Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

Jerusalem - Israeli Haredi Newspaper Removes Two Female Global Leaders From Paris Unity Picture

Published on: January 12, 2015 02:15 PM
Change text size Text Size  
The edited photo printed in HaMvaserThe edited photo printed in HaMvaser

Paris – A Haredi newspaper removed the image of German Prime Minister Angela Merkel and the Prime Minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt from a picture of global leaders marching in Paris.

The women were both taken out of the photograph but Netanyahu remained.

The newspaper, called “HaMvaser,” is published by MK Meir Porush of United Torah Judaism. It reworked the image to remove the women in following with Haredi spiritual rules that ban publishing pictures of women, since it considers the female body to be immodest.

Some Haredi newspapers also refrain from publishing the names of women.

Israels Walla!  news (http://bit.ly/1xUZd5a ) was first to report on this.

The Original unedited photo bellow:

Advertisement:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Marches with World Leaders in Paris - March Against TerrorismPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Marches with World Leaders in Paris - March Against Terrorism


More of today's headlines

United Nations - The U.N. General Assembly will hold an informal meeting on the growth of anti-Semitism on Jan. 22 in response to a request from dozens of nations... Paris - Representatives of the Paris tourist industry will set off on a world tour next month to reassure visitors and agents that the French capital is safe and open...

 

Total43

Read Comments (43)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Jan 12, 2015 at 02:39 PM Shlomo2 Says:

The shonda is that the rasha Abbas was left in.

2

 Jan 12, 2015 at 02:36 PM FranZ Says:

sad

3

 Jan 12, 2015 at 02:26 PM Anonymous Says:

Why didn't they also remove the image of Abbas. That doesn't bother them?

4

 Jan 12, 2015 at 02:33 PM Speaksoftly Says:

Please do not inflame sensitivities via misinterpreting stated positions. No one says that the female body is "immodest", nor that the female leaders edited out of the picture were in any way "immodestly" dressed.The paper is rather being wholly consistent with its stated editorial policy, not unlike any other publication that has its own proclivities. It is published for an audience that expects such fealty to its halachic standards - it is their right to exercise that choice. Did Walla report about the reportage in Riyahd or Teheran?

5

 Jan 12, 2015 at 02:26 PM yonasonw Says:

That's just so....religious[ly stupid]...I could just plotz I'm so proud to be a Yid and have HaMvaser represent me before the world. Oy!

6

 Jan 12, 2015 at 02:22 PM Nobody Says:

Idiots

7

 Jan 12, 2015 at 03:05 PM Nobody Says:

Reply to #4  
Speaksoftly Says:

Please do not inflame sensitivities via misinterpreting stated positions. No one says that the female body is "immodest", nor that the female leaders edited out of the picture were in any way "immodestly" dressed.The paper is rather being wholly consistent with its stated editorial policy, not unlike any other publication that has its own proclivities. It is published for an audience that expects such fealty to its halachic standards - it is their right to exercise that choice. Did Walla report about the reportage in Riyahd or Teheran?

"fealty to its halachic standards" Which Halachic standards are those? Could you site a Teshuva from anyone that advocates for such a thing?

Anyway, if the picture was a problem - don't publish it, no one would care. Or is Chillul Hashem not part of their "Halachic standards"?

8

 Jan 12, 2015 at 02:55 PM NeveAliza Says:

Just for the record - that wasn't the PM of Denmark, it was the Mayor of Paris.
If they would have left in the figures and just blotted out the face, I would have said that they are consistent with their "belief".
But to remove the bodies and close up the ranks to make it look like they weren't even there to begin with, is just insane.

9

 Jan 12, 2015 at 02:48 PM Babishka Says:

How about just not including any pictures at all, unless this was done just in order to get attention?

10

 Jan 12, 2015 at 03:24 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #1  
Shlomo2 Says:

The shonda is that the rasha Abbas was left in.

"That rasha Abbas was left in" You dont get it, Bibi went there only because the election. By removing the woman he gets the frumme vote. Abbas is not a proble. Maybe even a plus.

11

 Jan 12, 2015 at 03:24 PM Tzi_Bar_David Says:

They are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

12

 Jan 12, 2015 at 03:26 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #3  
Anonymous Says:

Why didn't they also remove the image of Abbas. That doesn't bother them?

"Why didnt they remove the image of Abas" Just the opposite, Bibi is trying to get votes showing that he is open for negotiatins.

13

 Jan 12, 2015 at 03:27 PM Mandel Says:

it reminds me the photo of Hillary Clinton was removed at White House Situation Room during the raid on Osama ...

14

 Jan 12, 2015 at 03:34 PM mordche Says:

Reply to #8  
NeveAliza Says:

Just for the record - that wasn't the PM of Denmark, it was the Mayor of Paris.
If they would have left in the figures and just blotted out the face, I would have said that they are consistent with their "belief".
But to remove the bodies and close up the ranks to make it look like they weren't even there to begin with, is just insane.

I'm really sorry but you do sound pretty stupid. So please explain yourself why in the world is there any different if that take them out completely. All thay would gain by putting it in covering the face would be that even the other people with bal batishe hashkofes who didn't chap now will also get all upset.

15

 Jan 12, 2015 at 03:39 PM mordche Says:

Reply to #8  
NeveAliza Says:

Just for the record - that wasn't the PM of Denmark, it was the Mayor of Paris.
If they would have left in the figures and just blotted out the face, I would have said that they are consistent with their "belief".
But to remove the bodies and close up the ranks to make it look like they weren't even there to begin with, is just insane.

What's going on is that really where the world is holding why does everyone posting on this site all against being frum??? Btw all of you if not most of you grandfathers or great grandfathers would also understand that a picture of a lady does not belong in a drum newspaper

16

 Jan 12, 2015 at 03:51 PM mordche Says:

Now I see the reason why everyone is against it is because thay don't post what other people write

17

 Jan 12, 2015 at 04:17 PM Anonymous Says:

Nebech, how these people pervert Yiddishkeit!

18

 Jan 12, 2015 at 04:14 PM Sensible Says:

Every publication needs to cater to the sensitivities of it's readership.

If a Newspaper has a standard policy of not printing pictures of females, then so be it.
It shouldn't bother anybody (except people that get annoyed because somebody dared to present themselves as more Frum).

True, it may be a radical Chumrah, but who cares?! It's not personal.

I, for one, find it refreshing that there are still some old-fashioned prudes ("Chnyuks") in this world.

p.s.
I do however agree that it would have been more sensible to just blur the images of the females.

19

 Jan 12, 2015 at 02:20 PM Moses Says:

Yes we did. Take it in your tick head. We don't publish pic of women.

20

 Jan 12, 2015 at 03:37 PM anonymous Says:

I hope these newspapers will come out against military assistance approved by Merkel 3 new Saar corvettes and all the money Israel is getting for those listed by Yad Vashem a place chareidis don't set a foot, hypocrites

21

 Jan 12, 2015 at 04:45 PM Je suis Charlie Says:

Not printing the picture would have been a valid exercise of editorial discretion. Altering it without acknowledging that it has been doctored is journalistic terrorism.

22

 Jan 12, 2015 at 04:56 PM grandpajoe Says:

Reply to #4  
Speaksoftly Says:

Please do not inflame sensitivities via misinterpreting stated positions. No one says that the female body is "immodest", nor that the female leaders edited out of the picture were in any way "immodestly" dressed.The paper is rather being wholly consistent with its stated editorial policy, not unlike any other publication that has its own proclivities. It is published for an audience that expects such fealty to its halachic standards - it is their right to exercise that choice. Did Walla report about the reportage in Riyahd or Teheran?

the chumrah of the week never ceases to amaze me - would the newspaper show the pictures killed by the terrorist.
Why show pictures at all - the irony is those people killed in Le suis charlie were protecting the rights of this newspaper - and the irony is they do not have the 'class' to give them respect.
I dare anyone to tell me that there is a halacha against having shown the picture including the female leaders.
Nevertheless they have the right to do what they want to do and I have a right to look it at this paper and see a big chillul hashem to the world!

23

 Jan 12, 2015 at 05:04 PM savtat Says:

There is no problem to publish photos of only men, if that is your policy. But to remove the women who are in the photo is dishonest. It is a lie. That is a problem. When Hamodia took out the photo of Hillary Clinton when they were in the situation room during the capture of Osama Bin Laden, it was awful. If your policy is no women, fine. But you cannot doctor the photo to remove them. Publish a different photo or leave the photo out. To blot the women out is a lot of nerve.

24

 Jan 12, 2015 at 05:18 PM Mazal1s Says:

Reply to #11  
Tzi_Bar_David Says:

They are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

Not ture look at histadrut papers from 1961 until 1963

25

 Jan 12, 2015 at 05:21 PM judith Says:

Reply to #19  
Moses Says:

Yes we did. Take it in your tick head. We don't publish pic of women.

If they didn't publish the picture, it would have been less of a problem than removing a woman who is in it. Yes, they did remove the women, even though there was nothing immodest about the picture, because they don't there can't be any suggestion of a woman having a role in public life. It's about control over them, not modesty.

26

 Jan 12, 2015 at 05:49 PM Anonymous Says:

This article already has 25 posts, yet hardly any of you think to post condolences formthe Paris vidtims and their families. Shame on you!!!

27

 Jan 12, 2015 at 06:10 PM Rafuel Says:

As usual, men who don't know how to learn envy and resent those who do. As simple as that.

28

 Jan 12, 2015 at 07:53 PM Je Sui Sane Says:

Who says Muslims have a monopoly on extremism. This show we Jews have our own.

29

 Jan 12, 2015 at 05:56 PM Speaksoftly Says:

Reply to #7  
Nobody Says:

"fealty to its halachic standards" Which Halachic standards are those? Could you site a Teshuva from anyone that advocates for such a thing?

Anyway, if the picture was a problem - don't publish it, no one would care. Or is Chillul Hashem not part of their "Halachic standards"?

It is not a question of your standards or mine - in a free society every one can choose the chumras they choose, as long as they are not imposed on others. just as you have the right to view any publication you wish, do not deny that right to others. The purpose of this entire article is to foster ill-will, not inform. This article delivers no relevant news, for this policy of certain papers is established practice for many. The sheer volume of responses gives testimony to the intent of the writer. - to inflame, not inform.

30

 Jan 12, 2015 at 06:38 PM Impressed Says:

Reply to #10  
Anonymous Says:

"That rasha Abbas was left in" You dont get it, Bibi went there only because the election. By removing the woman he gets the frumme vote. Abbas is not a proble. Maybe even a plus.

Wow, a mind reader! You know for certain why the Israeli prime minister went to the Paris demonstration. When he was injured while freeing hostages during the Sabena plane hijacking, I bet his aim was to get votes. Same thing when he wrote a book on international terrorism. His brother, Yonatan zl HyD-- was he killed trying to free Jewish hostages taken from a French plane?

31

 Jan 12, 2015 at 08:25 PM puppydogs Says:

I think they removed Obama from the picture also as I don't see him either. As the Daily News so eloquently put it "Obama you let us down"

32

 Jan 12, 2015 at 10:02 PM Anonymous Says:

The Hamevasers policy is quite understandable, however what's quite difficult to understand is which male on their staff does the actual editing out of the women, assuming that the Hamevaser can't have any female employees?! Unless they have some way of editing it out without their male employee editor actually seeing the original photo which can be quite a feat! Till he edits it out the Hamevaser with all due respect is subjecting him to what they don't want to subject their general readers to which is a double standard!

33

 Jan 12, 2015 at 10:40 PM berelw Says:

is that what yiddishkeit is all about, not printing pictures of woman...how vague and primitive...is this what yiddishkeit is all about....grow up!!! its a chilul hashem to remove a fact, to remove a woman from a picture is a chilul hahshem...

34

 Jan 12, 2015 at 10:43 PM Anonymous Says:

Boycott all frum magazines that will not print picture of women. Don't be a self hating woman.

35

 Jan 13, 2015 at 12:29 AM lazerx Says:

yawn, Mavasser has been rewriting news to fit how they believe frum people should see it. So to edit a photo so frum people should see it the way Mavasser thinks frum people should see it is not a big step...

BTW, does anyone read it any more?

36

 Jan 13, 2015 at 01:56 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #32  
Anonymous Says:

The Hamevasers policy is quite understandable, however what's quite difficult to understand is which male on their staff does the actual editing out of the women, assuming that the Hamevaser can't have any female employees?! Unless they have some way of editing it out without their male employee editor actually seeing the original photo which can be quite a feat! Till he edits it out the Hamevaser with all due respect is subjecting him to what they don't want to subject their general readers to which is a double standard!

Perhaps all of Hamevasers staff are all female including all the censors and editors which can help explain why are permitted to block out female photos! Unless Hamevaser has a better explanation it would otherwise seem somewhat hypocritical as comment #32 alludes to.

37

 Jan 13, 2015 at 02:12 AM Mark Levin Says:

Big deal! People who read this fish wrap know there are women leaders. They also know the paper won't print pictures of women.

GOOD FOR THEM!!!

38

 Jan 13, 2015 at 02:39 PM AniTzioni Says:

Fanatics! How are these uber-religious freaks any better than those of ISIS when everything they do or touch denigrates women? Move back to the 16th century if you want to live your life that way. So sickening.

39

 Jan 13, 2015 at 04:33 PM Rafuel Says:

Reply to #32  
Anonymous Says:

The Hamevasers policy is quite understandable, however what's quite difficult to understand is which male on their staff does the actual editing out of the women, assuming that the Hamevaser can't have any female employees?! Unless they have some way of editing it out without their male employee editor actually seeing the original photo which can be quite a feat! Till he edits it out the Hamevaser with all due respect is subjecting him to what they don't want to subject their general readers to which is a double standard!

Could it quite be that quite maybe they have quite a goy quite do it for them? :)

40

 Jan 13, 2015 at 04:44 PM WolfishMusings Says:

I don't have a real problem with the paper's policy. If their policy is to not show pictures of women, then so be it -- I can either accept it or vote with my dollars (shekels) and not buy it.

What troubles me far more is the fact that they published an altered version of the picture. This speaks to their journalistic ethics. If they're going to edit a photo, then I'm sure they would have no compunctions about editing other things as well. In other words, I don't think I can believe anything that they print, since they've so blatantly advertised the fact that they're willing to edit the news to fit their theological worldview.

A perfectly acceptable alternative - which would have allowed them to stay true to their policy AND maintain their journalistic ethics, would have been to simply not publish a picture at all. It's a real shame that they decided not to do that.

The Wolf

41

 Jan 13, 2015 at 08:56 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #39  
Rafuel Says:

Could it quite be that quite maybe they have quite a goy quite do it for them? :)

Quite possibly but probably not, according to those who know the paper. In any case it was a good shot and good thinking as I thought the same.

42

 Jan 14, 2015 at 09:03 PM favish Says:

Reply to #34  
Anonymous Says:

Boycott all frum magazines that will not print picture of women. Don't be a self hating woman.

#34 Boycott? The readership of these kind of newspapers want it that way including me.

43

 Jan 14, 2015 at 11:29 PM Anonymous Says:

I actually have spoken to many women who enjoy frum magazines but are frustrated that they never see pictures of the interesting women interviewed. I say no more. Ladies, boycott these magazines until we can have at least one magazine that doesn't treat us as pritzus.

44

Sign-in to post a comment

Click here to sign-in.

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!