Shoebat Showdown
Re: The Changeling, September/October 2004
The review of Walid Shoebat’s talk to Wesleyan University students in March is a litany of inaccuracies, looking for negative, hidden agendas that not only don’t exist, but are antithetical to the very mission to which Mr. Shoebat dedicates his life.
Let’s get four things straight. Shoebat calls himself a reformed terrorist because that is exactly what he is. He is completely honest and forthright. And it isn’t easy. He mourns his lost childhood. Each time he speaks to a group, he puts his life on the line, knowing there is a fatwa on his head. He lives under an assumed name without disclosing his address to protect himself and his family.
Perhaps the most despicable accusation made by the writer is that Mr. Shoebat is either hiding his deeply-felt evangelical Christian faith from audiences or using it to proselytize through a Jewish megaphone. The accusation that Shoebat refrains from offering solutions to the problem because he’d be in conflict with Christian Zionists is absurd. He is a Christian Zionist, and believes the land does indeed belong to the Jews. Whether Shoebat believes that Jesus is the Messiah has no bearing on his advocacy for Israel’s right to exist. Mr. Shoebat is compelled to speak out because of the years of poisonous indoctrination and propaganda by his own people. How would any man react when he discovers that his childhood was nothing but a series of lies? Some might turn to violence. Walid turned to love.
The writer also charges that Shoebat “dumps” the blame for the entire Middle Eastern problem on the Arabs, yet does not reiterate the reasons Mr. Shoebat gives for his belief in Israel’s position. He fails to mention that the Barak agreement gave the Palestinians everything they demanded: land, statehood, autonomy, yet Arafat signed it with a false pen and never lived up to the agreement.
Finally, Shoebat’s presentation is not “calculated to stroke the egos of Jewish Zionists,” while “uniting them in fear and hatred of Palestinians.” The Palestinians do a fine job all by themselves of evoking fear and hatred. And Jewish Zionists need no one to make them feel their cause is just.
– Keith Davies
Agent of Mr. Shoebat and Executive Director, Walid Shoebat Foundation
Author’s Response:
While I observed a general suspicion among some of my sources about the authenticity of Shoebat’s backstory, I made very clear in the story that I had, at press time, found no factual support for these suspicions, and mentioned them only in passing in the article.
I never claimed that Shoebat’s Christian Zionism made his opinions on the Middle East invalid. I simply wrote that his opinions are related to his faith, and that that this relationship is essential to an understanding his point of view.
Lastly, it is undeniably incorrect to state, as Mr. Davies does here, that the entirety of the blame for the current situation in the Middle East falls on the shoulders of the Palestinians.
\x08– Josh Nathan-Kazis
Disunion and Discord
Re: Orthodox Disunion, September/October 2004
Your October 2004 article on Yeshiva University is a troubling portrayal of an institution in disarray. Aside from the inaccuracies (Rabbi Abba Bronspiegel is not on faculty at Yeshiva University, women are allowed into the dormitories just not into the living areas, the Associate Dean who “censored” the Arts Festival acted alone and was not even Jewish), there are two points your readership should be aware of:
Yeshiva University is a Jewish university under Orthodox auspices, and its colleges are intentionally set up to contain both secular studies and Torah learning. What type of accusation is it to declare that some students at Yeshiva University prefer their Torah classes to their secular ones? Do some students at Columbia University prefer biology to philosophy? No Yeshiva University administrator has openly rejected the Torah u’Madda way of life. The Yeshiva deliberately comes before the University in our title. Torah is our way of life, and we will not pretend that it is not a priority here. We couple Torah learning with a dedication to excellence in secular studies.
Similarly, Yeshiva University has a diverse faculty. There are plenty of rabbinic faculty members who proudly teach at Yeshiva University and live a Torah u’Madda ethos.
This is not to say that M.W. makes no valid points. On the contrary, many of his concerns are shared by students and faculty. But those of us who actually care about the future of Yeshiva University are more interested in finding ways we can better the movement, than publicly rant about a culture we apparently do not understand or appreciate.
– Zev Nagel
Yeshiva College ’05; Editor-in-Chief, The Commentator
Author’s Response:
My article hardly suggests, I hope, that I don’t “actually care about the future of Yeshiva University.” I have heard from many friends and acquaintances that this article has triggered discussions amongst students and older people alike, and I think this is vital for Yeshiva University’s future. I do not agree that much of these issues ought to be resolved solely internally, precisely because YU sits in a leadership position in the Modern Orthodox world. I think YU needs to learn more about the rest of the Modern Orthodox communities, and the communities need to learn more about YU. And frankly, I think there is virtually nothing better for an institution than dialogue, which ensures that it remains a living body. I hope this article will only lead to more discussion.
\x08—M.W.
Stay tuned: M.W. will be expanding “Orthodox Disunion” in an upcoming issue of Moment Magazine.
In Defense of Self-Defense
Re: Schmear Campaign, November/December 2004
Today, America is a country rife with anti-Semitism. We read of synagogues being defaced, vandalized and bombed. We in the JDO follow Jewish sources, and our Torah says, “ Do not stand idly by thy brother’s blood.” The Torah recounts how when Moshe Rabbeinu “saw an Egyptian beating a Jew, Moshe went and beat the Egyptian.” This is a good Jew who didn’t turn the other cheek. We celebrate Chanukah to honor the Maccabees in their war for the liberation of Israel and defense of our Torah. We honor the Warsaw Ghetto fighters who picked up a gun to fight the Nazi beasts against overwhelming odds.
Of course no Jew should like violence or guns, and certainly should hope avoiding having to use them. But ask yourself: isn’t it better to have a gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it?
Mordechai Levy
National Director, Jewish Defense Organization
From the WebWire:
Animal-Rights Adversity
Re: A Bunch of Animals: PETA and the Laws of Shechitah
I am not certain whether New Voices is the proper forum for Mr. Sussman to
air his grievances with vegetarians in general and PETA in particular (this
appears to be a recurrent theme in his online writings; see for example
http://www.acrowdedfire.com/wespeakveggie.html). I have previously
contacted New Voices about another vegetarian-unfriendly article (see the
April 2004 Forum at newvoices.org). I’m curious as to why New Voices tends
to be so consistently anti-vegetarian; does the editorial staff believe that
eating meat is required of a good modern American Jew? For another opinion,
see
http://jewishveg.com/.
Mr. Sussman’s conclusion states that PETA’s sinister, underlying goal is to
comment on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and sets out to outrage the
Jewish community. Perhaps this rationalization is a way to avoid thinking
maturely and deeply about the animal rights issues that PETA raises. To
compare the fear and pain of an animal on its way to slaughter to a selfish
moping about the absence of meat at a meal deeply offends your presumably
sizeable readership that is both Jewish and vegetarian. I hope that Mr.
Sussman’s anger and satire are redirected to a more appropriate target and
that New Voices will consider running a pro-vegetarian Student Opinion for
journalistic balance.
Respectfully,
Sharon Greene, MPH
Ph.D. Candidate in Epidemiologic Science
University of Michigan
Author’s Response:
While I am not a particular fan of PETA and think that their campaign comparing chickens to Holocaust victims was tasteless and self-aggrandizing, I do not have “grievances with vegetarians.” Nor do I take particular issue with PETA’s campaign against AgriProcessors, Inc – this just made the subject topical again.
As for the little Vegetarian op-ed that you found on the website, that is a strictly satirical humor piece written to an audience consisting of many vegetarians. It isn’t meant to be taken seriously (except on a humor level) and it does not reflect my views on vegetarianism. Hey, some of my best friends are vegetarians.
My intention in the New Voices piece was never point out a “sinister, underlying goal” of PETA. I would be thrilled if PETA commented on the situation in Israel, but they wouldn’t because it is a “human” issue. The chicken/Holocaust campaign is something that would clearly anger the Jewish community (any many others), but that also creates a lot of publicity for PETA and for their cause. It is certainly provocative and, to a certain extent, effective as well as offensive. If PETA said outright that they condemn terrorism and human right violations against/perpetrated by Israel in addition to being upset over the death of a donkey, I would see that as valid criticism.
As for New Voices’ trend of anti-vegetarianism, I cannot comment, as I haven’t really read the magazine. I will say that I chose the topic and there was no editorial influence in the article. I hope that when you visited A Crowded Fire, you saw some examples of satire directed at more appropriate targets. Again, I appreciate the criticism. I also fully support your request for a pro-vegetarian Opinion piece.
– Aaron Sussman
