Well, for my first post of a new year, it is sad that one of the biggest events related to religion to take place so far in 2015--the attacks in Paris on a newspaper office that published a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, and at a kosher supermarket--is such a sad one, but it is. I also know that countless writers have dealt with the subject on their blogs. I want to look at a particular angle that really bothered me, and so I have chosen to focus specifically on the Jewish response to attack in the kosher supermarket.
The perspective I want to take is really more of an intra-faith (within one faith) issue, but I do not see this as divergent from the intent of the blog overall. Many people outside of Judaism might hear about these issues, and completely not understand--not understand why people did what they did, why the response was what it was, etc. So I wanted to present a specific issue to that end.
As with many religions, the more practicing movement of Orthodox Judaism has a stricter sense of modesty and gender division than does much of the more "secular" world. This translates into real life in various ways according to halakhah--maintaining certain standards of dress, for example (generally skirts for women past the knees, sleeves past the elbows, collars covering the collarbone, etc., gentlemen also adhering to similar rules to cover up). During services, the genders will be divided by a type of wall ("mechitza" pronounced meh-hee-tzaah), to avoid them seeing each other and so possibly be tempted into "impure" thoughts. Some very religious folks avoid touching members of the other gender--even for so much as a handshake.
My understanding is that much of this extreme form of modesty has to do with avoiding pre-marital sexual relations, an important prohibition in halakhic Judaism (again, as it is in many religions). The theory would be that seeing too much skin on someone, or shaking hands, could lead to more.
Apparently, for some very religious Jews, even looking on members of the other gender can be considered immodest. Of course, this sometimes borders quite strongly on feeling misogynistic when it goes so far away from the realm of what is generally considered acceptable by the majority of the world population.
So fast forward to the horrific attacks in Paris. Regardless of your opinion on whether the newspaper should have published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (I am of the strong opinion that they should not have done so, as it was not a very respectful, pro-interfaith move, but that is another topic for another day), I hope that those of us who interact with this blog can agree that murdering people was not the correct reaction. If you have read any of the reports, you will know that the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo office--horrible. The attacks in the kosher supermarket--horrible. All horrible.
The attacks on the kosher supermarket in particular hit home for many Jews. While I have not seen anything claiming that this was a targeted attack against Jews, it very well could be, and it is just another example of Jews being killed--from the shootings in France a few years back, to the attacks at the Jewish museum in Brussels, to the relatively recent stabbing attack in Tel Aviv, and then a bombing by Hezbollah in Israel this past week, the point is that Jews are killed on a regular basis. Not to say that other groups are not, but there is clearly a pattern that proves that antisemitism is not dead. So, sadly, this attack at the supermarket was both devastating and personal to many Jews, without being altogether too surprising. I even know at least one cohort of American Jews that flew over to Paris in the aftermath of the shooting to lend support to the Jewish community in Paris. There was, understandably (I should hope), a reaction in Jewish media sources.
This included a questionable decision by a very Orthodox news source to alter an image relevant to the tragedy. Many were aware of the collective of world leaders who gathered in Paris following the attacks in order to protest terrorism, including even leaders from both Palestine and Israel, and the inexcusable lack of American leadership at the march (politics!). But this particular Israeli paper decided to edit a key photo from the unity march, showing these important world leaders joined together in solidarity, and removed all of the images of women and made it look like none were even present at the march.
What?
Yes, they decided to edit out any sign of women in the march. Not in some obvious way that would make it clear that the photo was not the original, oh no, but an edited version that looks very much like it could be a normal photo, at least to my untrained eye. They edited out Angela Merkel, for goodness' sake, arguably the most powerful politician on the planet right now. How? What? Why? Ugh. Let's take a look:
Photo from Daily Mail; I made it awkward-big so you could see it more closely
I am sorry to say that I think it is the latter.
Claims assert that this edits was done out of "modesty," but it is fairly evident that the definition of "modesty" used by the editors of this particular, again, very religious newspaper (Hamevaser), means that even looking at women is offensive or inappropriate in some way. From one particular article, you could see how those within this particular type of Jewish community may agree: "'A woman's exterior should not be seen and photographed or paraded in front of men,' said Yosef Haim, a neighborhood resident. 'I think it's a very positive thing.'"Take a look at one article for some more details: http://news.yahoo.com/israel-paper-cuts-merkel-paris-march-photo-modesty-131410239.html
I do not approve. And as that article shows, not even all Orthodox people approve. So, please recognize this as another example of the great variety in the spectrum that is Judaism.
Unfortunately, the worst part of the response to this controversy came (unsurprisingly) from the newspaper editor: "Including a picture of a woman into something so sacred, as far as we are concerned, it can desecrate the memory of the martyrs and not the other way around," said Binyamin Lipkin (quote also from article above).
EXCUSE ME? I understand differing levels of modesty, and flatter myself that I am fairly open-minded to different cultures. One community feels that longer lengths should be upheld for clothing? Okay. Everyone should wear a head covering? Okay. I personally am not a fan of gendered restrictions (if I want to wear pants, and men are allowed to wear pants, you'd better know that I will be wearing pants), but I can at least understand modesty restrictions. For example, I tend to make sure my shoulders are covered in a synagogue, my skirt or pants go down to what I personally consider respectable, etc. and I know that what is considered "appropriate" differs for everyone.
But this incident, this altering that makes it seem like women did not participate, is appalling to me. Already, the significantly different percentages of world leaders who are male vs. female is extremely disturbing, but seeming to portray to this religious community that women were not there at all*--it's just appalling to me. Do not lie to your group, even if you disagree, for whatever reason--let them make their own decisions, and think for themselves. But alas, that does not always fly in certain groups.
Anyway, my favorite counter-response came from a liberal Jewish news source (the fact that the source is "Jewish" rendering it all the more meaningful, of course):
Merkel, Merkel, Merkel: http://tabletmag.com/scroll/188334/the-million-merkel-march
These attacks, as many perpetrated by apparent Muslim terrorists have been in recent years, appear to have been done by extremists. My understanding is that the vast majority of reasonable, normal Muslim folks--in the U.S. and abroad--would agree that these types of attacks are insane and wrong. I hope. One interesting point made separately by both my (Catholic) mother and my (Orthodox Jewish) peer is that the act of altering the photo by the Jewish newspaper is another example of religious extremism--not so different from the reasoning used by the Muslim terrorists who committed these atrocities.
But what certainly cannot go unnoticed in situations like this are those who are truly heroic in order to save others. We have a saying in Judaism, from the Talmud, that says: "Whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." We thus have a great degree of religious respect for those who save anyone, and especially those who go out of their way to save Jews (many memories of the Holocaust, beyond the horrors, focus on those incredible gentiles who risked their own lives and families to help Jews). In this same vein of thought, here is a beautiful example of a Muslim gentleman who risked himself during the attack in the supermarket, and the positive earthly outcome that came for him: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2918786/Man-saved-lives-Paris-grocery-gets-French-citizenship.html. Let us never forget that even in the midst of great tragedy can come excellent--interfaith--heroism. We just have to be willing to give of ourselves, regardless of the cost. It is no small order.
As I hope this post makes clear, there is clearly disagreement even within religions. I suspect I would have very little in common with many of my very Orthodox counterparts--not least because, due to the fact that my birth mother is not Jewish, would not consider me Jewish--though we do share prayers, traditions, and a history. When we celebrate, to some extent, we do the same things. When we mourn, to some extent, we do the same things. And when we face a tragedy that affects us as Jews, such as the Charlie Hebdo attacks in the kosher super market, we do the same or feel the same things. But can we come together with just that? Some food for thought.
Now go out and love one another.
<3,
Allyson
---
*I wonder if the newspaper made a note about having edited women out of the photo, to at least maintain some semblance of journalistic ethics. I wish I read Hebrew to be able to tell--if anyone knows, please do let me know.
