Conference taveng::bagels

    May the L-rd of Shabbat give His people true shabbat shalom tonight
    (and every shabbat).
    
    

Re 1103.0  

>We have just heard that various Brooklyn neighborhoods 
>(Crown Heights, Bushwick, East Flatbush) were yesterday 
>flooded with flyers calling for another "demonstration"
>to be held tonight (Friday, 9/13) at 6 P.M. at Eastern
>Parkway and Nostrand Ave. in Crown Heights.

Jem, nothing about this in today's Jerusalem Post (although that never proves
anything), and I heard nothing on the news.  Did anything happen over there, or
was this a false alarm?

Shalom 
Baruch

    Jem (hi, haven't seen you in a while), the problems in Brooklyn are not
    new, but have gotten considerably worse since the accident. NYC is be-
    coming a factionalized camp, with much outside agitation making the
    situation worse (i.e. Al Sharpton). 
    
    eric

    Any news, Jem?
    
    Steve

     
    Re: last few
    
    Sorry to have left all of you hanging, but I wasn't
    able to get through for a while.
    
    The upshot on that particular Friday night was that
    about 300 black Nazis (and I use the word advisedly)
    did show up, and marched down Utica Ave. There were
    leaflets handed out calling for violence against the
    "Finkelsteins" and "their" property. There were again
    placards calling for "death to the Jews," and proclaiming,
    "Hitler didn't finish his job."
    
    There were lots of cops in evidence, though, as well as
    Mordechai Levy's Jewish Defense Organization, and Guardian
    Angels. There was no violence.
    
    On the other hand, there have been almost daily incidents,
    albeit ignored by the media (since it's "just" Jews being
    attacked). There was a shot fired into a synagogue prior
    to the beginning of services on Rosh Hashana eve. There
    have been Jews beaten at random on and around Kingston
    Ave. Of course, the regular muggings don't even count.
    One incident which would almost be amusing if it weren't
    so sickening is the radio phone-interview of Lubavitch
    leader Rabbi Shia Hecht before R.H. Rabbi Hecht was being
    interviewed live by a WABC radio talk-show host from a 
    public phone on Eastern Parkway, and in the course of
    the interview was mugged not once, but *twice*.
    
    To be fair, there has been a marked increase in police
    presence lately, in some places a couple of cops on every
    corner. But we'll never forget what Dinkins let fly for
    the first 72 hours of the pogrom. The Nazis were allowed
    FREE REIGN. 
    
    The only politician to actually speak out on the subject
    loudly has been Alphonse D'Amato. Of course, the media
    immediately pounced on him, accusing him of "racism."
    We've heard it all before.
    
    There have been several Jewish protests recently, the
    aim being to make the racial racketeers slightly uncom-
    fortable. Marches have been held at Jeffries' and Sharpton's
    residences and offices. These will continue and grow.
    
    The jellyfish of Albany, King Cuomo, finally made a statement
    yesterday about Crown Heights. Mario found no fault with
    Dinkins' handling of the situation, in fact he said he had
    done "an excellent job." He also had the presence of mind 
    not to let an opportunity to jab a Republican pass him by,
    making the standard pandering comment that D'amatos's comments
    had "definite racial overtones."
    
    There's lots more, but it'll have to wait till later. In the
    meantime, chazak ve'ematz!!
    
    Jem
    

    The Jewish Establishment is finally beginning to
    stir from its hibernation, which began
    on Aug. 19. The Jewish Community Relations
    Council (JCRC) plans a major rally at
    Foley Square (Broadway & Fulton), near
    City Hall in NYC at 1 PM, Sunday, Oct. 13.
    Please repost this in your synagogues, or  
    whatever other forums you may have access to.
    
    Jews and gentiles of conscience should make the
    trip in for this protest against blatant
    Jew-hatred and Dinkins' personal ineptitude
    (to be kind), from wherever they happen to be.
    
    Yankel Rosenbaum (HY"D), before he died,
    identified 3 of his attackers, and said
    that there had been another 20 screaming
    "kill the Jew!" Outrageously, only one
    has been arrested, 39 days later! We mustn't
    be silent about this issue. This is the time
    to express our infuriation. 
    
    No more silence!
    
    Jem
    
                                     

    While I'm not going to go to NYC, I have to say that it sure
    seems to this gentile that there's not a whole lot of justice
    or law going on here.  I'd like to express my disgust at the
    rioters and their promoters, and at the clearly inadequate
    and tardy response by the NYC government.
    
    I'm not sure which of the two possiblities below is worse:
    
    1.	The blacks hate the Jews, and have some non-black support
    	for riots which hurt Jews (ditto Asians, by the way, see
    	recent news about riots over Korean storeowners);
    
    2.	There are a bunch of people who want to riot and others who
    	want riots, and they have been looking for an excuse, but 
    	don't really hate Jews (or Asians, etc), anymore than they
    	hate everybody.
    
    In the former case you have old-fashioned anti-Semitism, which is
    repelent and dangerous; in the latter a criminal population, equally
    horrible and less predictable.  I suspect the reality is a combination
    of both with more criminality than racial animosity.
    
    I've noticed that only a few media outlets (conservative ones like
    the Wall St. Journal) mention the earlier car accident which killed a
    Hasidic child, and that only a few point out that the "retaliation" 
    killing has no element of justice to it at all.  Some even take off
    the quotes, and so imply that it's extra-legal but just.
    
    		-John Bishop

    
    Re: .7
    
    > I suspect the reality is a combination
    >    of both with more criminality than racial animosity.
    
    The point is moot. A Jew is dead, and the mob lusts for
    more. The criminality/racial question interests me less than
    the nature/nurture question, or for that matter, that of the
    chicken and the egg. What matters now is what we do to defend
    our people under fire, against vicious, deadly enemies.
    
    >    I've noticed that only a few media outlets (conservative ones like
    >    the Wall St. Journal) mention the earlier car accident which killed a
    >    Hasidic child, and that only a few point out that the "retaliation"
    >    killing has no element of justice to it at all.  Some even take off
    >    the quotes, and so imply that it's extra-legal but just.
    
    I recently made the same point in another forum. Here's an excerpt
    from the AP report:
    
   >>New York - Violence flared Tuesday night between residents and police
   >>officers in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, one day after a fatal
   >>car accident spawned retaliatory violence that left one man dead.
    
    When I suggested that the term "retaliatory" was carefully chosen, i.e.
    that the use of the word implicitly excused the murder, some objected
    that I was being overly sensitive. However, in the New York Amsterdam
    News of 9/14/91 (self-described as "The New
    Black View"), the following appeared on the front page (in response
    to Mayor Dinkins' timid statement that "the death of Yankel Rosenbaum
    was a lynching as was Yusuf Hawkins'."):
    
            "His comments are the most insane and insulting of
            all," Elombe Brath said. "The mayor does not seem to
            distinguish premeditated murder from *retaliatory*
            murder." (Ed. note: emphasis mine.)
    
    Apparently, Brath feels that there is some distinct message
    conveyed by the use or omission of particular words, as you
    correctly have discerned.
    
    BTW, anyone who would like to understand  "The New
    Black View" vis-a-vis Jews should read this paper. I
    challenge anyone to distinguish it from Streicher's
    _Der Shtrummer_ of 1930's Germany.
    
    Jem
    
    
    
    

    Jem,
    I'm sorry to say that it appears that the word is not widespread
    of the 10/13 demonstration in Foley Sq.  I have called the Boston
    JCRC, the JCC, and Chabbad House and nobody had any information
    on this.  Would someone in NY kindly contact the JCRC there and
    ask them to apprise their Boston chapter a.s.a.p.
    Thank you.
    Bernice

    
    Re: -1
    
    Thanks, Bernice. I'll do so. But anyway, do spread the word by
    mouth, if necessary.
    
    Jem

.5>    ... about 300 black Nazis (and I use the word advisedly) ...

I realize that emotions are running rather high here, but I would advise *not*
using the word "Nazi" in this instance.  The term suggests that the blacks
subscribe to Nazism, which considers blacks (among others) to be inferior, and
I doubt that this applies here.

"Anti-Semites" would be a better substitute.  Anti-Semitism is simply hatred
of Jews as a group, and this attitude clearly is present.

Making incorrect statements about our adversaries discredits us more than it
does them.

    
    Re: .11
    
    > The term suggests that the blacks
    > subscribe to Nazism, which considers blacks (among others) to be
    > inferior, and
    > I doubt that this applies here.
    
    The same point is made in this week's _Amsterdam News_ by
    none other than "activist" Elombe Brath. "If Hitler had 
    finished the job, he would have wiped out Black people
    too." [Aside: whenever blacks are referred to in this
    paper, it is always capitalized, whereas the term "white"
    is always lower-case].
    
    While his logic is sensible, the reasoning seems to have
    eluded the demonstrators in Crown Heights, to whom Brath 
    was alluding. There signs read, "Kill the Jews," and "Hitler
    didn't finish his job." If those aren't Nazi slogans, and
    if that doesn't make those who carry them neo-Nazis, I don't
    know what does.
    
    BTW, Brath himself not only has not found it necessary to
    condemn the lynching of Yankel Rosenbaum, but as I noted
    in an earlier reply, he condemned Dinkins in the strongest
    terms for condemning it himself. 
    
    Watch my language? N-A-Z-I-S, and I use the word advisedly.
    
    Jem
    

    This is a case where I agree (at least in part--perhaps in toto) with Jem.
    
    I think anyone who praises Hitler deserves to be called a Nazi.  When 
    faced with clear-cut anti-Semitism, we need to speak out forcefully.
    
    On the other hand, one has to be clear that the term is being applied
    to a particular person or persons.  It is very important to distinguish
    between Nazis, other anti-Semites,  those who disagree with us, those
    who are neutral, and those who are our friends.  In the context of the
    events of the last couple of months, that means, in particular, not
    confusing color and attitude.
    
    It is important to remember that, despite differences between Jewish
    and Black communities in recent years, most polling data shows that,
    in general, Blacks have more positive attitudes toward Jews than do the
    rest of the U.S. population.  We need to make it very clear that our
    criticism is directed toward specific people, not a racial group, many
    members of which are sympathetic to us.  (I know Blacks who do see what
    happened to Rosenblum as equivalent to what happened to Hawkins,
    regardless of the Amsterdam News' position.)
    
                                           Aaron

.12>    The same point is made in this week's _Amsterdam News_ by
.12>    none other than "activist" Elombe Brath.

Exactly my point.  If we loudly make statements that are blatantly false, that
will be used by our enemies -- oops, I mean our "activists" -- to discredit us
among those who are not well informed.

For those readers with short memories, I want to emphasize that the Nazis did
not invent, nor do they have a monopoly on, the slogan "kill the Jews".  The
Russian mobs who launched pogroms in the late 19th century were not Nazis, nor
were the Poles who did the same in 1946.  Nor was Haman, for that matter, nor
the Amalekites.  But they *were* a threat to us.

It is not only a logical fallacy, it is also dangerous to assume that because
Nazis are anti-Semitic, all anti-Semites are Nazis.

    .14> The Russian mobs who launched pogroms in the late 19th century were not
    .14> Nazis, nor were the Poles who did the same in 1946.  Nor was Haman, for that
    .14> matter, nor the Amalekites.  .....
    
    Eric, what is your defenition of Nazi?
    
    Russian mobs, etc. could not be called Nazis, because there were not
    such a word.

    	Nazis are a political movement. Those who were carrying placards
    supporting Hitler's genocide of the Jews, as well as those drawing
    swastikas and shouting "Heil Hitler" can be called at least Nazi
    supporters and symps, since they are knowingly adopting and promoting
    policies and ideologies of that movement.
    
    DG

    re: .16 I agree with this defenition, but how about author of .14, does
    he?
    CEM�H.

The primary element of Nazism, which has been extensively documented by Adolph
Hitler and others, is the superiority of the "Aryan" (white) race.  Others are
to be kept in servitude to the "Aryans", or be subjected to wholesale murder if
they are seen to consitute a threat (as are the Jews).  My definition of "Nazi"
is someone who supports this view.

The point that I was trying to make in .14 is that this does not include
everyone who wants to "kill the Jews", and my examples were intended to
illustrate this.

                 
        Re: .13 (Aaron S.)
    
        >    This is a case where I agree (at least in part--perhaps in toto)
        > with Jem.
    
    What did Isaiah say? "and the wolf shall dwell with the 
    lamb..." :-)
    
        >    On the other hand, one has to be clear that the term is being
        > applied to a particular person or persons.
    
        Obviously I have no argument with those in the AA community
        who have spoken out loudly. To mention two names off-hand, Roy
        Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality, and Michael Meyers
        of the NY Civil Liberties Union (?). They have condemned the
        Nazi tactics of Sharpton, Moore, Daughtry, Butts et al
        courageously.
    
        But notice the word: "courageously." If it requires courage
        for Jews to stand up and be counted in this hour of crisis,
        an African-American who merely mouths words of condemnation
        against black Nazis and Jew-haters are all but taking their
        lives in their own hands. Those who have taken a stand against
        the pogrom, and more importantly singled out the Nazi-like
        "leaders" of the black community can literally be counted
        on one hand. In all the black media all that can be seen
        or heard is vitriolic Jew-hatred, and Innis and Meyers are
        treated as non-entities at best, or "Uncle Toms," much the 
    	same as Clarence Thomas.
    
        >    It is important to remember that, despite differences between
        > Jewish and Black communities in recent years, most polling data shows
        > that, in general, Blacks have more positive attitudes toward Jews
        > than do the rest of the U.S. population.
    
        I don't own a pair of rose-colored glasses. There were no doubt
        a handful of valiant anti-Nazis in Germany before and during
        WWII. If so, they deserve recognition, but in effect, they were
        anomalies and anachronisms. Concentrating on there heroism
        (if any such people existed) would have given the happily
        complacent media-consumer one *more* reason for sitting back
        and opening another Lowenbrau.
    
        I'm sure that someone can even make the claim that the "silent
        majority" of Germans were anti-Hitler. Of what relevance would
        that hypothetical factoid be? Complacency, in my book, is equiv-
    	alent to complicity. 
    
    	Whether one is African-American, Jewish or 
    	WASP he is *guilty* if he does not take it upon himself to stand 
    	up in the face of America's first pogrom. The Torah puts it 
    	rather succinctly and eloquently: "...do not stand by your bro-
    	ther's blood -I am G-d." (Why the signature in this particular 
    	verse? The classical commentator Rashi explains: I am G-d, who 
    	faithfully rewards, and who will faithfully take retribution 
    	[against those who do stand idly by their neighbors' blood]).
    
    Re: .14 (Eric G.)
    
    >Exactly my point.  If we loudly make statements that are blatantly
    >false, that will be used by our enemies -- oops, I mean our "activists" 
    >-- to discredit us among those who are not well informed.
    
        The point, as Aaron made it above, is that the pogromists *did*
        identify themselves as Nazis by their slogans and placards. If
        they were too ignorant to know that their own group was the target
        of Nazi hatred as well, or chose to ignore that fact, that does
        not change the label they have effectively chosen for themselves. 
    	May I remind you that there are individuals who were born Jewish 
    	who belong to "official" neo-Nazi parties in this country? Why? 
    	Ask them. But they are Nazis one way or another (although they 
    	would surely be among the first victims of their fellow ideologs
    	should the occasion arise).
    
    >For those readers with short memories, I want to emphasize that the
    >Nazis did not invent, nor do they have a monopoly on, the slogan "kill 
    >the Jews". The Russian mobs who launched pogroms in the late 19th century 
    >were not Nazis, nor were the Poles who did the same in 1946.  Nor was 
    >Haman, for that matter, nor the Amalekites.  But they *were* a threat to us.
    
    I think we're beating a dead horse. The point is, the pogromists
    in CH used Nazi slogans: "Heil Hitler," "Hitler didn't finish the
    job." What Hitler would have done to them is immaterial. 
    
    Jem
     
    
    
                    

    re .19, "Complacency, in my book, is equivalent to complicity."
    
    I disagree.  I believe there is a real distinction between taking
    a side and remaining neutral.
    
    If I see a man beating a child and offer to assist, that is
    complicity.  If I attempt to restrain him, that is opposition.
    Walking on is neither.  You may not approve of not getting
    involved but it is not the same as helping!
    
    While I personally believe that no-one is obligated to help others
    (but is obligated not to harm), I understand that other people
    have other opinions about the morality of complacency.  But all
    wrong acts are not of the same level of wrongness.  Promoting 
    inaction to the status of active harm is not going to make your
    argument look rational, and may lose you sympathizers.
    
    		-John Bishop

RE .20
>   I disagree.  I believe there is a real distinction between taking
>   a side and remaining neutral.

It is clear to me there is a basic difference in "belief system" between
Jem and John. Judaism strongly supports the ideal that a person should
not stand idly by when there is a wrong to be corrected. That's one reason
(for example) that so many Jews subscribe to the Civil Liberties Union.

Dave

    
    
        Re: .20
    
        >    I disagree.  I believe there is a real distinction between taking
        >    a side and remaining neutral.
    
        In the U.S., the "Duty to Rescue" is a binding law in many
        states. To my understanding, this means that if you see
        someone drowning, you must attempt to rescue him as long
        as your life is not "substantially endangered." Someone
        whos job is related to rescue or law-enforcement is expected
        carry out this duty even where he is endangered (which the
        cops in CH didn't do either).
    
    
        In Jewish law, there is an obligation incumbent on every passerby
        to help the distressed individual if it is in his power. If
        he can't do so himself, he must hire someone competent to
        carry out the rescue. Likewise, "standing by your neighbor's
        blood" includes holding back vital information which would
        cause the victim harm, physical, financial or otherwise. (See
        Maimonides, Laws of Murder and Rescue, chap. 1).
     
        >If I attempt to restrain him, that is opposition.
        >Walking on is neither.  You may not approve of not getting
        >involved but it is not the same as helping!
    
        You're entitled to your moral opinion, but it would be
        advisable to check on the law in your state to be sure
        of the consequences of your inaction.
    
        Jem
    
    

    
    Re: .21
    
    >That's one reason
    >(for example) that so many Jews subscribe to the Civil Liberties Union.
    
    You don't happen do be from Massachusets, do you? :)
    
    Jem
    

Well, he sure isn't from Skokie.

Re: .20

Regardless of your faith, wouldn't you agree that a person of
conscience could not go "scott free" if he knew his actions
might have prevented someone from being harmed.  Funny how it
works, do the right thing and the rewards are far greater than
any material gift, do the wrong thing and the guilt becomes a
life-long incurable festering wound on your psyche.  And of 
course without a conscience, you can hardly call yourself
human.

Bernice

    First, I think we can all agree that state law and morality are 
    not the same.  Laws can be wrong.  I also think we can agree
    that morality is something people can disagree on!
    
    Secondly, my point was not that neutrality is "0" on the good-evil
    scale (this is clearly arguable), but that even if you believe
    that neutrality is bad, it isn't as bad as active evil: i.e., you
    must have some kind of schedule like the one below:
    
    Action				     Badness/Goodness
    
    Helping him beat the child:		       -200
    Saying "hit him again":		       -100
    Walking away from a man beating a child:	-50
    Telling him to stop and then going away:	-20
    Telling him to stop and saying it again:	  0
    Telling him and calling the police:		 10
    Taking the stick away from him:		 50
    
    Note that "complicity" is worse than "complacency".  What I read
    was the collapse of the two categories into one:
    
    Taking the stick away from him:		100
    Anything else:			       -100
    
    This seemed to me to overstate the case, and so I wrote my reply
    saying so.
    
    As far as .25 goes, if one's conscience doesn't judge an act to be
    wrong, why should it create a "life-long incurable festering wound"?
    My values for the schedule above are different, but I still have
    a conscience.
    
    In actual life, we are "walking away" all the time: anyone who does
    not give all their money to charity and then go work for Mother
    Theresa or equivalent has chosen to not do something to help someone
    who is being harmed.  The harm is being done far away and not right
    in front of you, but people are still dieing from it, and your not
    helping is exactly the same act as walking away, isn't it?
    
    		-John Bishop

    RE: 19
                 
    >What did Isaiah say? "and the wolf shall dwell with the 
    >lamb..." :-)
    
    Jem, I never thought of you as a wolf... :^)
    
    >    I don't own a pair of rose-colored glasses. There were no doubt
    >    a handful of valiant anti-Nazis in Germany before and during
    >    WWII.
    
    There were more than a handful, but many of them (e.g. the Communists)
    were also anti-Semitic.  The fact is that anti-Semitism permeated the
    German polity, as it did most of European society.
    
    I object strenuously to those of any stripe who voice support for
    Nazism or other forms of anti-Semitism.
    
    I also object strenuously to any effort to equate all (or most) members
    of a particular group (in this case, African-Americans) as equivalent
    to the German population that supported Hitler.
    
    The last time I looked, we (the Jews) constituted about 3% of the U.S.
    population (although perhaps 20% of the New York metropolitan area).
    I do think we must not remain silent in the face of anti-Semitism, but
    it is also important to persuade people that anti-Semitism is wrong.
    
    While I happen to agree in principle with Jem's comment about one's
    obligation to come to the assistance of one's neighbor, I also believe
    in using some sachel.
    
    We need all the help we can get.  We will not get support by attacking
    bystanders.
    
    Aaron

    
    
    
    
    
    
            Re: .26
    
    >    First, I think we can all agree that state law and morality are
    >    not the same.  Laws can be wrong.  I also think we can agree
    >    that morality is something people can disagree on!
    
        You had dismissed the notion of an obligation to assist as
        "non-rational." For this reason I quoted the civil law, not
        to claim that I "agree" with every state law, but to demonstrate
        that it is a widely-accepted principle, and was likely to carry
        more weight than the _halacha_ for a non-Jew.
    
        I agree that state laws can be "wrong," but I don't believe this
        one is. Even if I disagreed with a law, however, I'd still be bound
        to obey it (unless it was inherently evil).
    
        The Jewish laws I quoted are a different matter. I believe
        they are "good" by definition, even if my limited under-
        standing cannot fathom the reason behind each and every one.
    
        People argue about morality incessantly. An observant Jew,
        however, thinks not in terms of subjective "morality," which
        can literally mean diametrically opposite things to different
        individuals, but in terms what *Jewish law* dictates on any
        given issue. This by no means implies that we are robots who
        must blindly follow legalisms without considering their purpose
        (see 799.35 for a more complete discussion of this question),
        but that we acknowledge that there is perhaps a wisdom somewhat
        more timeless than our modern sensibilities.
    
    >    Secondly, my point was not that neutrality is "0" on the
    >good-evil    scale (this is clearly arguable), but that even if you
    >believe    that neutrality is bad, it isn't as bad as active evil:
    
    Technically, the Jewish law would concur (and probably so would
    the civil law). That is, transgressing "standing by the blood of
    your neighbor" does not incur the same penalty as if one has
    actively participated in murder. It is a separate transgression,
    and any transgression wherein one transgresses passively carries
    a lighter penalty. However, stating that "complacency is tantamount
    to complicity" is also technically correct, insofar as the *effect*
    of the inaction is to allow harm to occur to others.
    
    But now is not the time for hair-splitting. Now is the time to act,
    and to act forcefully, regardless of what punishment I may or may
    not incur by *not* doing so.
    
    >    In actual life, we are "walking away" all the time: anyone who does
    >    not give all their money to charity
    
    Here again, Jewish law would govern an observant Jew's decisions.
    First, one is not *permitted* to give away *all* his money to
    charity -the limit is 20%, and the recommended figure is 10%. Further-
    more, the ultimate form of charity according to Maimonides is not
    mere dollars at all -rather to help the indigent to gain self-
    sufficiency, and hence self-respect.
    
    > and then go work for Mother Theresa or equivalent has chosen to not
    > do something to help someone who is being harmed.
    
    There are many, many worthy causes to join all over the world. But
    for that very reason, many people may wind up doing nothing. If
    a person walks into the Library of Congress with the idea that he
    will read each and every volume, he will more than likely walk out
    not having even finished a single book -one needs direction.
    
    Here again I invoke the genius of _halacha_. The principle here is,
    "the poor of your own town first." We cannot hope to eradicate
    poverty in every corner of the universe, but we can start with our
    own neighbors, our own people. If we are successful, we can then
    move on to other causes. But there is never an excuse for ignoring
    our own, because, "if I am not for myself, who will be for me?"
    
    Jem

I am getting some mixed messages out of the U.S..  

On the one hand I hear the ringing of the bell of doom of imminent pogroms 
and the rise of "black" Nazis.

On the other I read about the reelection of two veteran Jewish liberals in 
the New York Democratic primaries.  Susan Alter in Brooklyn and Stanley 
Michels in Manhattan.  Alter won against seven black opponents (including
the attorney representing the family of the child killed in the Crown Heights
traffic accident) in an 83% black area, Flatbush.  Michels also won in a 54%
black area, Harlem-Washington Heights.   (I read of these primaries in The 
Jerusalem Report of 26th September 1991).

I am a stong believer in self-defence of the Jewish community, and I am 
prepared to accept that some of the black extremists have "Nazi" tendencies.
However, I fear that there may be a danger of over-reaction which could be 
self-defeating by alienating the majority of citizens who don't care if you 
are black or Jewish as long as you do not interfere with their normal every
day life.

I appreciate that I talk from the safety of Israel, but may it be that the
majority of the black population dislike the extremists as much as we do?

Any comments?

Shalom
Baruch

    	Well, I drove down to NYC for the demonstration with my wife...
    Several impressions stand out - the crowd was smaller than I expected, 
    though the organizers claimed it had exceeded their expectations - maybe 10
    thousand, tops. A very large portion of the crowd were older Jews -
    those old enough to remember WWII and the Holocaust. Surprisingly few
    Lubavitchers were around - though the leadership dais contained several
    prominent rabbis. 
    
    	Most interestingly, I noticed one African-American marcher, and one
    Urban League speaker on the dais. That's it. I heard several people of 
    middle age bitterly complain to their neighbors in the crowd "I marched
    with the blacks in the Civil Rights - how come there aren't any here?"
    Many people chanted "Where is Dinkins?". Ed Koch got the warmest welcome. 
    
    DG

    
    Re: .28 (Aaron)
    
    >   I also object strenuously to any effort to equate all (or most) members
    >   of a particular group (in this case, African-Americans) as equivalent
    >   to the German population that supported Hitler.
    
    If there was a Jewish group that went into Harlem and held up
    signs calling for all blacks to be killed or some such, who
    wantonly burned and pillaged and terrorized the population for
    days on end and whose leaders referred to African-Americans by
    some stereotypical epithets consistently, there would be an obli-
    gation on every Jew to speak out against the Jewish beasts who
    did so.
    
    If, on the other hand, all that could be read in Jewish publications
    and heard on Jewish radio shows for months on end following the
    Jewish riots is further support for the Jewish criminals, and
    if the leaders were given warm welcomes at major Jewish events
    and who were swamped with requests for speaking engagements
    by Jewish fraternities, I would say that there is indeed a 
    communal guilt by association -not only for those who participated
    actively, but for those who sat by silently. In Talmudic terms, the 
    principal is _shetika ke'hoda'a damia_, silence is tantamount to 
    agreement.
    
    >    The last time I looked, we (the Jews) constituted about 3% of the U.S.
    >    population (although perhaps 20% of the New York metropolitan area).
    
    ...
    
    >    While I happen to agree in principle with Jem's comment about one's
    >    obligation to come to the assistance of one's neighbor, I also believe
    >    in using some sachel.
    
    What you're really saying is that you're afraid to speak out, afraid
    that standing up for Jews under siege might worsen the situation,
    or, G-d forbid, cause the "R" word to be invoked against you. 
    
    I believe strongly that it is precisely this kind of weakness
    of spirit and timidity that makes Jews the prime targets of 
    the haters and the "racial racketeers" in the immortal words
    of D'Amato. They knew that there would be no spontaneous out-
    cry to the pogroms, *even from the Jews themselves*, because
    the perpetrators in this case happened to be black, and to
    criticize a group of blacks is to transgress the one command-
    ment that Jews in the U.S. have clung to steadfastly:
    
    		1) BE LIBERAL!
    
    The Torah's formula in dealing with injustice is simple:
    
    		"...do not recognize faces..." (Deut. 16:19).
    
    Creed, origin, race and color are indeed irrelevant -everyone
    is to be judged soley by his actions or *inaction* regardless
    of any other factor. To act differently is hypocrisy.
    
    Jem
       

    re .29, what was non-rational
    
    I did not say that an obligation to assist was non-rational.  While
    I don't think such an obligation exists, I can understand that other
    people might think it does, and be rational while doing so.
    
    What seems non-rational is a claim that inaction and action are always
    equivalent, that is, that they are of the same moral weight.  That's
    all I wanted to say, but it seems I must not be clear enough in saying
    it, as people keep mis-understanding.
    
    re .29, genius of halacha and 20%/10% rule
    
    This is what fascinates me about Judaism: as a system it has confronted
    and solved logical problems which other systems don't even confront 
    (for example, I'm not aware of any principle in Christian thought that
    limits one's duty to the poor; Buddhism has a general rule about
    avoiding extremes, but doesn't pick a number as far as I know).
    
    I'm interested in moral philosophy (as readers of my other notes in 
    BAGELS will know), and in how a society may be constructed.  Halacha
    is the most successful attempt I know of to construct and describe a
    workable society from first principles.  Even if I don't accept the 
    principles, and don't want to live in the resulting manner, I'm still
    very interested in the process.
    
    re .32, response of "X" leaders to actions of "X" mobs
    
    For ordinary individuals, I don't believe that silence means agreement:
    it usually means disagreement coupled with unwillingness to continue
    the argument, whether due to fatigue, boredom, fear of punishment or
    disinclination to fight.  It's often the case that a lower-ranking
    person (e.g. a student) will be silent rather than argue, but still
    not agree.
    
    It is true that if no-one argues back, the effect is similar to that
    of universal agreement in that the initial proposer can go ahead.
    Practically there is a big difference in the result, as in one case
    the proposer knows there is support and help, while in the other, the
    proposer knows there will be passive resistance.  This difference
    leads to implementation at different speeds and often to quite
    different outcomes.
    
    A trivial example is of the music class where the teacher says, "Let's
    sing!"  If no student objects, the teacher will start.  If the students
    wish to sing (agreement), then the class will be loud and the song
    clear; if the students don't wish to sing (silent disagreement), the
    class will be mumbling softly.  This will let the teacher know quite
    clearly how the class feels without any student's disagreement.
    
    However, for a person who claims to be a leader, a spokesperson and a 
    role model for members of the "X" group, silence has a different
    connotation: it implies that there is nothing to comment on, as the 
    position of leader implies that all significant issues will receive
    comment.  Thus an "X" leader should denounce evil actions by a mob 
    of "X" people, and failure to denounce can to a large degree be "read"
    as a judgement that no very evil act occurred.
    
    			-John Bishop

    re: .32
    
    Two points:
    
    1.  There is a prohibition against making false accusations.  We make
        distinctions all the time, and it is important to make them in this
        case.
    
    2.  There is a difference between "being afraid to speak out" and using
        some common sense to determine the most effective way to speak out.
        You may prefer to take the approach that those who are not for us
        are against us, but I prefer to see those who are not against us as
        potential allies.
    
                                               Aaron

    
    
    Re: .30 (Baruch)
    
    >On the one hand I hear the ringing of the bell of doom of imminent pogroms
    >and the rise of "black" Nazis.
    >
    >On the other I read about the reelection of two veteran Jewish liberals in
    >the New York Democratic primaries.  Susan Alter in Brooklyn and Stanley
    >Michels in Manhattan.
    
    The two are not necessarily contradictory. This year's primaries drew one
    of the smallest turnouts in memory. Small turnouts are known to favor the
    incumbents, since it's the same people who vote year after year.
    
    >However, I fear that there may be a danger of over-reaction which could be
    >self-defeating by alienating the majority of citizens who don't care if you
    >are black or Jewish as long as you do not interfere with their normal every
    >day life.
    
    Why would they become "alienated?" By hearing Jews mourn their dead and
    organize defense plans in case of further riots? They may want to just
    lead "normal lives," but as long as there is bigotry in society, no one
    can afford to just go about their "business as usual," particularly
    members of minority groups who are always vulnerable.
    
    I base my impressions on what I see and hear in the black media. Although
    I obviously can't read everything, I do get a fair sampling, and I can
    tell you that since August, I've not seen a *single* word lamenting the
    lynching of Yankel Rosenbaum or any of the other horrendous violence
    discussed in earlier notes. Nowhere have I seen in any black publication
    any condemnation of Jeffries' Jew-baiting, or that of Carson, Daughtry
    and Sharpton. On the contrary, all one can see, *daily*, is a barrage
    of further attacks on Jews and Judaism. Example? Here's a headline from
    p. 5 of this week's _Amsterdam News_: "The little secret Jews don't want
    exposed to to the public." The article goes on to say that, "...they [Jews]
    have sufficient control of the media and other institutions..." to make
    sure that the extent of the Jews' "privileged position in American society"
    is never "exposed." Sound familiar? Right from _Mein Kampf_.
    
    They get away with spewing such poison because they know that it gets
    results from the cowardly Jewish "leadership" in this country. Instead
    of shooting from the hip and fighting fire with fire, the "leaders"
    fell for the bait, hook, line and sinker. Before Yankel Rosenbaum's
    blood had dried, they were arranging meetings to discuss the "inequities"
    suffered by the African-American communities in Brooklyn, at Rev.
    Sharpton's convenience, of course. Injustice against Jews? That issue
    can wait.
    
    The Right Reverend, meanwhile, gets richer and richer, from talk shows,
    speaking engagements, etc., and more and more powerful. He now is raising 
    funds for a run for the US Senate. "His ties to racially heated cases such 
    as Tawana Brawley, Bensonhurst, Howard Beach and Crown Heights are a plus,
    not a handicap," says columnist Carolyn Butts.
    
    As I pointed out in an earlier reply, the sensible spokesmen such as
    Innis, Myers and Walcott (of the NY Urban League) are treated as
    pariahs, studiously avoided by both the black and general press, who
    see no AA leader as "newsworthy" besides Sharpton, who is regularly
    quoted in several articles in each issue of many publications.
    
    What does the "average" African-American think? Who knows. But what
    is sure is that the loud-mouths and demagogues literally have a
    stranglehold in NY, with the notable exception of the _Post_ (regardless 
    of its other shortcomings).
    
    >I appreciate that I talk from the safety of Israel,
    
    I don't know if the irony was intentional, but I find the twist refreshing.
    
    Jem                                                            
    

    Re: .34 (Aaron S.)
    
    >       You may prefer to take the approach that those who are not for us
    >       are against us, but I prefer to see those who are not against us as
    >       potential allies.
    
    What I said was that there is an obligation upon every decent
    person to express outrage and demand justice against the Jew-
    hating mobs. Those who don't are guilty --Jew or gentile, black
    or white. Did my "Jewish Harlem riots" analogy not make that
    clear?
    
    > but I prefer to see those who are not against us as
    >       potential allies.
    
    
    You remind me of the time Charlie Brown was despondent about
    not receiving any valentine cards. Violet finally came over to
    him with a card she had received, crossed out her name and
    replaced it with Charlie Brown's, and said, "here, Charlie
    Brown, you can have this one."
    
    Linus jumped up and valiantly proclaimed that Charlie Brown
    didn't want pity, and would not accept a used card just to
    assuage her guilt.
    
    To which Charlie Brown replied, "Don't listen to him, I'll
    take it!"
    
    The state of Jewish self-respect is fairly close to that of
    Charlie Brown --as long as you don't scream "Heil Hitler"
    in my ears, you can be my valentine -no questions asked.
    
    To what depths have we sunk! This Jewish nation, about whom
    G-d speaks in such loving terms: "When Israel was a child, then
    I loved him, and I called my son out of Egypt" (Hos. 11:1).
    It might be out of vogue to say so, but we have never stopped
    being G-d's *chosen people*. Embarrassing? Only if you don't
    believe it. If you do believe that there is a G-d who has
    elected Israel to carry out his will on earth, you will no
    longer grovel. You will hold your head high, and realize that
    the reason that Israel has been hated for these many millenia
    is precisely because of that G-dly mission. Hitler himself
    said it: "Conscience is a Jewish invention. It is a blemish,
    like circumcision... the Ten Commandments have lost their
    validity."
    
    It's time that we began to reexamine the meaning of our own
    Jewishness, so that we may merit the glorious promise, "and
    you will be a blessing; fear not, but let your hand be strong"
    (Zech. 8:13).
    
    Jem

    In 1950-69 when black marched for Civil Right a lot of Jew marched side
    by side and some Jew were kill. I don't think the majority blacks are
    anti-semtic. Historical black and Jew have a lot in common. If an
    incident happen this doesn't change the relationship between the two.
    I still see a lot in common in both group. You will always have some
    extremes in both sides.
    
    Jos�

Re 1103.35   

Jem
 
>    Why would they become "alienated?" By hearing Jews mourn their dead and
>    organize defense plans in case of further riots? 

If mourning or organising defence plans alienates anyone, then I have a simple
answer to them: "Tough!"  No, I was refering to demonstrations when the oratory
may sound more anti others than pro Jewish.  We should defend our communities
by all means (preferably legal) possible, but at the same time be aware that it
benefits noone to frighten the timid majority. The extremists will benefit if
Jewish demonstrations begin to sound anti-black or any other minority. 

>                      -< The safety of Israel - touche! >-
   
No irony intended.  My family and I have lived in Israel for over twelve years,
and we feel safer here than anywhere else, not just as Jews but as any people
living a normal day-to-day life.

Shalom
Baruch  

    
    Re: .37
    
    > I don't think the majority blacks are
    >    anti-semtic.
    
    You may or may not be right. Since black publications
    are overflowing with Jew-baiting these days, though,
    those who feel differently have an obligation to speak
    out loudly and publicly.
    
    >If an incident happen this doesn't change the relationship between the
    >two. I still see a lot in common in both group.
    
    Again, this is more than an incident. The black demagogues have
    the upper hand today, to the degree that they can literally
    shut out voices of sanity from being heard in the AA community.
    
    It is extremely politically incorrect to support Israel today,
    and has been for some time. Now Jew-bashing has been added to
    the list of PC requirements. 
    
    I don't believe in exaggerating the threat, but I certainly
    don't believe in poo-pooing it. From where I sit, black Jew-
    bashing is very popular and growing. That's the ugly, unmitigated
    truth.
    
    Jem
    

    
    Re: .38 (Baruch)
    
    >The extremists will benefit if
    >Jewish demonstrations begin to sound anti-black or any other minority.
    
    And this is obviously the reason why the Jewish Establishment
    did nothing until this week's rally. As I said, they'd rather
    sacrifice 100 Lubavitchers rather than Heaven-forbid have to
    respond to the knee-jerk "racist" charge.
    
    Do you suggest that the response to the pogrom, and to the
    ensuing deluge of Jew-hatred should be muffled because the
    perpetrators were African-American? 
    
    Jem
    

    In Durshowitz' (spelling?) latest book "Chutzpah" he discusses the
    Jewish practice of "shah shtill", be silent or it will get worse.  It
    seems that the silence of our leaders and lack of support from the
    press regarding the Crown Heights incidents is a perfect example of
    "shah shtill".  I believe it is time to see who our allies are and
    speak our piece!
    

 The leadership of a group of people is a reflection of that groups hopes and
aspirations. That is why Germany after a humiliating defeat in WWI and a 
Depression gave birth to a resentful and paranoid people, Hitler was only
the expression of these people.
	I really think people are fooling themselves to think that the problem
is just Sharpton and company. I have black friends and I certainly know that
not all black people hate the jews. However, Today there are  have so many
 Black leaders (by leaders I mean who blacks look to for leadership) saying
 anti-Semitic things. Starting at the bottom with Sharpton, running through
 their religious leadership,Butts, Black Muslims etc, and up to their
 presidential candidates and a lot of the most widely read newspapers. One can
only draw from this that the anti-Semitic feelings are very deep and these 
people are giving expression to it.
	To site an obscure survey that blacks like jews more then most, I would
have to question the survey itself like
Who took the survey?, what kind of sampling? what were the questions? How long
ago? etc..  

Regards,
	Phil

    Jem, please do not quote me out of context or put me in the same
    category as the vacillating diaspora "Jewish Establishment".
    
    I clearly stated that I support defence and action.  I certainly do not
    believe that Afro-American anti-semites should be treated any
    differently from any other type.  I was merely making the observation
    that it is counter-productive to allow our actions (demonstrations or
    whatever) to be seen to sink to the same level as the opposition.  The
    anti-semites will be very happy to prove that Jews are anti another
    minority.  The last thing you need in New York or anywhere else is a
    war between two communities.  That would make the anti-semites and the
    anti-Afro Americans very happy indeed, whatever their colours.
    
    Shalom v'Shevuah Tov
    Baruch

    
    Re: .42 (Phil)
    
    >        To site an obscure survey that blacks like jews more then
    >most, I would have to question the survey itself like
    >Who took the survey?, what kind of sampling? what were the questions?
    >How long ago? etc..
    
    *Real* good questions. Good luck getting answers!
    
    Re: .43 (Baruch)
    
    > I was merely making the observation
    > that it is counter-productive to allow our actions (demonstrations or
    > whatever) to be seen to sink to the same level as the opposition.
    
    You're absolutely right on that score, and in fact I have heard
    one Jewish "activist" who is indeed guilty of doing just that.
    However, the ludicrous, automatic charge of "racism" is regularly
    bandied about against any white (kal vachomer a Jew) who criticizes 
    anything that an African-American does (as long as his initials
    aren't C.T.), including arson, murder and rioting. This tactic
    by the "racial racketeers" has worked *extremely* effectively,
    terrorizing both the general press and the Jewish "leadership"
    into deafening silence. The fact is that black Jew-baiting is
    in vogue, and Crown Heights was not an anomaly in this climate.
    If the AA "leaders" have their way - and no one seems to have
    the backbone to see that they don't - CH will just represent
    the tip of the iceberg R"L.
    
    > That would make the anti-semites and the
    >    anti-Afro Americans very happy indeed, whatever their colours.
    
    Again, you're right on target. However, this has nothing to do
    with speaking out loudly and clearly against blatant *black*
    Jew-hatred. Anyone who confuses that with "racism" is either
    either paranoid, ignorant or has the agenda you're alluding to.
    
    Jem
    

    Unfortunately, I have to spend some of my time doing computer work, so
    I can't respond to notes every day.
    
    Let's clarify a couple of things.
    
    I believe in responding to anti-Semitism regardless of who it is
    directed at; I happen to have family in Crown Heights as well as at
    Hebrew Union College.  Any time we become selective about who we defend
    we invite disaster.
    
    How we respond is also important.  The issue is not whether the anti-
    Semites are black or any other color, but whether we distinguish
    between those who are guilty of anti-Semitism and those who simply
    happen to have the same color skin (or ethnic identity).  It is highly
    offensive to me when someone uses the sins of an Ivan Boesky (for
    instance) to launch an attack on "those *Jews* who control the stock
    market and the banks."  That which I find offensive I will not do to
    others and I will object whether the offensive behavior is directed at
    Jews or at other groups.
    
    I do not live in the New York area and I do not have first-hand
    knowledge of what the Amsterdam News is publishing or what people like
    Sharpton are saying and I am  a) not challanging what is reported here
    nor b) excusing anyone because of color.  Those who are guilty of
    defamation deserve condemnation, but one is responsible for one's own
    sin, not for that of others.
    
    The African-Americans that *I* know are neither condoning Y.R.'s murder 
    nor condoning anti-Semitism, and they have been supportive of me when
    I've dealt with issues of anti-Semitism.
    
                                               Aaron
    
    p.s. The polls to which I referred are a series that have been carried
    out for years.  If I recall correctly, they are commissioned by the ADL
    and are used to identify areas for educational efforts.  I'll see if I
    can track some precise references.

Aaron,
	I agree with you that each person is responsible for their own sins.
What this means is I would not assume that because a particular person is
African_American, German or Polish that he/she is anti-Semitic.
However, we do have a responsibility to both ourselves and our children to look at
some general trends in society as a whole and draw some conclusions off of 
that. For example, if a mobs run through the streets yelling "kill the Jews" in
chorus with their leaders or if a Cardinal says some anti-Semitic things in a
country with a long history of anti-Semitism. I would of course condemn this
individual, however I feel you really would be wrong to say that it was just
a problem of this particular individual. When people who are in a leadership
position speak they generally do not just speak what is on their mind, but 
what they think is on the minds of the people they are trying to represent.
Is what they are saying representative? Well if  it is repeated enough and
is not contested within their own group , I would  say it is 
representative of the popular sentiment.   If you
just took for the popular sentiment what  the people you are in direct contact
are saying to your face , it would be misleading. In a nutshell I am not trying
to say all of any group is anti-Semitic, but we should be aware for our own
safety of the general trends in the society from which we live.

Regards,
	Phil

    
    Re: .45
    
    >    I believe in responding to anti-Semitism regardless of who it is
    >    directed at; I happen to have family in Crown Heights as well as at
    >    Hebrew Union College.  Any time we become selective about who we defend
    >    we invite disaster.
    
    But, at least in this note, you've spent a whole lot more time
    "responding" to some imaginary charge of "racism" than you have
    to the issue at hand: an American pogrom and its aftermath (and
    prelude) of vitriolic Jew-baiting.
    
    >It is highly
    >    offensive to me when someone uses the sins of an Ivan Boesky (for
    >    instance) to launch an attack on "those *Jews* who control the stock
    >    market and the banks."
    
    Are you insinuating that someone has done something analagous in this
    note? If so, be specific. If not, forget this straw man and
    concentrate on the issue.
    
    >Those who are guilty of
    >    defamation deserve condemnation, but one is responsible for one's own
    >    sin, not for that of others.
    
    You've conveniently ignored  my analogy in .32. I include it again:
    
    >>    If there was a Jewish group that went into Harlem and held up
    >>    signs calling for all blacks to be killed or some such, who
    >>    wantonly burned and pillaged and terrorized the population for
    >>    days on end and whose leaders referred to African-Americans by
    >>    some stereotypical epithets consistently, there would be an obli-
    >>    gation on every Jew to speak out against the Jewish beasts who
    >>    did so.
    >>
    >>    If, on the other hand, all that could be read in Jewish publications
    >>    and heard on Jewish radio  shows for months on end following the
    >>    Jewish riots is further support for the Jewish criminals, and
    >>    if the leaders were given warm welcomes at major Jewish events
    >>    and who were swamped with requests for speaking engagements
    >>    by Jewish fraternities,I would say that there is indeed a
    >>    communal guilt by association -not only for those who participated
    >>    actively, but for those who sat by silently. 
    
    Do you disagree?
    
    >    The African-Americans that *I* know are neither condoning Y.R.'s murder
    >    nor condoning anti-Semitism, and they have been supportive of me when
    >    I've dealt with issues of anti-Semitism.
     
    Again, what is the connection? I gave several examples of AA leaders
    who have spoken out valiantly, but the point is they are ignored,
    both by the black and the general press, whereas those who spout
    excerpts from the "Elders of Zion" are everywhere to be seen and
    heard. Moreover, the well-known Jew-haters are given heros' receptions
    by black audiences wherever they appear. 
    
    Of course there are many, many decent people -black and white-
    who clearly understand what charlatans and fortune-seekers Sharpton,
    Jeffries et al are, but if they don't make their voices heard, they are
    effectively bolstering both the latters' position *and* their ranks, 
    since the media-consumer gets only the position that they present.
    
    >    p.s. The polls to which I referred are a series that have been carried
    >    out for years.
    
    Phil pointedly asked how recent the polls were. Old studies are
    virtually useless in today's climate.
    
    
    Jem                                  

    
    Just when I thought the pogrom had been relegated to history,
    that we could safely forgive and forget, I discovered these
    revealing accounts:
    
    	The local police reacted with painful slowness, whether
    	because they were unprepared for this...or because of the
    	reluctance of their...commanders to use force...in defense
    	of the...Jews...The authorities tolerated assaults and
    	looting...for two days before effectively intervening on the
    	third day.
    
    	(The leaders) answered criticism by echoing the expostulations
    	offered by local officials, guilty of impassivity in checking
    	the disturbance, that this was but a popular reaction to 
    	intolerable Jewish "exploitation."
    
    	(Writer's name witheld) declared that the cause of the pogrom,
    	"so incompatible with the nature of the (local) people," was
    	the recent rapid economic expansion of the Jews.
    
    	(The government) must protect the local people against the 
    	Jews' injurious activities which, according to local reports,
    	were responsible for the disorders.    	
    
    	The aim of the (investigatory) deliberations was defined as
    	relating to "the harmful impact of the economic activity of
    	Jews on the local population, their racial separatism, and
    	religious fanaticism.
    
    	...Liberals were deterred from voicing loud protests against
    	the pogromists. Many had grown to believe in the righteous
    	instincts of the populace and looked with abhorrence on violent
    	measures taken by the police against the "people."
    
    
    Crown Heights, 1991? Guess again.
    
    This is a description of the infamous wave of pogroms in the *Ukraine*
    begun in Elizavetgrad in 1881 (see _The Russian Jew_, by Salo Baron,
    Macmillan 1976). Sound familiar? Uh huh. Except one point:
    
    	"...authorities tolerated assaults and looting of Jewish quarters
    	for two days before...intervening"
    
    The Ukrainian Jews were *lucky* -- Dinkins decided to let it go for
    *three* days.
    
    To date, only one arrest has been made. Approximately 19 accomplices
    to Yankel Rosenbaum's murder are roaming the streets waiting for the
    next opportunity to spill Jewish blood. Has anyone heard about a
    federal investigation? Any repurcussions for the incitors of the
    riots?
    
    Don't let this issue die! Keep Yankel Rosenaum's memory alive!
    Keep the pressure on the demagogues!
    	
    	
    Jem
    

On the night of August 19, 1991, Yankel Rosenbaum
was brutally stabbed to death by a pack of over
twenty youths in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Their
rallying cry? "KILL THE JEW!" To date, only one
of the mob has been arrested.

For three days in August, New York City leaders
stood silent as rampaging youths in Crown Heights
violently assaulted, looted and terrorized the
local Jewish community. Throughout the riots,
chants of "HEIL HITLER!" and "KILL THE JEWS!"
resounded.

Jews throughout the city continue to be threatened,
synagogues are desecrated and buses of Jewish school-
children are attacked. We cannot remain silent!

As recently as Tues., 3/31, a gang of seven youths
roamed the streets of Crown Heights beating Jews
with sticks. The madness must end!

The citizens of New York demand that our leaders seek
justice for Jewish victims of bias with the same
determination shown for victims from other ethnic
backgrounds.

We must stand together to defeat anti-Semitism and
racism in New York and throughout North America.

        The problem will not just "go away."

We must show our leaders that we will not accept
their apathy and indifference.

JOIN US AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT.

 RALLY FOR JUSTICE!

Sunday, April 5, 1992
City Hall, Manhattan 1:00 PM

Join Norman Rosenbaum, brother of Yankel, HY"D and
other dignitaries, political leaders and members of the
Crown Heights community.

Sponsored by:

New Yorkers Against Racism & Anti-Semitism
The Rabbinical Alliance, United Jewish Coalition,
The Crown Heights Emergency Committee, The Crown
Heights Jewish Women's Coalition, Seniors Against
Discrimination, The April 5th Coalition for
Justice, The Crown  Heights Community Council,
and Students for a Unified New York

If you are outside NY, but would like to demonstrate
your solidarity  or if you are interested in joining 
an activist Jewish group, send me email.
    
    Jem
    

    
    Thank you to all who sent words of support. I urge
    all who cannot make it to the rally to send a
    strong message to Mayor Dinkins. Here is a
    suggested text:
    
            I demand action on the arrest of all
            of Yankel Rosenbaum's murderers, and
            safety for the citizens of Crown
            Heights.
    
    The mayor can be reached at:
    
            Mayor David Dinkins
            Mayor's Office
            City Hall
            N.Y., N.Y. 10007
            Tel.: (212)788-3000
            Tel.: (212)566-5700
            fax : (212)791-9628
    
    Please send the message, and enlist others
    to call, fax, cable or write as well.
    
    Jewish blood is *not* cheap!
    
    Jem
    

    
I have just spoken to some Crown Heights activists, who
have told me about a number of incidents which have not
been reported in the media.

For the past two weeks (on Shabbos, of course), small groups
have paraded down Utica Ave. shouting, "Off our street Jew,
we're at war with you!" Trash-can fires were started, but no more
than that.

I'm told that Al Sharpton has taken up residence in Brooklyn
once again (he's running for senator), this time in - you guessed
it - Crown Heights. At a minimum, he is planning to replay the
riots on the Aug. 19th anniversary of the pogrom. Whether
he plans something before then in addition is not known.

The Jews of Crown Heights must be protected. I urge you all
to write or fax Dinkins to demand that proper protection be
provided this summer:

        Mayor David Dinkins
        Mayor's Office
        City Hall
        N.Y., N.Y. 10007
        Tel.: (212)788-3000
        Tel.: (212)566-5700
        fax : (212)791-9628

Anyone who would be willing to participate in or
help organize solidarity vigils in New York or
other places, please let me know or post it here.

Feel free to forward this message.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yehoshua (Jem) Steinberg | Complacency is  tantamount
gaon::jem                |      to  complicity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            

    re. 50
    
    Last Friday I received a response from the office of the Mayor Dinkins
    signed by Fritz "SOMETHING" II.  It said that they tried to investigate
    the case and an arrest of one guilty person was (is) made, and this is 
    very difficult to truck the rest of the participant... 
    Did not sound convincing.

Crown Heights, in August of 1991, was  the  scene  of  the  first
modern-day  pogrom  on  American soil. Ten months have now passed
since Yankel Rosenbaum was violently murdered, scores of innocent
people  assaulted and injured, and an entire community terrorized
for days.

Yankel Rosenbaum's murderers are still at large, with one  excep-
tion.  A solitary police detective has been assigned to the case.
The 35 tapes of calls made to 911  during  the  riots  are  still
missing,  and the police are "investigating their disappearance."
Brooklyn District Attorney Joe Hynes said, on April  15  that  he
was "not optimistic at all that we're ever going to find the peo-
ple involved" in the Crown Heights lawlessness, and candidly  ad-
mitted  that  it was "an investigation with lots of serious prob-
lems." Shortly afterwards, Mr. Hynes stated that he would not op-
pose  a Federal investigation and that his office would cooperate
fully with any such investigation.

In recent days, recognizing the compelling need for a Federal in-
vestigation,  Congressmen  Thomas Manton, James Scheuer, and U.S.
Senator Al D'Amato have requested the intervention of the Depart-
ment of Justice.

The decision on the part of  Jewish  Action  Initiative  and  New
Yorkers  United Against Racism and Anti-Semitism to reiterate our
call for a Federal investigation has been made after  a  thorough
review of all that we have learned about the terrifying events of
last August, and their subsequent handling by New York  City  and
State authorities.

It may seem far away for those of us who do  not  live  in  Crown
Heights,  but  the fact remains that the Jewish families residing
there still live in constant fear of attack. Crown  Heights  con-
tinues  to  be  plagued  with a steady stream of hateful rhetoric
against Jews. One of the major inciters of the violence,  instead
of being in jail, is running for political office, and as recent-
ly as April 25, 1992 an angry  mob  marched  along  Utica  Avenue
between  Empire  Boulevard  and  Eastern  Parkway with a bullhorn
chanting "Get off the streets, Jew! We're at war with you!"

We urge you to sign the attached petition  and  to  make  copies.
Bring it to your community and religious leaders, and your elect-
ed representatives. Let the Government know that when the  insti-
tutions  of  justice  and  law enforcement are wed to a policy of
political expediency and appeasement as was  the  case  in  Crown
Heights  in  1991, and earlier, with the anti-Korean boycott of a
grocery store on Church Avenue, then all of us, as a  society  of
laws, are diminished and made poorer.

We may never learn who was responsible for preventing the  police
from  doing  their job during those awful three days last August.
But, it is possible that we will. When the Korean grocery boycott
became  the subject of a Federal inquiry, the truth emerged via a
report by the U.S.  Civil Rights Commission. So we know the value
of a properly conducted Federal Investigation.

Can't we, as a  civilized  society,  give  the  people  of  Crown
Heights  and Yankel Rosenbaum HY"D *at least* the same measure of
justice that was given to a grocery store?



To: The Honorable William P. Barr
    Attorney General of the United States
    Department of Justice


                PETITION FOR JUSTICE

Mindful of the serious evidence of the failing of  the  City  and
State  of New York to adequately pursue and prosecute the murder-
ers of Yankel  Rosenbaum,  and  further  mindful of  the  serious  
failings  of  the  City  and  State  of  New York  to  adequately
pursue and  prosecute  those  who  have  incited  or  perpetrated
violence against the citizens of Crown Heights and the other vic-
tims of these crimes,

WE THE UNDERSIGNED, CALL UPON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF  AMERICA TO INTERCEDE AND CONDUCT A FULL, INDEPENDENT INVESTI-
GATION of the above issues with a view to  speedily  bringing  to
justice  all  those  responsible  for  these acts of lawlessness.
Further, we urge that the investigation include within its  scope
consideration  of any possible obstruction of justice or derelic-
tion of law enforcement duties which may have occurred  in  these
cases.

NAME                    ADDRESS                 SIGNATURE 
(Please print clearly)
______________________________________________________________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________
                                               |
_______________________________________________|______________________

	Kindly return this petition before July 4, 1992 by mail
	or fax to:

		New Yorkers United Against Racism and Anti-Semitism
		Box 176, 61 E. 8th St., NY, NY 10003
		Tel: (212)505-1429	Fax: (212)505-0074

    There was a one column story about the "not guilty" verdict in the
    Saturday Baltimore Sun.  I heard nothing on the radio on Friday and was
    shocked.  There was no follow-up in the Sunday or Monday Sun papers. 
    What's happening?   
    
    What have Abrams and D'Amato said about this?  Dinkins? Mario??
    
    Have the NY Jewish "leadership" made any statements?
    
    Avi
    

The Feds have promised to look into it in much the same way that they
looked into the acquittal of the LA police who beat Rodney King -- i.e.
they'll look into pressing civil rights charges.  I'm surprised that
the Sun gave the story such short shrift.  It made page 3 of Saturday's
Globe and page 1 of the Herald.

On page 3 of today's Globe is a Reuters article on a rally in Crown Heights
that called for Dinkins' resignation.

"A spokesman for Gov. Mario Cuomo was shouted off the stage after he read
a statement by the governor that insisted on a state investigation into
the killing but fell short of condemning last week's verdict."

The ADL is offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to the
capture and conviction of the murderer.

    Here's the latest news on the Crown Heights Pogrom
    ===============================================================
    
    
Article: 2124
From: [email protected] (WILLIAM M. REILLY)
Newsgroups: clari.news.law.crime.violent,clari.news.group.jews,clari.news.group.blacks,clari.local.nyc,clari.news.top
Subject: Report: Police brass blamed for Crown Heights
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 10:00:30 PDT
 
	NEW YORK (UPI) -- The long-awaited state report released Monday on the
city's handling of the 1991 Crown Heights riots blamed police brass --
especially former police commissioner Lee Brown -- for not moving faster
to quell violence between blacks and Jews.
	The 600-page report also criticized Mayor David Dinkins and other
high-ranking Police Department members, including current commissioner
Raymond Kelly, for failing to exercise stronger leadership during what
it called the worst racial disturbance the city has seen in the last 20
years.
	The four days of unrest in the Brooklyn neighborhood pitted blacks
angry at the accidental death of a black boy by a Jewish motorist
against members of the ultra-orthodox Hasidic community enraged by the
slaying of a Jewish man in apparent retaliation.
	State Criminal Justice Coordinator Richard Girgenti, who wrote the
two-volume report, said Dinkins failed to act ``in a timely and decisive
manner'' in ordering police to ``quickly restore peace and order to the
community.''
	But he also cleared Dinkins of the most serious charge stemming from
the riots: that he ordered police not to move in as the violence
unfolded.
	``There is no evidence that Mayor Dinkins, or any City Hall
officials, restrained the Police Department from taking aggressive
action in response to the disturbance,'' Girgenti said.
	Girgenti singled out Brown -- now the nation's drug czar -- for failing
to fulfill his main responsibility as police commissioner, ``to suppress
rioting and preserve the public peace.''
	The report also claimed that although Kelly, then the department's
first deputy commissioner, did not have immediate responsibility for
making manpower decisions, he did have the authority to intervene but
did not.
	Girgenti also faulted several members of the Dinkins Administration
and the Police Department for delivering poor advice to their bosses and
not recognizing the severity of the situation sooner.
	The riots in August 1991 began when a car that was part of an Hasidic
motorcade struck and killed 7-year-old Gavin Cato.
	Hours later, a 29-year-old visiting rabbinical scholar from
Australia, Yankel Rosenbaum, was attacked by a gang of black youths and
stabbed in the chest, apparently in retaliation for Cato's death. He
died a short time later.
	Street battles, including rock and bottle-throwing between blacks and
Hasidic members, engulfed the neighborhood for several days,
underscoring dormant tensions between the two communities and the
growing animosity towards police.
	Gov. Mario Cuomo ordered Girgenti to conduct an exhaustive review of
the city's response to the disturbances after the lone defendant charged
in Rosenbaum's slaying, Lemrick Nelson Jr., 17, was acquited in October.
	The acquittal set off demonstrations and angry accusations from the
Jewish community.
	Hasidic leaders have a federal lawsuit pending against the city,
charging that police violated their civil rights by not moving to
protect them from rioters.
	Last year, the U.S. Justice Department opened a federal investigation
into the Rosenbaum murder and possible civil rights violations related
to the riots.