The Court refused testimony from Lord Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovitz zt"l or any member of the Board of European Rabbis, the former Israeli Minister of Justice, the Israeli Finance Minister, the Rabbi of Genoa, the grandfather and grandmother of the girls, or any other Rabbi or expert, to testify about the nature of Judaism and/or the girls' interests. Rather, it accepted without rebuttal testimony on behalf of the father by psychologists who claimed that Orthodox Jews cannot eat ice cream, pizza, and Coca Cola, that the religious lifestyle "removes all possibility of a source of autonomous love, like those patients addicted to drugs," and says this is "the same personality problem as 'those who commit crimes against humanity' in former Yugoslavia..."

In its determination, the Court found "a need to re-educate them... to respect normal nutrition procedures and fix a more normal life ..." and claimed that "the girls were in isolation from the rest of the world, prevented from receiving groups of girl friends, to mix socially" [which is known to be entirely false -- but, ironically, quite true today under their father's care]. Even the mother's reading to the children was portrayed by the Court not as an act of love but of religious indoctrination.

Lest anyone should think that this determination was directed at the mother alone rather than her Orthodox practices, let us clarify further. The Court made absolutely no differentiation between her parenting and that of any other religious Jew (she is today the wife of a Rabbinic judge in Israel, and according to an Israeli psychological examination "functions as a good parent to the daughters"). She was disqualified because of her participation in a "religious cult," i.e. Orthodox Judaism. Lord Rabbi Jakobovitz zt"l, a man not prone to heated statements, termed the Court's statements about Judaism "libelous and utterly untenable."

Is that merely the determination of the Court in a custody war?

Item 2 is true, but hardly wrong. Bribing the Nazis during WWII was also a felony for US citizens. Civil disobedience in the South was also a felony. Fleeing a psychologist directed to evaluate the psychological damage you are doing to your children by being religious is, I submit, not wrong. Furthermore, the Convention on the Right of the Child specifically prohibits punishing children for the actions of their parents. Yet, as we see, it is the two daughters who are today self-described prisoners of their father.

Item 3 is, of course, an excellent point. And therefore it is David who should be first to be shocked and appalled that the Court rendered its decision without any testimony whatsoever concerning the mental health of the children or their relationship with their two parents. On the contrary, when the girls testified that they wanted to return immediately to the mother, the Court simply dismissed their sentiments as "not authentic" on its own authority. Attorneys for the mother noted dryly that "determining this without receiving the report of experts is something without precedent."

The only psychological examination we have, done in Israel and ignored by the Court, says that "the two girls have a very good relationship with their mother and that they see her as a primary psychological parent in every respect. ... That the two girls identify with this [religious] lifestyle is patent ... It should also be stated that relative to other religious children, there is nothing unusual or extreme in their behavior ... "

In order to answer item 4, well, yes, were the mother and children Buddhists, admittedly the Orthodox wouldn't be leading the campaign. But we would likely sign.

One is prompted to ask whether this is the only case in the last five years where an Orthodox and non-Orthodox parent have been at loggerheads on child custody, and whether the Orthodox Union and Project Genesis really needed to go all the way to Italy to find a case. I know personally of a custody battle happening right now in America where the mother left Orthodoxy, was awarded sole custody, and the father is crying foul. But there is no public outcry or demand for change from the Orthodox community in that case -- because there is no glaring evidence that the Court decided to pay more attention to the religious choices of the parents than the genuine custody issues presented.

That is very obviously not the case in the Dulberg decision, where the Court's open hostility towards Jewish tradition is as obvious as it is repugnant - to all civilized individuals, not just Orthodox Jews. It may be true that the Orthodox are leading the way, but our signature campaign is pulling in non-Jews from Sweden, Czechoslovakia and elsewhere.

David, in his alacrity to see the other side, also attempts to justify the Court's behavior in ways inconsistent with the facts. He suggests that the prohibition on speaking Hebrew is likely in order to permit the court to monitor another escape plan by the mother.

This is a nice thought, but inaccurate. The Court already required that all conversations between mother and children be subject to monitoring by the father -- who, like the mother, speaks native Hebrew. On the contrary, the Court was very open about its intent to "fix a more normal [sic] life" for the girls, closer to that of Italian Catholics than religious Jews.

David further claims to "disagree with [my] characterization of two children living with their father as shevuyim or captives." I therefore submit to you the following statements of Nitzan herself, which David apparently overlooked -- which will perhaps indicate the desperate nature of the situation

To a friend: "He takes Danush, separates us, doesn't let us talk to each other, he takes her half day to the chemist shop. She's got nothing to do. The girl is going mad, from danger. And he threatens all the time he will soon take me to the madhouse."

In Court testimony: "My father separates me from my sister, takes her to the chemist shop, doesn't allow her to speak to me. ... My father told me, "The two of you have got no hope." I hope the judges will take my wishes into account. My mother did not use any method of forcing decisions upon me. In Israel, I was much freer than I am here."

An urgent plea to her mother: "It seems to me that I am about to go out of my mind any minute! The pressure here is beyond bounds! ... That man is really destroying my life ... I cannot bear what he does. ... Mother, get us out of here soon if you want two normal girls back ... Mother, SOS, get us out of here."

Bars and armed guards could not make the situation any more clear.

I respectfully submit that David has attempted to set an impossible standard -- that we should get involved only if we feel that we can "determine who is right or... be sure of the best interests of two children [we] have never met." No. We can and should demand that there be a fair hearing and competent psychological evaluation if we see that fairness was absent in the Court's determination, or that a ridiculous libel about Judaism was the grounds for its decision. I submit that this is exceedingly obvious to anyone who reads the full statements posted on the web site, and that as such the case demands the immediate involvement of anyone concerned with fairness and the human rights of children -- especially their fellow Jews.

Now, before it is too late. Nitzan is contemplating suicide, according to those who have studied her letters. "Al ta'amod al dam re'echa" -- do not stand idly by the blood of your brother. Act now.

http://www.torah.org/services/dulberg.asp