An Interview with a Local Hero: Rabbi Jon Hausman
by Jerry Gordon (March 2009)  Wednesday, February 25th an audience of Christians and Jews attended an event featuring Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, at Congregation Ahavath Torah in Stoughton, Massachusetts. That afternoon, Rabbi Jon Hausman spiritual leader of Ahavath Torah, was feted, called a ‘hero’ and given an ovation at a Republican Jewish Coalition New England Chapter luncheon. Many anti-Jihad activists were in the audience, among them, Charles Jacobs, founder of the David Project, Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, and Professor Dennis Hale of Boston College. Hausman had also contacted Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe columnist who interviewed Wilders, and helped to arrange a radio interview with talk show host Michael Graham. Rabbi Hausman had been one the sparkplug behind organizing the event in Stoughton.
The Wilders tour began Monday with luncheons and private dinners in Manhattan, and appearances on FoxNews Glen Beck’s “War room” and the “O’Reilly Factor.” Wilders was in Washington Thursday at an event on Capitol Hill organized by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and sponsored by the International Free Press Society and the Center for Security Policy. Friday, Wilders held a public news conference at the National Press Club. Later he was recognized at the CPAC convention.We contacted Rabbi Hausman to find out why he is such an exception in the American rabbinate. Rabbis Hausman understands the dark inner core of Political Islam and its threat to our US Constitution and Western Judeo Christian values. Unfortunately, too many in the American rabbinate have become the equivalent of the dhimmi. They have frequently been involved in outreach to Muslim clerics in interfaith dialogues and defended Muslim Brotherhood fronts. We delved into Rabbi Hausman’s background to find out what propelled him to organize these events for Wilders. Rabbi Hausman, thank you for consenting to this interview. Gordon: Rabbi Hausman, tell us about your background, where you grew up, family political affiliation and your education both here in the US and the Middle East. Hausman: I was raised in the greater Bridgeport, Connecticut area. My four grandparents were immigrants to the US. My father’s folks, whom I did not know, came from Austria-Hungary. My paternal grandfather was from a small town outside of Krakow, Poland and my grandmother from somewhere near Vienna. My mother’s folks I knew quite well as both died when I was an adult. They both came from Czarist Russia, near the Ukrainian city of Vinnitsa. All arrived in the US by 1908 and were hardworking people. Interestingly all were registered Republicans once obtaining US citizenship. Only one grandfather voted for FDR and that was only once. Otherwise, no FDR votes were cast…a rarity amongst Jews of that generation. All of my grandparents believed in personal responsibility, hard work, limited government and limited government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry, and support for what we would call First Amendment rights including freedom of speech and the establishment clause. Coming from Central and Eastern Europe, they knew first hand the depredations of an intertwined political-religious government and the harm it caused the citizenry in general, Jews specifically. My parents were Depression and World War II era people. Raised at that time they apprehended the lessons of appeasement in order to avoid battle (intellectual and military). As a child, I remember vividly many political and historical discussions amongst, between and with my parents and grandparents dealing with significant issues of the day (e.g. civil rights, political candidacies, Israel, Europe, Vietnam, Jewish identity and learning). As a result, I was raised to become conscious of events of historical significance swirling around us. I also developed a keen and passionate identity as an American and as a Jew. Not only were my grandparents Jewish Republicans, but so were my parents (my mother still is, my father is deceased). They manifested a strong belief in limited government, strong defense, were fairly moderate vis a vis social issues and held a belief that American national culture had a positive influence on and mission in the world. They believed and passed on to my brothers and me the view that the US had nothing for which to apologize regarding her role as a Western democracy and force for good in the world. Mind you, neither of my folks maintained that the US was perfect. Rather, they maintained that the US was historically unique. My father fought against totalitarian fascism in the US Army during World War II, was proud of his service, always made sure that we understood the sacrifice for freedom asked of his generation and that such freedoms had to be nurtured and protected assiduously. “If you want to be free, you have to fight for it,” my father used to say. My father and maternal grandfather saw strength in the multivaried textures of the US, but always believed in and inculcated in us a distinctly national ethos of thankfulness for the unique gifts that this country offers. My Uncle Ziggy used to say “remember, despite any differences, Americans are all the same. Our differences give this country resilience. A monochrome country does no one any good.” My folks were hard workers who, along with my maternal grandparents, stressed reading and education. My brothers and I all became readers. All of us have acquired at least two degrees each from universities. I always had a passion for philosophy, history, politics, religion, Judaism and languages. As a result, I obtained a BA in Judaic Studies, an MA in International Affairs focusing on the Middle East, eventually a JD and finally some time in yeshiva studying for the Rabbinate. I spent time traveling and working in Israel (I speak Hebrew) and some time traveling and some significant time studying in Egypt (I speak Arabic). I also spent some time in Ramallah, West Bank. Egypt was an interesting experience as I was there before and during the Camp David process. I was never a left of center fellow in terms of my political philosophy and appreciation of history, trends, etc. However, I saw in 1970s Egypt a country teaching its youth to hate Jews, America, women’s rights, general education, democratic values, and democracy. I saw the activity of the Muslim Brotherhood up close and personal. I saw the abject poverty of and dissociative treatment of the Coptic Church and its adherents. I wouldn’t say that it was an eye opener for me, but it was probably the most formative educational experience in my life. I remember returning to the US and telling my father “there will never be peace. If there is to be a hint of it, Sadat better live for 20 years minimally.” He was assassinated some 2½ years later. Gordon: What gave rise to your concerns about the threat of Islamization here in the US? Hausman: I’ve always been aware historically that Islam is a triumphalism, supersessionist and supremacist way of life. Islam, in my mind, is not solely a religious philosophy, but a total and complete political-religious polity. As such, Islam directs every aspect of a person’s life with no tolerance or respect given anyone who will not “submit” to the will of Allah. If you will not submit, there are all sorts of consequences (e.g. special taxes, restrictions in terms of livelihoods and construction of houses of worship, other reminders of one’s second class and inferior status, jihad). The prevalence of doctrinal issues such as taqqiyya, da’wa, jihad combined with Islam’s bloody past and present are sanguine reminders that no Reformation has occurred. It was evident in the fervent military expansion of Islam’s border until the defeat at the battle of Tours in the 8th century, the defeat of the Ottoman Turks at the gates of Vienna in the 17th century, the US experience with the Barbary pirates in the late 18th and early 19th century, the Islamic conquests of historically Buddhist Afghanistan, and the Moghul warring in the Indian subcontinent for the past 200 years. When an American maintains that 9/11 was our first contact with Islamic expansionary fervor, jihad, fascism and totalitarianism, I shudder at the paucity of historical understanding. It wasn’t the first…what about “to the shores of Tripoli,” the Iranian takeover of the US embassy in 1979, the Marine Corps barracks destruction in Lebanon in 1983, the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. I only name a few historical incidents. This is not to say that all Muslims are inherently evil or murderous. However, 10% of 1.3 billion adherents is quite a lot of people to subscribe to this side of Islamic political life and subdue the non-participatory. Gordon: You have endeavored to educate your congregation about the Islamic precepts and anti-Semitism. How did you do this? Hausman: I write about these issues from the perspective of Jewish survival and American political life. I use our synagogue bulletin; send articles on my personal list serve to members of the synagogue for further distribution, table talk, bringing in speakers informed to a much greater degree than I regarding these subjects (some of whom are at the fulcrum of activism). I also helped to establish a pro-Israel activist list serve, am involved with a number of other list serves concerning Israel and freedom issues. I am also intimately involved in outreach by way of organizations such as Christians United for Israel, Christians and Jews United for Israel, Jewish Policy Institute and I do a tad of public speaking. This list is illustrative and by no means exhaustive. I do not consider myself an activist. I just want to be informed and do my job…nothing special. Gordon: When did you first become informed about Geert Wilders and when did you make contact with him? Hausman: I have to laugh! I read his remarks delivered in Jerusalem on December 18, 2008. His lecture made the internet rounds. I responded to one set of e-mails (from a couple of activist and scholarly friends of mine) writing “Geez, we should bring this guy to Boston.” An internet search engine is a wonderful tool. With the help of a friend, I made contact with his scheduler. I was not sure if Mr. Wilders would actually have been able to speak, though I did write with that express intention and invitation. I found out that he had a Boston meeting during the day. Shortly before I traveled to Israel, a friend and I arrange an interview with talk radio host, Michael Graham. Another friend of mine and I made contact with Jeff Jacoby. It was while in Israel recently that I received a note from the same scheduler (who works for the International Free Press Society) of the commitment to speak at my synagogue. I distinctly did not want a circus atmosphere at the synagogue the evening during which Geert Wilders spoke. Therefore, I determined and gave strict instructions to those helping me not to engage in a thorough publicity blitz. We posted this opportunity to four pro-Israel list serves, a couple of blogs, to the New England Republican Jewish Coalition list serve, and one announcement in the local Jewish weekly. As the Middle East Forum Law Project was a co-sponsor, I am certain that these good people spread the word as well. No TV or radio outlets were notified, to the disappointment and/or chagrin of a few attendees. However, I had my reasons. The most important reason was to have Wilders speak in front of people and allow these people to witness an historic figure, one who functions at the crux of important events. Better that the attendees have opportunities to ask questions than the press. Gordon: What support did you have from your congregation and the general community in sponsoring the Wilders presentation at your synagogue? Hausman: Due to Wilders notoriety, there was some concern amongst the congregation. However, I owe my synagogue President a debt of gratitude. She argued the issues of freedom of speech and the civilizational context in which we presently find ourselves. I argued from Jerusalem as I was leading a congregational mission to Israel at the time. Our local police department was terrific. A security plan was easily assembled. All the general community knew was the Wilders would be speaking. We basically had 18 days to arrange his schedule in Boston, make interview appointments, arrange for limousines, some food, and arrange flights from Boston to his subsequent destination. We had 11 days to arrange the talk at my synagogue as it was the last piece of the puzzle, but Geert really wanted to appear. Scheduling was tight, but well worth it. Gordon: What was the significance of Jeff Jacoby’s Boston Globe interview of Wilders? Hausman: Jeff is an incredibly talented opinion columnist. His analyses are trenchant, cogent, and well-researched. He has national reach and readership. Jacoby offers an opportunity for Wilders to speak without the observable bias of many opinion journalists who appear regularly in most major newspapers today. Gordon: You attended an event Wednesday afternoon at the Harvard Club in Boston for Wilders, who organized that? Hausman: I attended a Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) luncheon in the afternoon. During the introduction of RJC members active in New England, my name was mentioned by Harris Vederman as one of the significant players in the region. He noted that I have opened my shul to RJC programs regularly since becoming involved and announced the Wilders program. I received an ovation and was asked if the event was open, to which I responded open to everyone. Steve Leventhal and I facilitated Wilders appointments with RJC headquarters people in Washington, DC. Steve is the RJC New England Communications Director…and a good one at that. Gordon: What was the composition of the audience at your synagogue and what elements of Wilders presentation were particularly engrossing for you and those who attended? Hausman: The audience was mixed, some congregants, majority non-congregants, Jews and non-Jews (it was Ash Wednesday and many foreheads carried the mark of church attendance that day), activists and non-activists, people who heard of and heard Wilders previously (on YouTube, for example) and those who had not, those who were skeptical regarding Wilders positions and those who agreed with Wilders. Everyone was respectful. We began with a request from the International Free Press Society – a showing of “Fitna.” I introduced the film by reminding people of the Barbary Piracy early in our country’s infancy, Churchill’s analogy of the Qur’an to Mein Kampf and said “you are about to watch a 15 minute film that could quite possibly place a man in jail for 2 years.” When the film was over, I had just begun my introduction for Wilders when the place exploded with applause as he came to the podium. It was quite a moment. A standing ovation! To watch him begin to grin as he saw that an ordinary crowd of people understood his battle for freedom and liberty in protecting and defending Judeo-Christian values and civilization, his love of his native Holland’s freedoms that are under assault solely from a restive and increasingly radicalized Muslim population and his affinity for Jews and Israel was something to behold. He spoke passionately of his kinship with Jews, his over 20 visits of varying lengths and reasons to Israel, his having lived in Israel for over two years earlier in his life. He emphasized that his feelings for Jews and Israel and his relationships with Jews and Israel make him anathema to the right and the left, an odd alliance he remarked. “Neither the far right nor the far left can claim me nor want me, and I denounce both,” was his comment.
(View an excerpt of Wilders appearance on YouTube, here.) Personally, I focused on what is happening in Holland and elsewhere in Europe, and it is deeply disturbing: Islamic clerics and Muslim political organizations are openly, indeed brazenly, attempting to impose Shari’a law on Muslims and non-Muslims alike, using violence and the threat of violence to get their way. In the face of these provocations, the people who should be defending the liberal traditions of western democracy run and hide, leaving the field to terrorists and those who sympathize with and enable them. At the risk of his life and his freedom, Geert Wilders has tried to expose this danger, and to warn Americans that what has happened in Europe could happen here. Indeed, as he pointed out on Wednesday, it is happening here. ‘Lawfare’ is an increasingly used tool for the Islamist agenda in the US. My colleague, Professor Dennis Hale of Boston College, was one of several people sued for defamation for pointing out the connections between the leaders of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) and such terrorist organizations as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and al-Qaeda. These were not fanciful charges based on rumor or innuendo. They were based on documentary evidence, and as that evidence accumulated, the ISB (the Roxbury Mosque) was forced to drop its lawsuit. However, they remain free to teach the next generation of Boston Muslims, the same hateful ideology that has forced Geert Wilders to travel with bodyguards. I cannot speak for other attendees as their reactions will be relative. The man has courage. He is the true hero in this saga. The rest of us just play our respective parts. Gordon: What do you think will happen in the wake of Wilders’ Boston visit and your support of it vis a vis the Boston Jewish leadership and communal outreach groups? Hausman: I am not sure that I can answer the question directly. We unfortunately live in an age where dissent -- unless it's from the radical left or from third-world movements (no matter how authoritarian) -- is considered unacceptable, and those who dissent are marginalized and ostracized. I would hope that our elected or self-appointed leaders would learn to appreciate history instead of acting upon motivations, however well-intended, that put us in danger. Dialogue only achieves results if the language of discourse is the same as well as the underlying motivations. You can’t say one thing in English and maintain the diametrically opposite in Arabic. Arabic speakers know what you intend. Only recently has our local Jewish Community Relations Council stopped dialogue with the Muslim American Society. Why did it take so long for this action? I have colleagues who maintain memberships in all sorts of groups that promote dialogue, etc. I tell my daughter, the information is in front of your nose. You simply have to read it. I am not sure anything will change. Ostriches will be ostriches. Gordon: In summing up, why do you think Wilders and his experience combating Islamization in Eurabia is relevant to Americans? Hausman: People like Wilders are always controversial, and they are never perfect. Yet, imagine if such a person had come to this country from Germany in 1934, to warn us about an unimaginable horror being prepared for Europe’s Jews. How many people would have dismissed such warnings as alarmist propaganda? How many would have accused the messenger of being a warmonger (they said this about Churchill for much milder warnings)? But imagine how we would now honor the memory of such a messenger, and of those who gave him the space and the time to tell his story? My mother is 80 years old. She remarked that she never thought that she would bear witness to 1935 a second time in her life. I would gladly bring this program again without changing anything about the experience and refute those who would try to stigmatize the courage of a Geert Wilders or those who allow him a forum from which to speak. Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Personally, when history has its say, I would rather be on the side of Churchill and not Chamberlain. Thank you Rabbi Hausman. To comment on this article, please click here.
To help New English Review continue to publish timely and interesting interviews like this one, please click here.
If you have enjoyed this article by Jerry Gordon and want to read more, please click here. Jerry Gordon is a also regular contributor to our community blog. To read his entries, please click here.
|
