slanderous statements, and demanded its removal. Without a budget for litigation, Jerusalem Online complied.
At that point, Avraham re-posted at the Matzav.com website, and Daniel Greenfield posted at FrontPage.com his own piece quoting extensively from Avraham and adding more information of his own. Pruce wrote to Matzav.com, “According to our lawyers, the statements made by the writer, which are fictitious, constitute slander and libel.” Significantly, she did not point to a single fictitious statement or make any attempt to refute Avraham’s research. Matzav did not remove the article”
What a sad day it is when the exposure of a person’s political and ideological premises are considered ststements which supposedly and purportedly “are fictitious, constitute slander and libel.”
“A prominent rabbi told me recently that he had heard from another very prominent rabbi that soon they will figure out a way to have a chasuna without the kallah being present”
And don’t forget, separate yichud rooms!