Editorial: Primer on dealing with bullies

Issue of May 23, 2008 / 18 Iyar 5768

Every now and again something new is labeled “the biggest threat to Judaism today.” You might have heard, for instance, about the existential threat posed by Pesach hotels (if you haven’t, well, don’t ask).

A more serious threat, as outlined by Rabbi Yakov Horowitz in the ‘In My View’ column on page 1, is posed by the seemingly never-ending flood of poor publicity concerning observant Jews — a very great deal of it generated by Kano’im, or zealots. Such as, for instance, the not-very-bright people who made headlines in Israel Tuesday by burning a pile of Christian Bibles as a means of combating missionaries who plague their neighborhood.

Kano’im [pron: ka NA im], in case you’re not familiar with the term, are the types of folks who aren’t content to publicly model the very strictest religious practices — chumrahs — by themselves; they feel it is their obligation to force everyone else to follow along as well. After all, in their eyes, those who disagree with their opinions are bad Jews or worse.

One common tendency kano’im share is that they tend to encourage compliance through threats and intimidation. They are, in other words, bullies. The best-known recent examples are the Neturei Karta who got all kissy-faced with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, and to a lesser degree, the people who manipulated some of our most esteemed rabbis into lending their names to a rabbinic ban, and canceled a concert that was to have starred the singer Lipa Schmeltzer. When those bullies also urged the Charedi public to not hire Schmeltzer to perform at weddings — his primary source of income — he caved and was upfront about why: he has a mortgage.

Several months ago, Rabbi Horowitz, whose forceful and candid essays about threats he sees facing the observant Jewish world appear in this paper, was also targeted. Rabbi Horowitz is a highly visible member of the Charedi community — associated with Agudath Israel; a sought-after lecturer; a respected educator who founded and heads a mainstream elementary school in Monsey which is putting up a new building now, which obviously requires injections of donor capital. He is also a softspoken man of principle who courageously writes about the issues of the day with refreshing openness and unwavering respect for our roshei yeshiva and rabbonim.

A man from this area — we won’t publish his name; this is a primer on bullies, after all, not the graduate course — said he wanted to reproduce some of Rabbi Horowitz’s essays in a shul handout. Rabbi Horowitz respectfully informed him that a courtesy call must first be made to this newspaper, which publishes his essays. The man became belligerent and aggressive and Rabbi Horowitz decided to have nothing further to do with him; he informed him in writing that permission to reprint his work was denied.

In response, the man informed Rabbi Horowitz that he would reprint the essays anyway — maintaining incorrectly that the halacha allowed as much since they had appeared in print — and that he planned to write that he was publishing Rabbi Horowitz’s essays against his wishes as he obviously no longer believes the things he’s written about youth-at-risk.

Then, the next day, a rather more literate anonymous e-mail appeared in Rabbi Horowitz’s personal inbox in which the writer advised that, as a board member of several prominent Jewish organizations, he was a longtime admirer and supporter of the rabbi’s work. Now, the note continued, he “had e-mails in his possession” in which Rabbi Horowitz said things that were “unbecoming” of a man in his position that he would be forced to publicize; he would advise his friends to no longer support the causes Rabbi Horowitz serves. “In the future,” he wrote, Rabbi Horowitz would “perhaps look back on this episode” and realize the error of his ways.

The email was signed in the manner of so many of these communiques, “Vaad L’man Something-or-other.”

Classic intimidation, Rabbi Horowitz said that day –– the Kano’im go right for the jugular –– by threatening to harm the livelihood of decent people, and in a cowardly manner, without signing their names. Rabbi Horowitz asked the newspaper to pursue the matter and informed us that under no circumstances would he ‘cave’ to that kind of intimidation.

That particular anonymous bully made a mistake, by sending his threatening note on a corporate server. A few phone calls by a member of our staff unveiled him and an apology soon followed with the less-than-satisfying explanation that his friend, the first bully, had misled him.

The lesson of the whole episode is that the universal method of dealing with bullies prevails: victims of intimidation should assert themselves and not be cowed into submission, and all decent people should stand up and be counted when this type of behavior takes place.

Kano’im are not useful; they are not “well meaning.” They add nothing to our community and never roll up their sleeves to solve any of the pressing issues of the day. Rather, they are a serious impediment to the search for solutions to real problems, and an ongoing source of negative publicity that demoralizes and turns off many. In our opinion, they are a threat to the well being of the entire observant Jewish world.