Section I: Addressing the ARZA Complaint

Section I: Addressing the ARZA Complaint 1. Eretz HaKodesh responded immediately to ARZA’s previous complaint. Eretz HaKodesh went above and beyond that which was required by the Tribunal, because EHK strove to operate “Lifnim miShurat HaDin,” above and beyond the rules. Immediately following receipt of the first complaint from ARZA in February 2020, Rabbi Lerner, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Eretz HaKodesh slate, directed that any and all content which ARZA might deem worthy of complaint be removed from the EHK website, even if Eretz HaKodesh perceived ARZA’s complaint as invalid. At his instruction, an entire collection of downloadable content, seventeen (17) files in all, was removed. As per the enclosed affirmation, the web designer of the Eretz HaKodesh website thought this would be harmful to the website and the campaign, but recalls that Rabbi Lerner wanted to be “extra careful” to do things correctly, in order to avoid conflict (Affirmation of Marcus Dixler, attached hereto as Ex. A). The collection of files contained attractive materials capable of being shared on What’s App and on social media. Removing these materials thus likely had a significant, detrimental effect on the EHK campaign, but Rabbi Lerner’s priority was to avoid conflict. Thus he had these items removed without being ordered to do so by the Tribunal. Even after the Tribunal reached its decision, determining that the vast majority of content subject to allegations in the original ARZA Complaint was not identified as objectionable, Rabbi Lerner did not restore that content to the website, simply in order to pursue an honest campaign without unnecessary strife. ARZA’s claim that “Eretz Hakodesh disregarded its own representations about its future behavior and the behavior of its representatives” is categorically false, and ARZA’s claim that “NOTHING was removed or retracted” is categorically false. ARZA’s claim that “the Eretz Hakodesh slate and Rabbi Pesach Lerner continued to violate the rules of the AEC” is categorically false and libelous, and ARZA knows that its libelous statements qualify as “intentional and malicious,” since it was able to verify that all three items cited in its original complaint were immediately removed, and none were restored — even after the Tribunal decision found only some of them to contain one inappropriate expression. EHK Reply to ARZA page 3 Eretz HaKodesh went above and beyond what the Tribunal required, in order to avoid any further conflict with ARZA or any other party, and likely lost a significant number of votes in so doing. ARZA, in its complaint, knowingly made a false accusation. For anyone interested in fair application of neutral standards, that should be enough to reject this second complaint. 2. ARZA bases its new complaint upon a brazen falsification of the Tribunal’s previous, unambiguous ruling. ARZA’s complaint uses the AZM Tribunal’s previous decision of March 4, 2020 as the basis of its complaint. That decision had only one operative paragraph, which reads as follows in its entirety: Regarding the multiple statements made by the Eretz Hakodesh slate, via their leadership and materials, referencing the Reform (and non-Orthodox movements) as “Anti-Torah”, The Tribunal admonishes Eretz Hakodesh for using such language regarding other slates and segments of the Jewish community. The Tribunal notes that comments such as these are inconsistent with the WZO Jerusalem Program, which states that Israel and the Zionist movement are “marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people”. Eretz Hakodesh should cease using this wording and immediately remove it from its communications and campaign material. (Emphasis added) In a narrow ruling, the Tribunal held that it is needlessly divisive for Eretz HaKodesh to refer to other movements as “Anti-Torah,” regardless of how “Torah” is understood within the traditional observant (Orthodox) community. Nothing further was found to be in violation. The language referenced by the Tribunal was removed entirely and never used again. Yet, amazingly, ARZA omitted the specific language identified by the Tribunal as offensive. Thus the entire paragraph is devoid of context and meaning, the references to “this wording” and “it” left unspecified, as if Eretz HaKodesh were admonished for using language which the Tribunal did not, in fact, determine to be in violation. ARZA had the audacity to precede a partial rendering of the decision with the words: “The exact wording of the Tribunal is as follows,” as if what followed were an accurate and complete transcript of the Tribunal decision. This is simply stunning. ARZA ripped EHK Reply to ARZA page 4 the last half of the Tribunal decision out of context, and presented it back to the Tribunal itself as the “exact wording” of the Tribunal’s own decision. This brazen and fraudulent distortion is key to the new ARZA complaint, which seeks to rewrite history. The previous ARZA complaint listed no fewer than fourteen (14) itemized quotations which ARZA claimed to be in violation of the rules. The Tribunal, however, found only one expression, “anti-Torah,” to be inconsistent with the Jerusalem Program. EHK complied with that ruling and, in fact, ceased using that wording before the Tribunal had even discussed it. Yet ARZA now claims: “Denigrating and demeaning statements cited in ARZA’s original complaint remained on websites and were available to the public subsequent to the issuance of the ruling” (emphasis added). ARZA thus substitutes its own biased allegations, ones disregarded by the Tribunal, in place of the Tribunal’s judgement regarding what constitutes “denigrating and demeaning statements.” The current ARZA complaint is built entirely upon the false premise that ARZA’s previous, vacuous claims were accepted by the Tribunal, when they were not. ARZA even states that “no publication published any retraction or correction,” falsely implying that there was any such requirement. On the contrary, the Tribunal directed Eretz HaKodesh to cease using the particular wording in the future, and Eretz HaKodesh complied in full and without reservation. 3. The Tribunal, in its previous decision, could not and did not demand that Eretz HaKodesh abandon the right of the Orthodox community to refer to the source of our unique practices and values as “Torah,” which any slate is free to do. Throughout all of Jewish history, Jews following the traditions of their forebears clearly identified the source of their values as “Torah,” and other beliefs and practices as something other than Torah. These cannot be accurately characterized as merely “our” values, as they are not, at least according to traditional Jewish belief, values which we devised ourselves. On the contrary, they are “Torah values,” which we must observe and follow rather than modify or control. As Rabbi Lerner explained in his previous response: “Torah” and “Torah values” are understood in these publications geared toward the Orthodox Community as the Torah of 3000 years, immutable and perfect and EHK Reply to ARZA page 5 with divine authorship, and any changes in that tradition cannot be considered. If ARZA finds that understanding unacceptable, I am sorry, but it cannot be a basis for complaint. They themselves would admit that is not their definition of “Torah” so we are not even talking about the same thing. They have their own definition which is radically different than ours, and we have the right to promote our definition to our audience, just as they do, and that is not the same thing as disparaging another slate (see Response submitted to Judge Gafni, attached hereto as Ex. B). The Tribunal cannot and did not presume to demand that Eretz HaKodesh abandon expression of the fundamental tenet of Orthodox Jewish belief that “Torah” is represented uniquely by the practices and values espoused by Jewish teachers from Moses to King David, to Hillel, to Rebbe Akiva, to Maimonides, to the Code of Jewish Law and the present day. EHK does not presume to demand that ARZA cease describing its own beliefs as “Torah.” We have an obvious theological difference that in no way contradicts “mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people,” which requires recognition of something more fundamental than an individual’s ideology. Thus, despite ARZA’s inclusion in its first complaint of quotations from Rabbi Lerner describing traditional Jewish beliefs with expressions such as “Torah values” and “a Torah lifestyle,” the Tribunal did not cite these terms, nor prohibit commentary that referred factually to opposition from those with antithetical views. 4. ARZA inverts the Tribunal’s previous decision, falsely claiming that Eretz HaKodesh violated the previous ruling simply by calling Torah values “Torah values,” and Jewish tradition “our Mesorah.” ARZA begins its first enumerated claim as follows: “The Eretz Hakodesh website, as recently as March 10th reflected the same demeaning statements that they had previously published and for which the slate had been admonished - that the Reform Movement waged a battle for the ‘erosion of Torah values in Israeli society.’” Now it is obvious why ARZA failed to accurately quote the previous Tribunal decision — because the Tribunal did not, directly contrary to ARZA’s assertion, admonish Eretz HaKodesh for using that language. It is in no way denigrating or demeaning to state that ARZA is advocating on behalf of “strains of Judaism that do not believe in our mesorah at all.” “Commentary regarding positions, platforms, issues, advocacy, statements, and/or activities of other slates” is in full accordance with the Rules for the 2020 Election to EHK Reply to ARZA page 6 the 38th World Zionist Congress (Section VI-4). Eretz HaKodesh accurately and objectively depicted the beliefs and advocacy of the Reform and Reconstructionist Movements; ARZA falsely calls this “demeaning.” The Tribunal could not find the aforementioned statements by Eretz HaKodesh to be rules violations, specifically because “Torah values,” Mesorah (or “tradition”) and “a Torah lifestyle” are positive terms, and Reform opposition to them is objective.

Load more