These activities include lifting, carrying or
pushing objects, and thus would preclude carrying a young child or pushing a
wheel chair for an elderly or handicapped person en route to religious services,
for example. Typically, an eruv is put in place by using existing
horizontal wires strung on utility poles together with vertical black rubber
strips, called lechis, that form a symbolic
"doorway." The practice has been used by Orthodox Jews for
2,000 years, based on principles derived from the Bible,(Babble
of Talmud) developed in the Talmud and codified in Jewish Law. They
are generally established by means of a ceremonial proclamation issued
by municipal authorities, as has been done in such cities as Washington, DC,
Baltimore, MD, Cincinnati, OH, Charleston, SC and Jacksonville, FL. Indeed, even
the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC sits within the boundaries of an eruv.
Items 1 through 3 of 3
|
1. [102nd] H.J.RES.104
: To designate March 26, 1991, as "Education Day, U.S.A.".
Sponsor: Rep
Michel, Robert H. [IL-18] (introduced 1/31/1991)
Cosponsors
(225)
Committees: House Post Office and Civil Service
Latest Major Action: 3/20/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-14.
|
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is about
to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the
seven Noahide laws, and if not—they
will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
Although seemingly contradictory, the two
clauses must be interpreted together in that their common purpose is to
secure religious freedoms. See Choper, The Religion Clauses of the First
Amendment: Reconciling the Conflict, 41 U. of Pittsburgh L.Rev., p. 673.
The difficulty faced by courts in interpreting the aforedescribed clauses
has been "to find a neutral course between the two Religion Clauses,
both of which are cast in absolute terms, and either of which, if expanded
to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with the other". Walz v.
Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 668- 669, 90 S.Ct.
1409, 1411, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970); see, also, Zorach v. Clauson,
343 U.S. 306, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952); Everson v. Bd of Educ.,
330 US 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947).
Approving
an eruv is not volatile of the Establishment Clause because
an eruv is not a religious symbol.
Neither
is Satan's Noahide Laws of MURDER, and this is how they have snared you
Maraka, this is how Satan's sons of his shem sham of shame have scammed you
to accept the Beast
Neither
the boundary markers of the eruv nor the eruv itself have any
religious significance.
Because
they have absolutely ZERO to do with the GOD OF HEAVEN !!!!!
They
are not objects of worship nor do they play any theological role in the
observance of the Shabbat.
They
slap the GOD of Heaven in the face
The
eruv sends no religious message to the rest of the community.
Its existence could not be discerned by anyone who has not been shown
the boundaries. An eruv
does not in any way force other residents to confront daily images and
symbols of another religion. Accommodating
the religious customs of one group by permitting the creation of an eruv
does not necessarily advance any one religion.
Smith v. Community Board No. 14, 128 Misc.2d 944, 491 N.Y.S.
2d 584, 587 (Sup. 1984), aff’d, 518 N.Y.S.2d 356 (N.Y. App.Div.
1987).
Under
Jewish law the eruv does not alter the religious observance of the
Sabbath by observant Jews, these congregants will continue to observe the
Sabbath as they have all their lives as they would without an eruv.
It merely allows observant Jews to engage in secular activities as
pushing a stroller or carrying a book while observing the Sabbath.
ACLU of New Jersey v. City of Long Branch, 670 F.Supp. 1293,
1295-6 (D. NJ 1987).
Since
it is permissible to construct houses of worship on public land at an airport
to enable travel and airport employees to practice their religions,
(See Brashich v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 484
F.Supp. 697 (1979), aff’d. 791 F.2d 224 (2d Cir. 1980); see also
O’Hair v. Andrus, 613 F.2d 931 (D.C.Cir. 1979)), it is certainly
permissible to unobtrusively demarcate an area as an eruv to permit
observant Jews to engage in secular activities while they practice their
religion. ACLU
of New Jersey v. City of Long Branch,
670 F.Supp. 1293, 1296 (D. NJ 1987).
The
court in ACLU
of New Jersey v. City of Long Branch
continued: “By permitting the
synagogue to use its own funds to create an almost
invisible boundary in which its members may engage in secular
activities on the Sabbath the City of Long Branch is not putting its
imprimatur on any public manifestations of religion, such as moments of prayer
in public schools or the posting of the ten commandments on classroom walls.
Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29
(1985); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 101 S.Ct. 192, 66 L.Ed.2d 199
(1980).
Providing equal access to public facilities to
people of all religions and enabling individuals to get to and from their
chosen places of worship safely are permissible accommodations by the
government. The government is
permitted to fix sidewalks outside churches, provide police protection and
basic utilities for mass outdoor religious gatherings, provide police to
direct traffic into synagogue parking lots and authorize a house of worship to
install additional street lights on public property to facilitate access to
evening services.” ACLU of
New Jersey v. City of Long Branch, 670 F.Supp. 1293, 1295 (D. NJ 1987).
There is
no excessive entanglement of government with religion, if the city doesn't pay
for the eruv or maintain it. Erecting the eruv will therefore
not change the nature of the relationship between the government and religious
organizations. The existence of
the eruv will not cause “a kind of continuing day-to-day relationship which
the policy of neutrality seeks to minimize.”
Aguilar v. Felton, 474 U.S. 402, 414, 105 S.Ct. 3232, 3239, 87
L.Ed.2d 290 (1985). ACLU
of New Jersey v. City of Long Branch,
670 F.Supp. 1293, 1297 (D. NJ 1987).
The court in ACLU of New Jersey v. City of Long Branch,
concluded that “the permission to create an eruv does not violate the
establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.” ACLU of New Jersey v. City of Long Branch, 670 F.Supp.
1293, 1297 (D. NJ 1987).
However
the ACLU is alarmingly quiet about.......
Items 1 through 3 of 3
|
1. [102nd] H.J.RES.104
: To designate March 26, 1991, as "Education Day, U.S.A.".
Sponsor: Rep
Michel, Robert H. [IL-18] (introduced 1/31/1991)
Cosponsors
(225)
Committees: House Post Office and Civil Service
Latest Major Action: 3/20/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-14.
|
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is
about to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to
accept the seven Noahide laws, and
if not—they will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
In those
communities where there has been opposition to the creation of an eruv,
or to the building or expansion of Orthodox synagogues, the opposition is
often couched in soothing terms that emit no stench of religious bigotry.
Sometimes, though, the mask drops, and it becomes clear that all of the
high-minded rhetoric about such matters as the sanctity of the Establishment
Clause and the need to avoid strife and preserve unity in the community is
grounded in an irrational but palpable fear of an influx of Orthodox Jews into
the community. The eruv -
an unobtrusive, "virtually invisible boundary line indistinguishable from
the utility poles and telephone wires in the area," Smith
v. Community Board No. 14,
128 Misc.2d 944, 948, 491 N.Y.S. 2d 584, (Sup. 1984), aff’d, 518
N.Y.S.2d 356 (N.Y. App.Div. 1987), whose sole impact is to allow
Orthodox Jews to carry on the Sabbath – should not be used to mask
discrimination.
II.
REFUSAL TO ALLOW AN ERUV
IS A VIOLATION OF THE FREE EXERICSE CLAUSE
Items 1 through 3 of 3
|
1. [102nd] H.J.RES.104
: To designate March 26, 1991, as "Education Day, U.S.A.".
Sponsor: Rep
Michel, Robert H. [IL-18] (introduced 1/31/1991)
Cosponsors
(225)
Committees: House Post Office and Civil Service
Latest Major Action: 3/20/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-14.
|
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is
about to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to
accept the seven Noahide laws, and
if not—they will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
It
is important to remember, however, that total separation
of church and state is not mandated by the constitution, nor would it be
possible, since "[s]ome relationship between government and religious
organizations is inevitable".
Items 1 through 3 of 3
|
1. [102nd] H.J.RES.104
: To designate March 26, 1991, as "Education Day, U.S.A.".
Sponsor: Rep
Michel, Robert H. [IL-18] (introduced 1/31/1991)
Cosponsors
(225)
Committees: House Post Office and Civil Service
Latest Major Action: 3/20/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-14.
|
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is
about to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to
accept the seven Noahide laws, and
if not—they will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
Lemon
v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2112, 29 L.Ed.2d 745
(1971). What the court mandates is accommodation for religious practices. This
notion recognizes "that there are necessary relationships between
government and religion; that government cannot be indifferent to religion in
American life; and that, far from being hostile or even truly indifferent, it
may, and sometimes must, accommodate its instructions and programs to the
religious interests of the people". (Tribe, 2 American Constitutional
Law, 1978, § 14-4, p. 822; see Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668,
104 S.Ct. 1355, 1359, 79 L.Ed.2d 604, 610.) Thus, in the instant case, the
proposed action of the Village’s agencies does not establish religion but
are a valid accommodation to religious practice.
The court in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye,
Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), holds that where government
makes a decision or takes an action that is designed to inhibit religion, the
full protection of the free exercise clause obtains.
Items 1 through 3 of 3
|
1. [102nd] H.J.RES.104
: To designate March 26, 1991, as "Education Day, U.S.A.".
Sponsor: Rep
Michel, Robert H. [IL-18] (introduced 1/31/1991)
Cosponsors
(225)
Committees: House Post Office and Civil Service
Latest Major Action: 3/20/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-14.
|
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is
about to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to
accept the seven Noahide laws, and
if not—they will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
And, as the Court held in Brown v.
Borough of Mahaffey, 35 F. 3d 846 (3d Cir. 1994), where there is
intentional discrimination against religion, there is no need to demonstrate
the "substantiality" of the free exercise burden imposed by the
governmental action;
Items 1 through 3 of 3
|
1. [102nd] H.J.RES.104
: To designate March 26, 1991, as "Education Day, U.S.A.".
Sponsor: Rep
Michel, Robert H. [IL-18] (introduced 1/31/1991)
Cosponsors
(225)
Committees: House Post Office and Civil Service
Latest Major Action: 3/20/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-14.
|
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is
about to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to
accept the seven Noahide laws, and
if not—they will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
"[b]ecause government actions
intentionally discriminating against religious exercise a fortiori serve no
legitimate purpose, no balancing test is necessary to cabin religious exercise
in deference to such actions." 35 F. 3d at 850.
Depending on the nature of the challenged law or
government action, a free exercise claim can prompt either strict scrutiny or
rational basis review. In Tenafly
Eruv Assoc. et. al. v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144, 165 (C.A.3 N.J.
2002), the court ruled strict scrutiny should apply in the case of a Borough
prohibiting an eruv. The
court there relied on Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508
U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) and Fraternal
Order of Police v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999), for
the proposition that “government cannot discriminate between religiously
motivated conduct and comparable secularly motivated conduct in a manner that
devalues religious reasons for acting --- applies not only when a coercive law
or regulation prohibits religious conduct, but also when government denies
religious adherents access to publicly available money or property.” Because
in Tenafly the removal of the eruv was not religion-neutral, strict
scrutiny applied, the Borough of Tenefly was found to have violated the Free
Exercise Clause and the eruv association won injunctive relief in the
case. Tenafly Eruv Assoc. et. al. v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144,
169-172 (C.A.3 N.J. 2002).
Because
the Free Exercise Clause requires neutral treatment of religion, see Employment
Div v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (1990),
Items 1 through 3 of 3
|
1. [102nd] H.J.RES.104
: To designate March 26, 1991, as "Education Day, U.S.A.".
Sponsor: Rep
Michel, Robert H. [IL-18] (introduced 1/31/1991)
Cosponsors
(225)
Committees: House Post Office and Civil Service
Latest Major Action: 3/20/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-14.
|
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is
about to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to
accept the seven Noahide laws, and
if not—they will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
only
in the most unusual case could compliance with free exercise norms offend the
Establishment Clause. See, Bd.
O f Educ of Kiryas Joel Village Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 114
S.C.t 2481 (1994) (O’Conner, J., concurring) (“The Religion Clauses
prohibit the government from favoring religion, but they provide no warrant
for discriminating against religion.”).
Items 1 through 3 of 3
|
1. [102nd] H.J.RES.104
: To designate March 26, 1991, as "Education Day, U.S.A.".
Sponsor: Rep
Michel, Robert H. [IL-18] (introduced 1/31/1991)
Cosponsors
(225)
Committees: House Post Office and Civil Service
Latest Major Action: 3/20/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-14.
|
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is
about to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to
accept the seven Noahide laws, and
if not—they will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
III.
NY
Public policy advocates creation of Eruvs
Although
the religion clauses and therefore the analysis above is applicable to the
states through the Fourteenth Amendment, Article 1, section 3, of the New
York State Constitution, additionally provides: "The free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all mankind." New
York courts have long recognized the principle of accommodation. A
representative quote from one of the cases under said section states that
"[t]he free practice of one's religion is a right deeply cherished by the
citizens of our State and Nation, and one that is zealously protected by the
free exercise clause of the First Amendment". Matter of Martine S. v.
Anthony D., 120 Misc.2d 567, 466 N.Y.S.2d 194 (1983).
Items 1 through 3 of 3
|
1. [102nd] H.J.RES.104
: To designate March 26, 1991, as "Education Day, U.S.A.".
Sponsor: Rep
Michel, Robert H. [IL-18] (introduced 1/31/1991)
Cosponsors
(225)
Committees: House Post Office and Civil Service
Latest Major Action: 3/20/1991
Became Public Law No: 102-14.
|
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is
about to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to
accept the seven Noahide laws, and
if not—they will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
New
York courts have repeatedly held that by their very nature religious
institutions are beneficial to the public welfare and consequently proposed
religious uses should be accommodated. Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue
of the North Shore, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Roslyn Harbor, 38
N.Y.2d 283, 293, 379 N.Y.S.2d 747, 342 N.E.2d 534 (1975); Matter of
Community Synagogue v. Bates, 1 N.Y.2d 445, 154 N.Y.S.2d 15, 136 N.E.2d
488 (1956), Matter of Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World
Christianity v. Rosenfeld, 91 A.D.2d 190, 458 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1983).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons
set forth in this brief, the Village of Great Neck Estates should permit the
request for approval of the eruv.
Dated: September 29, 2005
Great Neck, New York
Indeed
__________
Mk:7:8: For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Circumventing their own their
own Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
Eruv
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eruv (עירוב) (or Eiruv or Erub) (plural
Eruvin) is a Hebrew
word meaning "mixture", and refers to any of three procedures which
allow certain activities in Jewish
law which would otherwise be forbidden. In colloquial usage, it
most often refers to the Eruv
for carrying (עירוב
חצרות or eruv chatzeirot), but it can
also refer to the Eruv
for cooking (עירוב
תבשילין or eruv tavshilin)
or the Eruv
for traveling (עירוב
תחומין or eruv techumin) as
explained below.
The Talmud
devotes an entire tractate to the subject of eruv titled Eruvin which
addresses the eruv chatzeirot, "mixed [ownership of]
domains", and eruv techumin, "mixed borders"
(discussed below). It does not address the eruv tavshilin, which is
covered elsewhere in the Talmud.
In Judaism,
an "eruv" unspecified normally refers to an Eruv for carrying,
which consists of a fence -- either real or symbolic -- that surrounds an
area containing anything from a single private home and its yard,
to an entire Jewish neighborhood, permitting carrying within its boundaries.
This fence is technically a shituf mevo'ot (שיתוף
מבואות "sharing [of the]
alleyways"), and this geographical sharing is required in order to
effectively engage in the process of eruv hatzerot ("mixing [of]
courtyards.") In Judaism, "an eruv" for carrying, means this
symbolic "fence," (actually "doorframe/s") rather than
the eruv itself.
Mt:15:3: But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Col:2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
________
Chavez, who
opposes the Hassidic Bushwhacker New World Talmudic anti-Christ Odor is
getting himself in deep joo-doo
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20070326VenezuelanJews.html
AROUND THE JEWISH WORLD
Under Chavez's rule, Jews
fear for future in Venezuela
 |
| Office
of the Argentine Presidency |
| Cristina
Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentine senator and first lady, meets with
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas, March 24. |
| By
Hal Weitzman |
Published:
03/26/2007 |
CARACAS (JTA) -- The floor of the small synagogue in the center of Coro, the
oldest Jewish house of prayer in Venezuela, is covered in a thick layer of
sand intended to recall the Children of Israel's time in the Sinai Desert.
It is also, however, a symbol of the transience of Jewish settlement
in South America.
Jewish settlers arrived in Coro, a small town in western Venezuela that was
the county's first capital, from Curacao in 1827. In 1855, nearly the entire
community left after a mob ransacked Jewish homes and shops.
wonder why?
Venezuelan Jews say that was the last time anti-Semitism flared up in the
country. But in the past few years a community that had considered itself
among the most well-established in South America has lost up to one-fifth of
its members, prompted by an increasingly hostile environment under the
government of President Hugo Chavez, a radical leftist who has been in power
since 1999.
By popular Vote, Just like Saddam and Just like
Amadine-Jad
"People have left, but there hasn't been a massive exodus as some
people have said," said Jacqueline Goldberg, editor of Nuevo Mundo
Israelita, the community's weekly newspaper.
Goldberg was referring to rumors in Caracas that up to half of the city's
Jews had moved out of Venezuela since Chavez took power.
Accurate figures are hard to come by, but estimates suggest the community
now numbers between 15,000 and 20,000. The vast majority are based in the
capital, with small communities in the cities of Valencia and Maracaibo, and
on the Caribbean island of Margarita.
A principal factor keeping them in Venezuela is
quality of life. The community is mostly middle and upper class, and
while it has suffered from living under a regime whose president routinely
accuses the wealthy of undermining his "21st century socialist
revolution," the government's policy platform also allows business
opportunities.
"When you have a president who's massively expanding public spending,
there's a lot of money to be made," said a Jewish businessman
who asked not to be named. "A lot of Jews are involved in construction,
which is booming, what with the government building more schools, hospitals,
housing and roads."
Another economic reason not to leave: The Chavez government introduced
foreign exchange controls in 2003, making it difficult for Venezuelans to
take their wealth out of the country.
Another attraction is the strength and cohesion of the community. Given its
small size, the Jewish infrastructure in Caracas is impressive: There are
five synagogues, and the community carries out its own kosher slaughter. The
centerpiece is the Club Hebraica, a large complex in Los Chorros, an
upmarket residential neighborhood in the eastern part of the city.
The Hebraica comprises a well-equipped Jewish school and a sports and social
club with a large swimming pool; tennis, basketball and squash courts;
soccer pitches; and even a bowling alley.
Hebraica"'s tranquility feels a world away from the social and economic
revolution gripping Venezuela, and symbolizes how the Caracas Jewish
community has protected itself from some effects of that upheaval.
"If you're not involved in politics, you don't really feel the
regime," said Rabbi Pynchas Brener, head of the Ashkenazi community.
Nevertheless, Venezuelan Jews feel a tangible discomfort.
"We've never had anti-Semitism here in Caracas, so this situation is
something new," community member Moises Nessim said. "I would say
there is worry and concern, but not yet fear – more uncertainty about
what's going to happen."
Although Chavez – a former army officer and coup leader known for his fiery
anti-American rhetoric – has never been much favored by Venezuelan Jews,
relations between his government and the community started to deteriorate in
earnest in 2004.
In November of that year the Club Hebraica was raided by police under a
search warrant issued by a local pro-Chavez judge. The
warrant, which came after the murder of public prosecutor Danilo Anderson,
suggested that the Hebraica was being used to store weapons.
That accusation apparently sprung from rumors that Anderson
had been killed with equipment from Israel"'s Mossad spy agency.
After searching the school and the club, police left empty-handed.
Incredulous that authorities might think the Jewish community was storing
weapons in its school, some observers concluded that the raid really was
intended to intimidate the community.
"Chavez must have known about" the raid, one community member
said.
"In this society, nothing happens without his permission," this
member said. "There was a feeling that the government wanted to send a
sign that no group was immune from its control."
The situation deteriorated further a month later, when Chavez
said in a speech that "the descendants of those who killed Christ"
and "the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolivar out of
here" had "taken possession of all the wealth in the world."
Though the Christ-killer comment clearly appeared
anti-Semitic, some commentators said Chavez actually was referring to
global capitalism. Indeed, when Jewish leaders soon afterward met with the
president at Miraflores Palace, his official residence, he assured them that
he had not been referring to the Jewish community.
That meeting in January 2006 brokered an uneasy peace, but the official
reaction to Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon
last year unleashed what Freddy Pressner, head of CAIV, the Jewish
community"'s umbrella organization, calls "an explosion
of anti-Semitism in Venezuela."
Chavez repeatedly compared Israel's behavior to that
of the Nazis, a stance that locals say encouraged a wave of similar
slanders. Sammy Eppel, a Jewish journalist in Caracas, catalogued a host of
violently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic writing and
cartoons in the local government and pro-government media.
In one article, which appeared last September in Diario de Caracas, a
pro-government newspaper, journalist Tarek Muci Nasir wrote of the "Jewish
race" that "the only resource they have left to stay united is to
cause wars and genocide."
There is no such thing as the jewish
"race"
A cartoon that ran last year in Diario VEA, a state-owned newspaper,
depicted Hitler saying, "How they've learned from me, these
Israelis!"
One worrying trend is the extent to which these sentiments appear to be
approved and encouraged by the government. The Ministry of Information last
year organized a demonstration outside the main Sephardi synagogue in
Caracas, an act that Pressner called "insensitive and imprudent."
After the demonstration, the wall outside the synagogue was daubed with
"Jews, killers – leave" and "Zionist baby-killers." At
other times, graffitti has appeared there with slogans such as "Jews go
home" and "Here are the murderers of the Palestinians."
A more worrying development was the appearance of a Venezuela-based Web site
claiming to be the local branch of Hezbollah. The site warned, "Hizbolla
Latin America is analyzing placing explosives against a U.S. ally in Latin
America. This would indicate the launch of Hizbolla Latin America."
Another concern is over Chavez's increasingly close
economic and political ties to Iran. As the world has condemned
Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Venezuela has emerged as one of Iran's few solid
allies in the world.
At the same time, Chavez effectively cut all diplomatic ties with Israel
last year by withdrawing his charge d'affaires. He had recalled his
ambassador three years earlier.
Pressner said Chavez's comments could trigger more extreme activists to feel
they"'re acting with his blessing.
"We fear what he has sowed," he said. "We fear what could
happen if there is another conflict. If there were a conflict with Iran, for
example, we don't know what the consequences would be for our
community."
Nevertheless, most Jews in Caracas do not feel that anti-Israel sentiment
will provoke physical attacks.
"They're not burning synagogues or persecuting people on the streets,
but there is officially sanctioned anti-Semitism,"
Eppel said. "The Venezuelan people aren't anti-Semitic. This is being
directed by a few activists."
A more immediate concern is over the government's plans for education.
Chavez's stated aim is to spread "21st century socialist values"
via the school system – and to extend this through private schools as
well. While it"'s not clear how this would work, many Jews find the
proposal troubling.
"Their education plan is a big worry," said Guillermo Schmidmajer,
whose daughter teaches Hebrew at the Jewish school. "Chavez is putting
his brother in charge of education reform, and he might base it on the model
in Cuba, where he was a student."
On a more positive note, the community can take heart not only from its own
unity but from the solidarity and support it has received from across Latin
America and the world. Last weekend, CAIV celebrated its 40th anniversary in
a spirit of hopefulness and achievement.
To coincide with CAIV's anniversary, the Latin American Jewish Congress held
a two-day meeting in Caracas attended by some 70 Jewish leaders from Latin
America, the United States, Canada, Europe and Israel.
The highlight of the weekend was a commemoration at the Hebraica attended by
some 1,200 people featuring Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner,
first lady of Argentina and a senator there, as the keynote speaker.
In what seemed to be a swipe at Chavez, she told the meeting, "Each and
every one of us who has the responsibility of being part of an elected
institution in Latin America should not only raise our voices but act in a
concrete way against any sign or glimpse of anti-Semitism."
The audience responded with spontaneous, wild applause. Fernandez is widely
expected to launch a bid to succeed her husband, Nestor Kirchner,
in Argentina's presidential elections in October.
At a time of great concern over the actions and attitudes of its own
president, the Venezuelan Jewish community is happy to have such influential
friends.
_____
Apartheid, Racist Bigots of
All the Earth, anti-Christ "Haters"
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is about
to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the
seven Noahide laws, and if not—they
will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381978,00.html
‘Marriage to
an Arab is national treason’
Recent poll reveals steep
rise in racist views against Arabs in Israel;
many participants feel hatred, fear when overhearing Arabic, 75 percent
don’t approve of shared apartment buildings
Over half of the Jewish population in Israel
believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national
treason, according to a recent survey by the Geocartography Institute.
The survey, which was conducted for the Center Against Racism, also found
that over 75 percent of participants did not approve of
apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews. Sixty percent of
participants said they would not allow an Arab to visit their home.
Five hundred Jewish men and women participated
in the poll, which was published Tuesday.
According to the survey, racism against Arabs in
Israel has seen a sharp rise since a similar survey was conducted two years
ago.
In 2006, 247 racist acts against Arabs were reported, as opposed to 225 one
year prior.
About 40 percent of participants agreed that
