Thursday, 9 January 2014
The paradox of Menachem “Max” Stark became clear the moment he first article about the brutal murder of the Satmar father of seven and real estate investor was published. “Who didn’t want him dead?” screamed the New York Post front-page headline, touting an article alleging that the 39-year-old Hasid was a slumlord with a list of enemies “a mile long.” Yet at his funeral on bitter-cold Saturday night, attended by some 1,000 people standing on the streets of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Stark was lauded as a pillar of his community.

How can Stark’s two faces — on the one hand a wealthy philanthropist in his community, but on the other an alleged exploiter when it came to business dealings outside of it — be reconciled? Should people compare Stark to crime-syndicate bosses, like the Jewish gangsters portrayed in the book, “But He Was Good To His Mother” ?

People in Williamsburg have been unequivocal. The Post headline was “pure anti-Semitism,” said Sarah Teitelbaum, a Satmar housewife who asked that her real name not be used. “He was a big ba'al tzedaka (giver of charity). Everybody only has good to say about him.” Leaders of the Hasidic sect as well as Brooklyn politicians condemned the headline.

Security footage showed Stark being attacked and pushed into a van late last Thursday night. His burned body was discovered Friday in a gas-station dumpster. New York City police have thus far not identified any suspects.


Sources say that in fact there is no contradiction between the role Stark played in his Satmar community of Williamsburg, and how some tenants and legal documents say he behaved outside it.

What you do to the goyim is not the same as what you do to Jews,” said Samuel Heilman, an expert on Hasidic communities like Satmar. Heilman, author of “Defenders of the Faith: Inside Ultra-Orthodox Jewry” and a distinguished professor of sociology at Queens College, is currently at work on a book about succession battles in Hasidic courts.

That attitude stems from days when Jews were actively persecuted, he said. “Part of the collective mind-set in the crucible of history when this part of Jewry was formed, the outside world was filled with anti-Semitism and persecutors. The whole understanding of that was that you need to keep a distance from them, that they are a different level of human being,” Heilman told Haaretz.

According to Samuel Katz, who was brought up as a Satmar but later became secular, boys in the community are taught that non-Jews aren’t quite human. Speaking from Berlin, where he is doing biomedical research on a Fulbright fellowship, Katz explained that growing up in such a community, “you don’t see commonality with people who aren’t Jewish. There is a completely different taxonomy of people. There are Jews and then there are non-Jews, who don’t have souls.”

When the messiah comes, “every boy is taught that the bad goyim will be killed and the good gentiles will have the privilege of serving us, of being our slaves," he told Haaretz. "The way Stark dealt with tenants is part of that world view… It’s not taking advantage of them, [rather] that is the world order you’re taught to expect.”

“It informs your moral compass. Like all good people Stark was benevolent and generous to the people who he saw were like himself,” but not to other people, added Katz. “There’s an empathy 'blind spot' that imbues the Haredi outlook.”

But, Katz said he also finds some of the press coverage of Stark’s murder distressing. “The ‘other-ing’ of Hasidim is as abominable as what the Hasidim do to other people. We shouldn’t ‘other’ other people. No one should.”
Source: Haaretz


Anonymous said...

Basically, the very way this article is presented, explains why "every boy is taught that non-Jews aren’t quite human".

Jews might be unjust and mean to non-Jews.
Or, they might be not.
Among them, deeply religious (who are really prejudiced nuts), constitute only small %.
Among whom, those practicing injustice towards non-Jews are also small %.

What they get in response is murder.
Not "quite human".

And then, there always will be someone telling you, look you see - he's got it on himself! The murder of Jew is justified.

Anonymous said...

The notion that non-jews are devoid of souls, or not fully human, and that, consequently, certain modes of conduct by jews in relation to non-jews are acceptable, derives from the core texts of Judaism as it developed through the centuries, and amongst these texts is the Babylonian Talmud which is the main source of education in jewish faith schools (yeshivas) and in training rabbis. The argument put forward by apologists --- that these teachings are to be found only amongst orthodox, or 'highly religious' persons, and has nothing to do with 'secular' people who may also define themselves as belonging to judaism --- is actually the same argument as with moslems ('moderates' vs 'extremists'), and it ignores or obfuscates the reality that a people, however religiously observant they are or not, have imbibed, sometimes barely discernibly, these beliefs handed down through the centuries, and that includes subscribing to a presentation of always being a 'persecuted' people, rather than sometimes being the ones who have inflicted persecution, enslavement and highly negative and destructive influences upon other peoples or societies. It is an approach which is absurd and indefensible when one examines the core tenets of any ideology or theology.

Anonymous said...

the whole point is, - if some non-Jew was such an a$$hole to Jews, and as a result got killed by a Jew, - CZ would certainly qualified that as proof of evil Jewish nature - "for a Jew, the life of a goy is nothing".

when it is reversed, he blames the Jews anyway - "for a Jew, the injustice made to goy is nothing". That Jew was murdered, but this is inessential detail.

Classical anti-Semite.

Anonymous said...

Using this logic, KKK people think that blacks are sub-human and treat them different because the KKK study the Babylonian Talmud.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

So Jews systematically discriminate against non-Jews, essentially, like Muslims, adopting two completely distinct moral codes, one for the in-group, one for the out-group. But if we goy even dare to take note of the fact that Jews are doing this, it means we are anti-semitic. OK, got that. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

The idea of a Kafir is derived directly from the idea of a Goy.

If mohammad did not actually exist, as Robert Spencer posits, then Jews are directly responsible for creating islam.

Anonymous said...

everyone discriminates against everyone.
soccer player not obeying the rules is discriminated.
white males are discriminated when selected for Othello, and black females are discriminated when selected for Desdemona role.

have your own club rules, privileges and keep others out, - this is your right.


1) don't incite to break the law
2) don't slander
3) don't justify murder

and here even these strange Hassidic Jewish penguins look far more decent than you CZ.

not talking about secular (ethnic) Jews who are the majority and for whom the notion of "two completely distinct moral codes" is as alien as for you the idea of righteous Jew.

BTW this your expression is another lie - there are considerable intersections in moral codes.
educate yourself.

Anonymous said...

>>Jews are directly responsible for creating islam.


and Christianity
and Capitalism
and Communism
and Zionizm
and Multiculturalism
and Neocon-ism

and atomic bomb, don't forget

we are everywhere, there is no escape, not in the future, not even in the past.
you are doomed.

Anonymous said...

>>Jews are directly responsible for creating islam.

according to this logic,

Romans (who invented concrete) are directly responsible for gas chambers (made of concrete), and

Chinese (who invented explosives) are directly responsible for 7/7 (where it exploded).

you live in interesting world.

Roni said...

It is absolutely right that Fundamentalist Jews – as the ones of Brooklyn and other extreme Orthodox Jews - have attitudes that match (in some ways) those of fundamentalist Muslims. Both see themselves as superb human beings and both believe there is different in level between humans. If most Fundamentalist Jews see non-Jews as less humans, their attitude toward secular Jews is worse. The seculars are the offspring’s of people from Sodom and Gomorrah. Their sins and lousy ways are responsible that the Messiahs does not come. The Satmar Chasidics regard the founding of Israel as a grave sin. From time to time, there are clashes between them and the police in Jerusalem on the issue of keeping the Sabbath. They throw rocks toward passing cars driven by Jews.
In the old day’s (before the 1967 War) they refused to pay taxes. Their argumentation was; they do not recognise the State of Israel, so they cannot pay taxes to a country that does not exist. PM Golda Meir gave them an interesting answer: “You don’t want to pay taxes here? It’s OK. I can have words with King Hussein of Jordan and arrange with him your move, through the Mandelbaum Gate, to the Old city… To a Kingdom that does exist. She still await their answers; wherever she is.

“What you do to the goyim is not the same as what you do to Jews?” Well. In general is their attitude toward Jews not always the same. The American Melobabitz Chasidics, who are send on a mission to Western and Northern Europe, are not used to regard all Jews as equal. They see their congregation more as a classy ‘Rotary Club’ than a religious community. They expect members on the same level as members of a well to do country club. They have the impudence to give (paid) lectures on the Holocaust to European Jews. The Dutch Jewry does know more on the Holocaust than needed with 80% wiped out in the concentration campbs of Sobibor and Auschwitz.
The Low level Jews are notably the ones who have a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father. (very common in some European countries). They are “children of a lesser God’. They are according to Jewish laws Jews, but they are different. I know a case where a ‘mischling’ of that sort had a short time in prison. At his release, the prison rabbi (a Melobabitz Chasidic) had advised his mother to send her son to ‘De Hoop’: a strict Protestant shelter in Dordrecht (the Netherlands) where every morning is opened by Bible lessons and prayers. As he had said: the boy will be there in excellent hands!. That’s true. But is this a way a rabbi ought to help someone who is regarded as a Jew? Moreover, the man had let the mother come from far away in order to discuss the matter (few days before the boy was released) and did not show up. She was not important enough, she did not fit the ‘Rotary Club standards’ and her son was only half a Jew.

The orthodox Jews forget one important thing. Every person or a group that feel itself superb have to show high standard qualities; prayers are not enough. The secular and traditional Israeli Jews have no time for pretensions of being superb. At the time the fundamentalist Jews are praying, the other Jews are working hard to develop the country, keep it in good shape, build a living and fight for it everyday. The sword of Democlas is hanging above their head 24 hours a day.

Anonymous said...




[The Reason Gentiles Should Be Judeophobia- Fear of Jews]


"If there was a legal case between a Jew and a Gentile (non-Jew), then the manner of judging between them is as I will explain: if we [i.e., a Jew] will win under their laws, we judge them according to their laws and say to them: this is your law! If it is better that we judge according to our laws, we judge them according to our laws and say to them: this is our law! And do not find it difficult, and don't be surprised by it, just as one is not surprised about the slaughter of animals even though they have done no harm, for one in whom human characteristics are not complete is not truly a man, and his end purpose is only for 'man' [that is to say, the entire raison d'etre of the Gentiles is only for the benefit of the complete man --
comment by Rabbi Y. Kapach shlita in his edition of Maimonides's Commentary on the Mishnah], and the discussion on this matter requires a separate book."

Foreword -- Daat Emet

For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha's real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva -- so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article "Jews Are Called 'Men'" by R' David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.

In this article R' Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards "Gentiles" in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

"The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as 'man,' and a Gentile."

That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R' Bar-Chayim's work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R' Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
For the English readers' convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R' Bar-Chayim's article:

Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).

A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.

Anonymous said...





A Jew's exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile's property. But if a Gentile's property causes damage to a Jew's property, the Gentile is liable.

The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah's law or only by a Rabbinic decree.

A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one's sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.

The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.

One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.

A Gentile -- or even a convert to Judaism -- may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).

One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.

The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment "love your neighbour" applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: "Your mother shall be greatly ashamed..."

Gentiles are likened to animals.

If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.

The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure -- he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.

One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.

An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile's ritual slaughter -- but this is not the place to delve into the subject).

Their members are like those of asses" -- Gentiles are likened to animals.

Between the Jews and the Gentiles -- In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

R' Bar-Chayim's arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R' Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the "Conclusion" of his article:

"It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d's word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce 'compromises' or 'renovations' into it."

On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet -- as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d -- are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.

In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R' Bar-Chayim's article,

"Between Jews and Gentiles -- In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought," because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written:

"And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like -- most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah" (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews