Kikar is running an editorial by Dov Habertal, some sort of provocative Haredi spokesperson/writer/media-personality.

I generally stay away from commenting on editorials, as every person is entitled to his or her own opinions, no matter who right or wrong it might be, and unless that person is in a position of power of some sort, his or her opinion is really not all that important, or perhaps significant, that I must comment on it (nor is my comment so important that it should be deemed necessary)...

Halbertal, writing about the recent USA presidential elections, says he is happy that Clinton lost - not because she is an anti-semite or anti-Israel or corrupt or any of the other reasons about half of America voted against her. Halbertal explains that a woman can be prime minister of a country, perhaps, but not President of the USA.

The argument against woman ruling a country, he says, is not simple, as a number of large countries are led by women (e.g. England, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, among others). However, ruling the world is a different story and is worth consideration.

However, his problem with Clinton isn't really that. Halbertal says that even if women could rule, it is an ethical problem to put them in such a position. According to Halbertal women have no ethical right to rule. Why? Because they do not partake in the public burden.

Halbertal's argument, that women do not partake in and share in the public burden is based on the fact that women do not serve in armies around the world and those who fall in battle are men. So, it is immoral for a woman to send them to battle in which some non-women may fall. Construction sites around the world are filled with male construction workers, and the person sending people off to such backbreaking work should not be a woman. A woman should not be a mayor of a city sending men off, and only men, to collect the garbage of the city.

At the end Halbertal explains that he is against the "hyper-feminism" of Clinton who wants the women to rule the world and the men to collect the garbage and fall in battle.

I had a couple of thoughts reading this:
1. this sounded very similar to the arguments in Israel around the issues of the Haredi community - such as do they deserve equal benefits in society when they do not share the burden of their childrne falling in battle and working and boosting the Israeli economy? Halbertal, and most Haredim, would reject such arguments made against the Haredi community in an attempt to strip them of equal rights, yet he makes those arguments to say it is unethical for a woman to have the same rights as men.

2. Halbertal seems to be a bit behind the times. In many armies around the world, and surely in the USA, women do serve in the army and fight in battles alongside men. Men might very well still be the majority of soldiers, but the numbers of women joining the army and taking an equal part in society are regularly increasing.

3. It is a bit disingenuous to say that women don't serve and don't work equally with men so cannot ethically be leaders, when you yourself oppose them serving equally and sharing that burden. Meaning, the Haredi community and its leaders are opposed to women serving in the army and being too involved in having careers outside the home and often against even getting educated with degrees and obtaining professions. While that does not influence the global ethics of leadership as it does not influence women around the globe in what they decide to study, work in or where to serve, it does seem, to me at least, to be unfair to try to hold women down and prevent them from doing everything they and society wants them to do to be on a more equal footing with men and then saying that because they are not societally on an equal footing with men they can also not do other things. Give them free reign of their own decisions and abilities to do whatever they want and then see where they go, and then decide if they take up equal positions in society or not and if letting them lead is ethical or not.

Those are my thoughts on Halbertal's comments

Satmar, seemingly both of the major Satmar sects, has issued a call to its supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton for President of the United States in the elections this week.

Satmar's endorsement comes with an explanation - Clinton helped the Satmar community in her role as Senator, and in her husband's role as President of the USA. They point to "freeing captives", saving lives, helping get the Jews of Iran out, assistance (permits and welfare grants, presumably).. and more specifically point to the fact that Trump is too pro-Israel.
sources: Haredim10, Kikar, INN

For normative Jews who are pro-Israel, this seems to be the best endorsement for Donald Trump. It seems to be a bit of a backhanded compliment to Clinton. She is good because she is not pro-Israel, or at least not as much as Trump. I am not sure she would like to be portrayed that way.

On the other hand, Ivanka Trump and family were documented going to pay a visit at the ohel of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
source: Algemeiner

It seems the Satmar and Chabad communities are at odds once again...

He is campaigning for Hillary, so his words, as those of anyone campaigning for such a powerful sosition, must be taken with a grain of salt and a bucket-full of suspicion...




However, what is perhaps the most important part of what Bill Clinton said was cut off form the video:
“There’s nobody who’s blameless in the Middle East, but we cannot really ever make a fundamental difference in the Middle East unless the Israelis think we care whether they live or die. If they do, we have a chance to keep pushing for peace," Clinton said. "And that’s her position. Not to agree with the Israeli government on everything, not to pretend that innocents don’t die, not to pretend that more Palestinian children don’t die than Israeli children. But that we can’t get anything done unless they believe, when the chips are down, if somebody comes for them we will not let them be wiped out and become part of the dustbin of history."

During a CNN town hall, Rabbi Jonathan Spira-Savett asked Hillary Clinton how she balances the ambition it takes to run for president and the humility that it requires to live a life of service. 

There is an interesting article in the Columbia Journalism Review about how Ultra-Orthodox newspapers are planning to deal with the challenge of Hillary Clinton possibly being the next President of the United States vis a vis their policy of not printing images of women in the newspapers.

an excerpt:

It’s not just her politics that worries these publications, although they are far to the right of Clinton on most issues. More troublesome is her gender. For reasons of tradition and modesty, and in line with some interpretations of Jewish law, the ultra-Orthodox publications do not run pictures of women in their pages. When they publish articles about Clinton, they are likely to run images of her campaign posters, a picture of her house in Chappaqua, NY, or a photo of her husband, Bill. Occasionally, they will run a caricature of Hillary Clinton from a political cartoon, but not a photo.
It was one thing to avoid printing Clinton’s picture when she was First Lady or a United States senator, or even Secretary of State. But how can you not show the President of the United States?
In interviews, the editors of four major English-language ultra-Orthodox publications, three of them published in New York and one in Jerusalem, said that they are reevaluating their no-women policy in light of the Clinton candidacy, but would not make any final decisions alone. As with all important decisions, they will take the question to the boards of rabbinical advisors with whom final authority over the publications’ content rests. One of the editors, a rabbi himself, said that a Clinton victory could spell a change in the longstanding no-women policy in his paper and the others. “I think we’re going to have to rethink it,” Rabbi Yitzchok Frankfurter, the executive editor of Ami Magazine, told me. Not to do so, he said, “would be disrespectful.”

This alone might be the cause for many people to vote for Clinton, and they would be willing to ignore any and every other issue, just to get the frum papers to start printing images of women....

Then again, the real frum response really should be that clearly Hillary Clinton is going to lose, so that the frum papers won't have to break their tradition of thousands of years...

Quote Of The Day

With respect to Mr. Pollard... he is serving that sentence and I do not have any expectation that that is going to change..

 -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Clinton mentions Pollard near the end of her press conference. What she said is really nothing new, and I would not have expected her to say anything else but what she said. he is serving a life sentence and the only way that will change is by being granted clemency, which is an external method, and one not in Clinton's hands. As far as she is concerned, Pollard is serving a life sentence. The only person qualified to say anything about Pollard's future that might be different is the President of the US himself. Nothing anybody else says matters.


------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

9 year old Menachem Zivotovsky, from Bet Shemesh and son of the famous Dr. Ari Zivotovsky, is suing US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in order to get the word ", Israel" included in his passport as place of birth - Jerusalem, Israel rather than just "Jerusalem". The case has gone to the Supreme Court, and not many gave the case much of a chance.

A milestone was recorded yesterday when the case passed a very important hurdle. The Justice Department was trying to get the courts to stay out of the issue, saying it is not in their jurisdiction to decide such a matter, as they claim it to be an executive decision to say or not say "Israel" rather than a judicial decision.

The Court decided yesterday that the case can be heard and will continue.

From CNN:

A 9-year-old boy's request to have Israel listed as the place of birth on his U.S. passport was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
Menachem Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem, a disputed region in the eyes of the Obama administration, which claimed the larger issue should be resolved by bilateral negotiations, not by a 2002 federal law favoring the family and 50,000 other Americans born in the holy city. The Justice Department urged the courts to stay out of the matter.
But the justices by an 8-1 vote said the courts could intervene and decide the matter. That jurisdictional barrier is now overcome and the family can continue to pursue their legal claims.
The case is a classic fight between congressional and executive authority, with foreign policy the source of the current controversy.
At issue before the high court were two questions, one narrow, one broad: Can courts intervene to enforce a federal law explicitly directing the State Department how to record the birthplace of an American citizen on a passport? And does the law impermissibly infringe on the president's power to recognize a foreign sovereign?
"There have been 50,000 Americans in the last 10 years that were born in Jerusalem, and many of them would like to have Israel indicated as their place of birth in the passports," Sarah Cleveland, a Columbia University Law School professor, and until recently a counselor on international law at the State Department, said in November. "But this is also an extremely important geopolitical issue and a very sensitive foreign relations issue for the United States."
The high court case was Zivotofsky v. Clinton, but the key player in this dispute is perhaps the most famous city in the world, and one of the oldest human settlements still in existence: Jerusalem. Its name translates as "City of Peace" to some, "Holy Sanctuary" to others. It is Israel's largest city and its capital, though that is not recognized by the United Nations and most of the world community.
The city is home to Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky. The couple and their two oldest children were born in the United States, but the family migrated to West Jerusalem a decade ago, and in 2002 the youngest, Menachem Binyamin, was born.
"We're very proud of the fact that he was born in Israel and that we live in Israel and it's the modern state of Israel," Ari Zivotofsky told CNN Correspondent Kate Bolduan last year. "Religiously and historically, that's very significant."
Just three weeks before Menachem was born, the United States Congress gave U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem the individual discretion to ask that Israel be listed on passports and consular reports, where it says "Place of Birth." President George W. Bush signed the bill, but issued an executive "signing statement" indicating he would not comply.
The law, he said "impermissibly interferes with the president's constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs and to supervise the unitary executive branch."
That law, and the Zivotofsky's long-standing request, were at the center of the 70-minute arguments before the justices in November.
"They're both proud American citizens but feel a very strong affinity, religiously too, to the state of Israel," said Alyza Lewin, the Zivotofsky's Washington-based lawyer, last year. "Their son is very proud of the fact that he is the one sibling born in Israel."
It is not the first time the Congress and White House have clashed over the region. The U.S. Embassy remains in Tel Aviv, over U.S. lawmakers' objections.
The boy's mother made the "Israel" request about two months after his birth, but embassy officials refused. His passport in fact shows his round, innocent face, and "Jerusalem" is listed as his place of birth.
"That's been the State Department's practice, the general rule for American citizens born abroad is that their passport lists only a country of birth," said Lewin in November. "So if a citizen is born for instance in Paris, it says France. If they're born in Tel Aviv or Haifa, it says just Israel. If you're born in Jerusalem, instead of saying the country, the city is listed -- just a city -- Jerusalem."
The attorneys for the Zivotofskys have framed their case as a modest request, one that does not implicate the president's foreign policy power. They are asking the high court not to decide a political question, but simply tell the administration to enforce the law, for the sake of a little boy.
"It is a very personal case. What's at stake is their deep personal pride and sense of identification with the state of Israel, and their right, given by Congress, to express that, on the passport," said attorney Nathan Lewin, who argued the family's case before the high court in November.
"That pride, and the national pride of others, is clearly what makes that region as much front page news as it often is. But I don't think that this case itself is asking for any kind of broader determination than allowing these individuals that opportunity. Congress has recognized that it's part of his self respect, that he should be able to say Israel, and that's all that we're asking for in this case."
The government is thinking of the bigger picture. State Department officials would not comment on the record on a pending case, but President Barack Obama has acknowledged the stalled peace process has created divisions both in that region and in the United States.
"Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met," he said in a May 2010 speech. "I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians."
Choosing a home, and being able to decide what to call it may seem like a fundamental right. But nothing is so easy when Jerusalem is mentioned. The Zivotofskys say they recognize the geo-political complexity, but think in this case, in this judicial forum, the solution is simple.
"Everybody knows Jerusalem is in Israel. Why is the State Department refusing to recognize this?" said Nathan Lewin. "They have this fear of nonexistent hobgoblins, which has caused them to follow this policy, and it's about time -- Congress thought it was about time -- they get rid of that policy ... all that we're asking the Supreme Court to do is agree with Congress, that this is a foolish policy, and ought to be eliminated

------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

Everybody knows how concerned Hillary Clinton is about the state of the democracy of Israel. She is worried our democracy is on the verge of collapse, for a variety of reasons, in large part because of the fight over women's place in society..

Interestingly, the Secretary of State has not spoken out, or at least I have not noticed her saying anything about it, about the dear friends of the United States in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis just yesterday beheaded a woman after her being convicted of practicing sorcery. And, it just so happens to be that this was the 73rd such execution this year for similar crimes.

While Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, which to be honest should be even more of a concern to Hillary Clinton,   the treatment of women in that country should still be a cause of concern. Or is it ok in Hillary Clinton's eyes to behead a woman but not to remove their images from a few posters in Haredi neighborhoods or put them in the back of the bus?

At the same time, there is a nice Op-Ed today in the Jerusalem Post written by a woman who spent the last few weeks riding the 418 bus from Ramat Bet Shemesh to Jerusalem. The 418 is a bus line that is, officially or unofficially depending on whom you ask, designated as a mehadrin bus, meaning men sit in front and women in the back. This woman was testing the reactions of the regular passengers. She's get on the bus and sit in front. She wanted to see how common or uncommon the violent reactions really are.

She says that in the few weeks she spent riding the bus, there was not a single incident to cause concern. A few people mentioned things or muttered that she should be moving to the back, but when she made it clear she was sitting tight, they proceeded to ignore her.

In addition, the passengers of the 417 bus, a similar bus but not even unofficially mehadrin and also catering mostly to religious passengers, got some good press.

I’ve been freedom-riding the No. 418 “Mehadrin” bus between Ramat Beit Shemesh and Jerusalem for a few weeks, and here’s what’s been happening to me: nothing. I get on, pay my fare, sit down in the front of the bus, and then – that’s it.


I haven’t encountered one instance of physical violence, verbal threats or otherwise obnoxious harassment. There has been an occasional “Mehadrin!” muttered quietly by some men, but they gave up quickly when I ignored them. One man told me I was supposed to move to the back, as per the custom, but when I asked him if he could read the sign which states that riders can sit wherever they choose, he said, “I’m just telling you that this is the custom, you can do whatever you want.”


One bearded, black-coated man announced that women should move to the back, and when a secular-looking, jeans-wearing woman challenged him by asking if that was the law, he said, “No, but I am requesting that you do it.” We women stayed in our seats and didn’t hear another word from him or anyone else.


Once a man asked the bus driver to tell the women to move to the back, which I thought was a nice touch, as I don’t think it is modest for a man to begin a conversation with a random woman on a bus, even to discuss seating arrangements. For the record, the driver said in response: “I don’t know anything about this.”


On the 417, the non-segregated bus which essentially covers the same route as the 418, the passengers are almost all ultra-Orthodox. It is accepted practice that if two sets of seats are each half-occupied, with one man at each window seat, women riders will not sit down next to a man, but will instead politely ask one man to move next to the other man to free up seats for women (or vice-versa, with a male rider asking a female rider to move).


In almost all cases, when a man and woman are sitting next to each other, they appear to be married (although nobody asks to see their ketubah, or marriage contract). There are fewer screaming babies on the regular bus because families sit together and a man can hold his baby instead of forcing his wife to juggle an infant and a toddler.


Most of the men on the 417 study, work on their laptops or chat with the men sitting next to them during the ride. I have yet to see any inappropriateness borne of the mixed-sex environment. Everyone on the 417 bus has been exceedingly polite and modest. What behaviors are so offensive that a segregated bus is needed to save passengers from sin?

She concludes by telling Hillary Clinton to focus on women's rights in places like Saudi Arabia..

I thought common diplomatic process was to not be seen as intervening in internal affairs of another country. Even though we all know that every country tries to use it's influence in every possible way to achieve results in any given situation that will favor it's own personal interests, they at least generally try to do so without it being known. Comments like "That is an internal affair and I won't comment on that" is pretty standard in the diplomatic world.

Three times this past week the United States government officials breached that protocol. We had Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta talking at the Saban Forum and saying things like Israel needs to get to the damn table, and mend fences with other neighboring countries. Ok, that is less an internal affair and more public policy issues regarding Middle East Peace, but it still seems he crossed into blaming Israel too much for foot-dragging and causing delays.

We then had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talking, also at the Saban Forum, about Israel's internal issues with the extreme haredim who are demanding gender-separation in many public spheres of life in Israel.

And Kadima claims on its website that President Bill Clinton, also while at the Saban Forum, granted an interview to a journalist in which they were talking about, among other things I presume, Kadima Chairwoman Tzippi Livni. Clinton said during the interview that if Livni would be in the current government, the government would be much better. It is really a "what if" discussion, so he is just assuming she would do things more in line with his own ideas, and even that she would accomplish anything is just an assumption (Kadima led the government already with Livni holding a senior position, and they brought us no closer to peace)..

It seems like the United States has no problem meddling..

Here are some more recent updates from the fight regarding women in the public sphere (including the burqa and veil cult battles with the Eida):

• Hillary Clinton, speaking at the Saban Forum over the weekend, expressed her concern for the safety of Israel's democracy. One of the causes for her concern was the increase in the removal of women from the public sphere, along with the allocation of specific sections on the bus for women in Jerusalem.
• Many Israeli politicians responded to Clinton's words basically telling her to mind her own business and deal with her own citizens problems. At the same time they agreed and expressed the concern and problem with the local situation.
• Pashkevils were put up in frum neighborhoods of Jerusalem trying to encourage the strengthening of the motivation to continue the mehadrin process on bus lines. It seems the new "smart card" (rav kav) in use on bus lines around the country, and specifically Jerusalem, makes the mehadrin methods more difficult to comply with. Passengers getting on the bus must get on in front to swipe the card. The signs encourage the women to still get on in the back and pass payment or their smart cards forward to the driver. The signs also point out that by law the driver is supposed to lower his  radio so only he can hear it, if requested, and he has to open the back door, if requested. The sign encourages people to tell the driver to lower the radio, and to demand being allowed to get on in the back. If the driver does not comply, complaints should be filed with both Egged and the Ministry of Transportation.
• A couple husbands of the "veiled women" have decided to take the reigns and fight back against the Eida. They have granted "exclusive" interviews to both Kikar and Bechadrei to voice their position.. Some highlights of what they said things: they say the Eida never really came out against it, rather the Eida opposed women who do "strange" things against the minhag yisrael. There was one woman who did some things on her own and that caused everyone to get upset. The Eida has a problem that their daughters have begun wearing wigs, so now they have to oppose this so that nobody should look frummer than them. The Eida had no right to judge them, as the Eida never heard their side of it. They threaten to stop eating the hechsher of the Eida, and thereby hurt the Eida where it counts unless they retract their opposition and stop the protests against Rav Rompler.. A woman wearing a "shal" is like a telephone poll - do you get attracted to a telephone poll? It is the same thing. Who cares if we don't send out kids to school - millions of people around the world, and in Israel too, do homeschooling, so why is this strange? We coordinate with th Ministry of Education and we homeschool our children. Why does it matter that we don't birth in hospitals? Many, in Israel too, prefer to give birth at home.
• MDA is opening a new station in the Beis Yisroel neighborhood of Mea Shearim that will be manned only by men. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this, as it is meant to serve the local clientele which will only use the service if it is provided in this manner. Hatzala already does this in most places. 

Stephen Colbert on the Hasidic Newspaper that removed Hillary Clinton from the photo

I thought that story of the yiddishe newspaper Di Tzeitung was a non-story. So they edited Hillary Clinton out of the photo, big deal. It is nothing new. Hamodia and Yated do it all the time, as do all (or at least many) newspapers associated with the haredi community. And I am sure this is not the first time Hillary was edited out of a haredi newspaper. And I don't think it makes a difference that the White House released the photo with a disclaimer that it should not be edited.

To me it seemed like this was one of those automatic stories. They do something automatic, and the media response is automatic. An automatic story, to me is no not a story. It is boring, it is completely expected and anticipated, and not really newsworthy.

I was very surprised how much press time this story has gotten. So much so that Dir Tzeitung had to issue a statement apologizing for what they did.

Dir Tzeitung's statement, which I saw on a few websites but I could not find the original, reads:

The White House released a picture showing the President following “live” the events in the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden, last week Sunday. Also present in the Situation Room were various high-ranking government and military officials. Our photo editor realized the significance of this historic moment, and published the picture, but in his haste he did not read the “fine print” that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes. We should not have published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and apologies to the White House and to the State Department.The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel. The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was a Senator representing New York State with great distinction 8 years. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in ‘00, and when she was re-elected in ‘06, because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.


We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.


All Government employees are sworn into office, promising adherence to the Constitution, and our Constitution attests to our greatness as a nation that is a light beacon to the entire world. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. (See below.) That has precedence even to our cherished freedom of the press! In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.


We are proud Americans of the Jewish faith, and there is no conflict in that, and we will with the help of the Almighty continue as law-abiding citizens, in this great country of our’s, until the ultimate redemption.

I found this quote particularly interesting:

We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers

Wait for the storm when  the White House finds out that the people of Dir Tzeitung's community don't even say the prayer for the welfare of the government and the government leaders!

The story even hit CNN:

I am very proud being the mother of the lucky bride, but the planning of the wedding is almost as difficult as the Middle East Peace Process discussions

--- US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

US Foreign Minister Hillary Clinton fell and broke her right arm yesterday. The same day she was telling Israel, yet again, how they will accept nothing less than a complete cessation of construction in the settlements.

If I forget thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither... אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני

(HatTip: dafneighbor)

My Caption: I do.
Your caption?

(from Haaretz.com)
(HatTip: TS)