‘Armenians associated with Amalekites’

From Wikipedia:

This ascription of Armenians is seen in the context of indifference, which was widely criticized by the Israeli historian Ya’ir Oron in his book The Banality of Indifference that dealt with the inaction of overall members of the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian Genocide in the beginning of the 20th century.[19]:124

This indifference was noted inside the Jewish community of the Ottoman Empire, during the 1909 massacre of Armenians in Adana, by Itamar Ben-Avi, the first native speaker of Modern Hebrew in the newspaper HaZvi. In an editorial named “We”, he intervened to speak about the attitude of the Jews during the upheaval and widespread carnage that ensued during the Ottoman countercoup of 1909, while protesting the general indifference to calls to help alleviate the plight of the Armenians. Outlining the attitude and loyalties of the Ottoman Jews at the time, with regards to other subjects, he wrote: “We did nothing, because we were timid, because the matter did not affect us directly, utterly. Unfortunately these Turks were not Jews. Unfortunately we had covert sympathy for the enemy of the Turkish Parliament, Abd-Hamid II. Sympathy because we believe that Abd-al Hamid would always be our friend, our generous and merciful supporter. That is why we stood aside; that is why we chose to be, in the words of the wise commander, the rearguard; that is why we continue today, two weeks after the revolution and a week after the victory of the ‘Young Turks’ to be indifferent. We are watching from the side and waiting. We are a peculiar people. Yes we!”[19]:125 Regarding the attitude of the Jews towards the Armenians, he wrote: “A slight grimace on their lips, a short heartfelt sigh, and nothing more. The Armenians are not Jews, and according to folk tradition the Armenians are nothing more than Amaleks! Amaleks? We would give them help? To whom? To Amaleks? Heaven forbid!”.[19]

Rabbi Joachim Prinz wrote in his book “The secret Jews” that Ataturk was a donmeh crypto-Jew, page 122:

“The revolt of the Young Turks in 1908 against the authoritarian regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid began among the intellectuals of Salonika. It was from there that the demand for a constitutional regime originated. Among the leaders of the revolution which resulted in a more modern government in Turkey were Djavid Bey and Mustafa Kemal. Both were ardent doenmehs. Djavid Bey became minister of finance; Mustafa Kemal became the leader of the new regime and he adopted the name of Atatürk. His opponents tried to use his doenmeh background to unseat him, but without success. Too many of the Young Turks in the newly formed revolutionary Cabinet prayed to Allah, but had as their real prophet Shabtai Zvi, the Messiah of Smyrna.”

From the Spirit of Serbia blog: On 14 October 1922, the Literary Digest published an articled entitled “The Sort of Mustafa Kemal is” which states:

“A SPANISH JEW BY ANCESTRY, an orthodox Moslem by birth and breeding, trained in a German war college, a patriot, a student of the campaigns of the world’s great generals, including Napoleon, Grant and Lee—these are said to be a few outstanding characteristics in the personality of the new ‘Man on Horseback’ who has appeared in the Near East. He is a real dictator, the correspondents testify, a man of the type which is at once the hope and fear of nations torn to pieces by unsuccessful wars. Unity and power have come back to Turkey largely through the will of Mustafa Kemal Pasha. No one has yet, it appears, referred to him as the ‘Napoleon of the Near East,’ but some enterprising journalist will probably do it sooner or later; for Kemal’s way of rising into power, his methods at once autocratic and carefully considered, even his military tactics, are said to resemble those of Napoleon.”

In an article entitled “When Kemal Ataturk Recited Shema Yisrael” by the Jewish author Hillel Halkin, he quoted Mustafa Kemal Ataturk:

“I’m a descendant of Sabbetai Zevi—not indeed a Jew any more, but an ardent admirer of this prophet of yours. My opinion is that every Jew in this country would do well to join his camp.”

Gershom Scholem wrote in his book “Kabbalah”, page 330-331:

“Their liturgies were written in a very small format so that they could easily be hidden. All the sects concealed their internal affairs from Jews and Turks so successfully that for a long time knowledge of them was based only on rumor and upon reports of outsiders. Doenmeh manuscripts revealing details of their Shabbatean ideas were brought to light and examined only after several of the Doenmeh families decided to assimilate completely into Turkish society and transmitted their documents to friends among the Jews of Salonika and Izmir. As long as the Donmeh were concentrated in Salonika, the sect´s institutional framework remained intact, although several Donmeh members were active in the Young Turks` movement which originated in that city. The first administration that came to power after the Young Turk revolution (1909) included three ministers of Doenmeh origin, including the minister of finance, Djavid Bey, who was a descendant of the Baruchiah Russo family and served as one of the leaders of his sect. One assertion that was commonly made by many Jews of Salonika (denied however, by the Turkish government) was that Kemal Atatürk was of Doenmeh origin. This view was eagerly embraced by many of Atatürk´s religious opponents in Anatolia.”

Inspector-General of the Turkish Forces in Armenia and Military Governor of the Egyptian Sinai during WW1, Rafael De Nogales, wrote in his book “Four Years Beneath the Crescent” that the chief architect of the Armenian genocide, Talaat, was a donmeh Jew, page 26-27:

“That was the renegade Hebrew (donme) of Salonika, Talaat, the principal organizer of the massacres and deportations, who, fishing in muddy waters, succeeded in raising himself from the humble rank of postal clerk to that of Grand Vizier of the Empire.”

Posted in Armenia, Jews | Comments Off on ‘Armenians associated with Amalekites’

David Brooks Marries His Former Researcher Today

Has he formally converted to Christianity yet?

Source Source Registry

Washington Post:

New York Times columnist David Brooks weds his former researcher Anne Snyder

Knot, tied: New York Times columnist David Brooks wed Anne Snyder, his former research assistant, on Sunday.

The couple’s relationship sort-of went public in an inauspicious way — Politico noted in a wink-wink 2015 piece that the conservative columnist had devoted an outsized amount of verbiage in the acknowledgements of his book “The Road to Character” to Snyder, who is 23 years his junior. But all’s well that ends with bells, and Atlantic Media owner David Bradley and his wife, Katherine Bradley, threw a rehearsal luncheon for the couple on Saturday, we’re told (that poolside tent saw a lot of activity this weekend), followed by a Sunday ceremony.

It’s the first marriage for Snyder, 32, now a freelance writer and director of a Houston, Tex., non-profit initiative. Brooks, 55, acknowledged his split from first wife, Sarah Brooks, in early 2015. They have three children.

Even though David may now be a Christian, I am glad to see he hasn’t lost his chutzpah.

The Hyde Park Institute presents:

Speaking of Character (with Anne Snyder, David Brooks, and Candace Vogler)

Program Description:

Many different cultures treat developing good character as one of the central challenges in human life. Your character draws together strengths that help you to pursue and promote good reasonably, avoid bad responsibly, and participate in the collective movements toward common good that shape the social world in which you find yourself. Good character is, as one says, a proof against rewards–a good person does not, for instance, betray her friends or her firm for the sake of personal advantage. Good character is supposed to help people set their priorities, to think well about good courses of action they might pursue here and now, experience sorrow over genuine losses, joy over real triumphs, and more generally to live wisely and well.
With background reading by two philosophers, we will gather to think and talk about character in a one-day seminar. Questions that will orient our discussion include:

How has your own character been shaped?
In what ways do you expect that support for character development might be hard to come by in the next decade?
What rhythms, practices, or institutions might you engage and rely upon to help you move forward on a path to strong character?
David Brooks, Anne Snyder, and Candace Vogler hope that you will join a conversation about character.

Program Details:

Seminar Date: Saturday May 27th
Seminar Time: 10 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Schedule: 10 a.m. – 11 a.m. Coffee
11 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Session I
12:30 p.m. – 2 p.m. Lunch
2 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Session II
Location: Cobb Hall 402
Participation: To take part in the seminar, please complete the application below by April 24th.

Our Speakers:

David Brooks

David Brooks became an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times in September 2003. He is currently a commentator on “The PBS Newshour,” NPR’s “All Things Considered” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He is the author of “Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There” and “The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement.” In April of 2015 he came out with his fourth book, The Road to Character, which was a #1 New York Times bestseller. Mr. Brooks also teaches at Yale University, and is a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

Anne Snyder

Anne Snyder is the Director of The Character Initiative at The Philanthropy Roundtable, a pilot program that seeks to help foundations and wealth creators around the country advance character formation through their giving. She is also a Fellow at the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, a Houston-based think tank that explores how cities can drive opportunity and social mobility for the bulk of their citizens. Prior to jumping to the Lonestar state she worked at The New York Times in Washington, as well as World Affairs Journal and the Ethics and Public Policy Center. She holds a Master’s degree in journalism from Georgetown University and a B.A. in philosophy and international relations from Wheaton College (IL). Anne has published in National Journal, The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, Philanthropy Magazine, Orange County Register, Center for Opportunity Urbanism, The Institute for Family Studies, FaithStreet, Comment Magazine, Verily, Humane Pursuits, and FareForward.

I can’t wait to learn some amazing insights on building character from David and Anne.

Posted in Christianity, Conversion, David Brooks | Comments Off on David Brooks Marries His Former Researcher Today

The Market for Gedolim: A Tale of Supply and Demand

Chaim Saiman writes:

Gadolhood is less about the individual erudition of a given rabbi and more about a social fact, reflecting the experience of a community bound by a concrete conception of Torah, halakha, and rabbinic authority. This sense of authority cannot be manufactured by simply turning to a rabbi to ask a few questions here and there, no matter how great the rabbi or how significant the individual question. Thus, even should the market supply many potential gedolim, a community will not find a gadol unless it truly demands one.

Allow me to offer another example. When viewed from the supply side, there is a good argument to be made that my close friend, R. Ethan Tucker, head of Mechon Hadar, is qualified to be a halakhic decisor and, in time, perhaps a gadol of the community he is building. On occasion, Ethan and I have discussed how his views on a given halakha, or on Halakha as a whole, might penetrate the Orthodox discourse. My own view is that the Orthodox community will be forced to take him seriously when there are identifiable communities committed to living their Jewish lives in accord with his halakhic worldview. However, as long as the halakhic vision of Mechon Hadar remains a niche project, limited to those in the yeshiva’s direct orbit, the broader rabbinic world will feel little need to take it into account. As the Sages put it, “ein melekh belo am.” There is no king without a people.

Posted in Orthodoxy | Comments Off on The Market for Gedolim: A Tale of Supply and Demand

Jerome Yehuda Gellman: This Was From God: A Contemporary Theology of Torah and History

Opening graphs:

Increasingly, well-informed traditional Jews may find themselves distrustful of the reliability of Torah as history because of the conclusions of scholarly research from natural science, history, linguistics, Bible criticism and archaeology. And, they may not be swayed by attempts to restore their trust. If they do not have a fitting theology for their new predicament, they may well give up on Judaism altogether or else give up on their traditional Judaism. Or, they may simply repress their difficulty because they see no way of dealing with it that will allow them to retain their traditional religious loyalty. They will carry on as if they believed in the historical veracity of the Torah, when in fact they do not.

As one who has lived with this problem, I want to now propose that a person with prior emunah, belief and faith/loyalty in God and in the holiness of the Torah remain faithful to keeping God and the holiness of the Torah at the center of his or her life. What is needed is a theology that appreciates the force of the challenge to Torah as history and preserves one’s traditional religious loyalty. That is the task of the present book.

Marc Shapiro writes: “I mentioned Gellman’s book to someone and expressed the opinion that even if another ten theologians were to write similar books, I don’t see this as having any real impact on the ground – although it will be appealing for certain intellectuals – because at the end of the day traditional Judaism is a religion of halakhah and its leaders are talmudists and halakhic authorities. If a new theological approach does not have the imprimatur of even one outstanding religious authority – gadol for lack of a better term – I don’t see how it can gain traction in the community at large. In previous years I have made the same point about changes in women’s roles and so-called partnership minyanim. These phenomena are also having trouble making headway because they too are lacking the necessary imprimatur. Interestingly, years ago someone responded to me that my point was not valid because I was operating under an outdated “paradigm” in assuming that changes in religious life, and now we can say in theology as well, needed the imprimatur of a gadol. Yet I would like to see one example of a significant change in theology or religious life that reached wide acceptance without such an imprimatur.”

Posted in Bible, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Jerome Yehuda Gellman: This Was From God: A Contemporary Theology of Torah and History

Can A Jew Enter A Church?

R. Shlomo Riskin wrote:

Question:
Am I allowed to attend my friend’s wedding in a church? Are Jews allowed to enter churches at all?
Answer:
Evangelical churches do not have icons or statues and it is certainly permissible to enter Evangelical churches.[11] Catholic and most Protestant churches do have icons as well as paintings and sculptures. If you enter the church in order to appreciate the art with an eye towards understanding Christianity and the differences between Judaism and Christianity so that you can hold your own in discussions with Christians, then it is permissible.[12] Participating[13] in a church religious service is forbidden unless it is for learning purposes or unless it would be a desecration of God’s name if you don’t attend, as in the case of Chief Rabbi Sacks’ attendance at Prince William’s wedding.

MARC SHAPIRO WRITES: I think that one can make a good case that donating to a church can be a sanctification of God’s name if, as happened in Israel, the church was set on fire by a radical Jew (or Jews). We cannot have the spectacle of Jews burning down churches in Israel, and the damage this can do to Jews worldwide is immense. Would it be out of line to argue that if Jews burn down a church, that at least to prevent enmity Jews should also help rebuild it? It is easy to see how such an action can be regarded as a kiddush ha-shem, even if most poskim would see it as technically forbidden. (I wonder, can something be both a kiddush ha-shem and a violation of halakhah?) In fact, after the church was burnt in Israel, a number of rabbis, including the great R. Nachum Rabinovitch, helped raise money to repair it.

Posted in R. Shlomo Riskin | Comments Off on Can A Jew Enter A Church?