Editorial in Orthodox 'family magazine' advocating death camps for Palestinians
Back in the days of the Shoah, one of the slogans of the Jew haters was: “Jews to the Ovens.” Now, it causes me anguish to say, we have Israeli Orthodox rabbis saying the same about the Palestinians.
Thanks to Cicero for pointing me to a shocking passage in an Israeli Orthodox “family magazine,” Fountains of Salvation, which suggests that Israel will create death camps for Palestinians in order to wipe them out like Amalek. The article attacks Israeli rabbis who dispute the letter recently circulated from pro-settler extremist rabbis which urged that no Israeli Jew rent apartments or homes to Israeli Palestinians. It chided them for being “politically correct” and refusing to do their jobs and educate the populace in the true path of Torah (which is presumably to hate Palestinians).
The last paragraph (page 4 of the original) though is the whopper:
It will be interesting to see whether they leave the assembly of the Amalekites [Palestinians] in extermination camps to others, or whether they will declare that wiping out Amalek is no longer [historically] relevant. Only time will tell…
A few words of explanation. There is a Biblical command for Jews to wipe out Amalek because of the viciousness with which that people attacked Israelites. Essentially, this is a Jewish call to commit genocide against Amalek. We should note that the Bible records such Jewish campaigns against other tribes as well (Moabites, Jebusites) and no doubt others did the same to their enemies.
Rabbis throughout the ages have allegorized the reference to Amalek to connote any sworn enemy of the Jewish people from Hitler to Barack Obama (yes, prominent American Orthodox Jews wrote such garbage before the last election). But this is the first time I’ve ever read any Orthodox publication calling for committing genocide against Palestinians.
As Cicero pointed out to me, the articulation of this passage doesn’t only refer to Palestinians (though most likely this was specifically who the writer had in mind given the context). It can refer to any enemy of the Jewish people including you or me.
Now a word on who is behind this publication: it is the cream of the crop of the radical right-wing Israeli Orthodox rabbinate. It was founded by the former chief rabbi of Safed, whose son currently holds that position and who circulated the letter I refer to above. Another is the chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and finally Rabbi Avinar, suspected of sexually abusing a troubled woman who approached him for spiritual advice. Each of them holds paid government sinecures, allowing them to spew hate on the dime of the Israeli taxpayer.
This raises the important question: why does the U.S. government allow tax-deductible contributions to Israeli charities like Chabad given their propagation of such genocidal rhetoric?
Cicero first learned about the Chabad article from Udi Aloni’s Ynet column, which pointed it out. He points out that it has been his custom in criticizing Israelis who support the Occupation to attack the liberal elite which is characterized by the slogan “shooting and crying.” Instead, he says he now will have to pay closer attention to the radical Orthodox who “shoot and laugh.” Aloni imagines the young Orthodox boy reading this publication in his synagogue where it’s distributed, who conjures to himself with a smile on his face the picture of Palestinians standing behind barbed wire in such a camp. This is the legacy these rabbis are bequeathing to their young followers.
Finally, since I know people of all ideological stripes may read into this story what they wish, I want to make clear that this is not Judaism. These wicked men may be Jews and rabbis, but they don’t represent normative Judaism any more than Osama bin Laden represents normative Islam. Do not make the mistake of conflating this idiocy with all of Israel or all of Judaism. Yes, these men are dangerous, they are hateful, and they must be challenged. But there is another face of Judaism and another face of Israel (though that is becoming increasingly difficult to see I concede).
![Image of West-East Divan [DVD Video]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vPRxjvAhL._SL110_.jpg "West-East Divan [DVD Video]")
{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }
Richard This is absolutely disgusting.
Just one question (out of curiosity, as regardless of the exact meaning it is disgusting) , where did you learn that Amalak = Palestinians ?
from Wikipedia “על פי המסופר בתורה, עמלק היה העם הראשון שנלחם עם ישראל בצאתם ממצרים (ברפידים), וזינב בנחשלים ובעייפים שהלכו בסוף המחנה. אף שישראל החזירו מלחמה שערה והכו את צבאו מכת מחץ, כשהם נעזרים בסיוע אלוהי הבא כל זמן שידיו של משה היו מונפות וגורמות לעם הלוחם להביט מעלה לבקשת העזרה, עמלק הצליח לפגוע בכח ההרתעה של ישראל פגיעה קשה.
According to the bible Amalak was the the first group / nation to fight the Israelite after they left Egypt. they attacked the weaks who were at the end of the line. though defeated Amalak was able to effect the Israelite, Deterrence they achieved after defeating the Egyptian army.
Ilan, not saying explicitly that Amalek = Palestinians is just the last remaining fig leaf that the rabbis have left in order to roll their eyes if someone blames them for incitement to genocide. I’m really having a hard time believing that anyone is naive enough to believe it without even considering the context of why “Amalek” is brought up right now.
Just for the record – Settlers have been calling the Palestinians “Amalek” even before the first Intifada. It’s been a pretty well known code word for the religious right in order to “theoretically” discuss what to do with the Arabs, precisely because it’s a divine order to wipe them out. When they write about “Amalek”, their followers know exactly who they are referring to.
I have to admit, I’m feeling quite stupid even trying to explain this to you. You are either consciously trying to defend them for Hasbara reasons or you are trying to protect their lame excuse because you sympathise with them . I can’t believe that anyone is that naive, sorry.
Ariel, you are giving meaning to something i never said.
i wasn’t protecting anyone, and as i stated i think its disgusting.
however i must tell you that prior to Richard bringing it up i never even heard about that news paper. i doubt you ever heard about that news paper either.
as for the meaning of Amalek, i have no idea what is your religous background, as far as i know Iran is treated like to modern Amalak, i never heard that term being used towards the Palastinians, and that’s the reason i asked.
My question wasn’t answer, you say it’s a code name, ok. maybe. can you show me a place in which they actually refered to the Palastinians in such way ?
Ilan, this has been around along time. here is something from the shalom center from 2001. just google ‘amalek’ and either arab or palestinian and you can find references.
“In our generation, for some Jews the Arabs, and especially the Palestinians, become Amalek. Some Palestinians are terrorists? Some Palestinians call publicly for the State of Israel to be shattered? And some Lebanese, organized in Hezbollah? Iranians, whose president pooh-poohs the Holocaust? For some, the archetypes of fear slide into place: For some, all Palestinians are Amalek. And for some, Hezbollah. And for some, Iran. And for some, all Arabs.”
Ariel
The topic of Amalek came up now because this week the Parshat Hashavua (weekly torah reading) was Parshat Bo from the book of Exodus in which the passage about the Amalek attack on Israel is related.
That’s the context, the rest is pure hate
Actually, the context is the “Career Rabbis” who are too PC to do what needs to be done. And what “needs to be done” apparently is to place certain people in extermination camps. Seriously, people who support extermination camps for ANYBODY should be behind bars. Seems like their one gripe with the Nazis is that they messed with the wrong religion, other than that, they seem to respect their methods.
But hey, yes, the context is Parashat Hashavua, and denial is just a river in Africa.
Ariel
I don’t know why you are trying to say that I am in “denial” but I simply answered yr question why the topic arose specifically now – because of parshat hashavua.
The editorials in these “rags” are invariably about a topic that somehow has a relevance to the weekly torah reading (in the writer’s warped eyes)
If you read the context of the entire editorial the portion coming before what I quoted deals with the rabbis ltr. demanding Jews not rent to Palestinians. This can be the only possible reference…to Palestinians. Plus, it’s a common trope among radical anti-Palestinian settlers & Orthodox Jews to equate Palestinians w. Amalek. Though of course anyone they don’t like (like Obama or you or me) can be Amalek as well.
Richard, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense.
I learned that Amalak = Iran, and the relation is that the king of Amalak was אגג (hagag) and Haman from the Megila was known as Haman האגגי (HaHagagi) and is believed to be of Hagag’s blood line.
Also in Modern time, Germany was known as the Modern Amalek, but I never had heard that term with respect to the Palestinians, Considering the fact that I do not spend a lot of my time around settlers it makes sense.
Excuse me? Iranians have and never will be Amalek, nor will you, the right wing of any country, EVER send Iranians to the oven.
I saw this one coming from a mile away. But that you actually wrote it… wow.
Mr. PA how old are you ? don’t you know that sometimes it’s better to ask a question then to make a statment ?
just to clerify, I was talking about biblical interpertation nothing more, it doesn’t reflect on my beleives, what so ever. seems to me that you try to demonize every israeli you come across, and i suggest that you’ll calm down, its a known recepie for living long life.
Talking about Iran, it was published today in Irsael (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4012934,00.html) that one of the opposition leaders in Iran, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, attacked the ayatollah regim compered it to the Nazi’s charged that current Iranian leadership has ‘surpassed Goebbels in telling lies’
Was it published in Irani media ?
Ilan, you are getting on my last nerve. Every post you make is an underhanded attack. In fact, Moussavi wrote this to IRIB:
“They use the same methods used in totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union during Stalin era, or Romania during Ceauşescu’s time.”
No where did he compare the Iranian government to Nazis or Goebbels. That is straight from his official Facebook, the translation provided therein.
Again, you twist and propagandize. I wonder when Richard will clue in to your true intentions.
YES, it was published in the Iranian media! IRIB = IRANIAN MEDIA.
PersianAdvocate: Reporting that you heard of a certain wacky theory does not automatically mean that you support it.
Mr. PA
i would like you to explain to me, how quoting from a link i provided makes me a propagandist ?
do you think that i am the one who wrote the article on Ynet (to which i provided a link?)
you present yourself as a Persian, and i found it fit to ask you if such statements were given.
you need to relax with your allegations and accusations, and actually read and try to understand (for a change)
# IlanP)
“Don’t you know that sometimes it’s better to ask a question than to make a statement”.
Oh my God ! What a hypocrite, you are.
You declared, or rather accused me of wanting to send all the Jews back to Germany and Poland and not recognizing their [your] equal rights in Israel/Palestine. You didn’t even bother to read my whole sentence before editing your Fatwa, and now you’re giving moral lessons. That’s chutzpah !
By the way, I’m still waiting for an answer to my commentary.
Does it matter if it is about Palestinians, Iranians, or Chinese
It is a call by people-jews-israelis to genocide
it is black and white
either you are vocally and specifically against it or you are thru your silence supporting it…
it is not disgusting it is inhuman barbaric and murder
we either stand up and be counted or commit, by our silence, to supporting yet another holocoust
why is almost everybody so scared to read the writing on the wall?
sorry IlanP, i can’t believe you. Nobody can be that naive as you are trying to make yourself to be. is it just an unintended stupidity slip on your part or are you just another incompetent hasbara agent who just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
thankyou richard….i came across this yesterday..but could not quite wore it out…so your interpretation is very valuable.As someone of Jewish blood….i can only say i am shocked and ashamed…. I turned my back on Judaism my inheritance along time ago….but still i feel so much shame…There will one day be a back lash as there has been in the past….. and once again when it happens..all jews will suffer….not just the guilty ones….
I behove all jews to fight against this insanity….
Sandra, you say: “There will one day be a back lash as there has been in the past…”
Is there some implication there that previous “backlashes” were caused by the way Jews conducted themselves and brought it upon themselves?
You’re on very thin ice here – be careful!
Ah yes the victims are in total innocence, vs the evil that other men do.
Um, if Israel put Palestinians in death camps, then yeah they’d be victims & innocent ones. Or are you claiming that all Palestinians are terrorists??
She might be saying it but I will.
If you think that it is possible that only one group on earth, The Jews, somehow never committed any acts to bring hositility on them, that out of all humans in all of time , they alone had always been disliked and prescuted un justly and are somehow totally innocent thruout history—-then you are delusional and probably insane.
If I understand you correctly I find this comment deeply offensive. What possible evil can Jews have done to deserve the Holocaust, Inquisition, Roman persecution, etc.?? What can they be guilty of? And I warn you, if you respond to this with one of the same nonsense I’ll be very quick on the button.
Sorry Rachel, bigots don’t need a reason other than an irrational fear of the other, and dark age catholic christianity had quiet a degree of irrational fears. Go back to 11th century Jeruselem and ask the Arabs (Muslim, Jewish and Christian – that’s right Christian Arabs were also massacred, probably because their skin was too dark), if there was a rational reason to inflict so much murder that blood flowed in the streets!
Just as racist bigots have existed throughout history, they still exist today. In medievil Europe the target was Jews because they were the minority, in the modern day western world the target is Muslims because they are the other!
In Hebron some settlers have scrawled ‘Arabs to the gas chambers’ on the walls of Palestinian residents. Jews for Justice for Palestinians have got photos on their website. (There’s a gallery called ‘Hate Street, Hebron: A Photo Tour’.) It’s frightening to see this sentiment being made so explicit in print media, but sadly it is nothing new.
“And when it’s all over,
my dear, dear reader
on which benches will we have to sit
those of us who shouted “Death to the Arabs!”
and those who claimed they “didn’t know”
Aharon Shabtaï: Nostalgia (2002)
Pictures from both sides of the Green Line.
Photo no. 7: there’s a link to Tony Greenstein’s blog:
Hndreds of Jews marching through the Old City on ‘Jeruselam Day’ screaming “Mavet la aravim”.
Photo no. 15:
“Death to the Arabs” on the wall of a Palestinian kindergarten in Tel Rumeida. Fortunately, the kins don’t read hebrew.
The two last photos:
“Arabs to the gaz chamber” on Abraham’s Well (al-khalîl)
“Arabs to the crematoria” (al-khalîl)
http://labelash.blogspot.com/2009/05/lawrence-of-cyberia.html
The much more unsettling part is the picture of the wall with the arab-free-landscape drawing.
I have myself seen signs on walls in Hebron: “Arabs to the Ovens.” And Jewish Stars of David painted on the doors of dozens of Palestinian houses. (Not to mention the filthy diapers and other trash thrown by settlers onto the chicken wire many Hebron Palestinians have installed for protection around their houses.)
campaigns against other tribes as well (Moabites, Jebusites)
My understanding is that the 7 Nations mentioned in Jewish scriptures refer to the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Jebusites, Hivites, Perizzites, and Girgashites. The Moabities were actually famous for not allowing the Jews to enter their territory upon entering Israel. In addition, Ruth was a Moabite convert to Judaism.
Only time will tell if this kind of vernacular is wartime propaganda-and I think it is. The Old and New Testaments could be looked upon as a political doctrines and there is plenty of language that fall under wartime heated statements. All sides at one time or another in war conflicts say things to scare the opponent. Let’s put things in context: the chances of what they say and what will happen are very different.
Thank God for that. But even Hitler started with talk that led to action. That’s why we have to speak strongly against the talk lest it lead to a Palestinian Auschwitz.
There is a ironic relationship in the topics of the articles today – one discusses the myth behind the blood libels and the other discusses the very real connection behind rabbinical misuse of the Amalek story and attempts to incite Jewish violence.
…where did you learn that Amalak = Palestinians ?
The Introduction to Elliott Horowitz, “Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence.” Princeton University Press, 2006 provided an overview and several examples. The author cited Jeffrey Goldberg’s interviews in the New Yorker with Benzi Lieberman, a chairman of the Council of Settlements and Likud politician Moshe Feiglin. Both men identified the Palestinians with Amalek. Lieberman said . “The Palestinians are Amalek”…”We will destroy them” … “We won’t kill them all. But we will destroy their ability to think as a nation. We will destroy Palestinian nationalism.” http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8213.html
How can anyone call killing 2, 3 or 4 Palestinians a week genocide?
There are several persons now serving life sentences for incitement to commit genocide who never killed anyone at all. The elements of the crime of genocide contained in the international convention reflect customary practice, but each country was required to adopt its own national statute and definition. Those can vary quite a bit. Some might reasonably conclude that, in the example above, Mr. Lieberman had expressed the intent to commit genocide. The European Court of Human Rights upheld a conviction for the crime of genocide in Jorgic v Germany. The defendant was accused of acting with intent to commit 11 counts of genocide and the murder of 22 people. Only the lower court’s convictions on genocide and eight counts of murder remained final. The Court ruled that genocide or “destruction of a group” within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code meant destruction of the group as a social unit in its distinctiveness and particularity and its feeling of belonging together; a biological-physical destruction was not necessary.” http://tinyurl.com/4wdthje
..why does the U.S. government allow tax-deductible contributions to Israeli charities like Chabad given their propagation of such genocidal rhetoric?
They usually don’t. Tikun Olam reported on an earlier case involving Manis Friedman in which the US courts might reasonably conclude was an example of constitutionally proscribed speech containing a “True threat”. http://tinyurl.com/47nrtmg An international criminal tribunal could also reach the reasonable conclusion that the remarks satisfied the necessary elements of the crime of incitement to commit genocide. Chabad headquarters quickly distanced themselves from Friedman’s advice. They said “We vehemently disagree with any sentiment suggesting that Judaism allows for the wanton destruction of civilian life, even when at war.” For his own part, Friedman issued a [non-]clarification which still constituted advice for the Jewish armed forces to occasionally resort to acts of genocide.
Abe Foxman didn’t say whether he thought the Friedman article could give rise to criminal liability, but he did tell Haaretz that “Moment magazine gave up all editorial discretion and good sense by publishing it in the first place.” The editor of the Jewish community newspaper in Friedman’s hometown, told Haaretz that he often hears the same thing from other members of the Lubavitch community.
Tikun Olam and Haaretz also reported on Rabbis, including then IDF Chief Rabbi Brig. Gen. Rontzki, who had instructed soldiers to show no mercy to the Palestinians. Ethan Bronner and the New York Times reported acute mistreatment of Palestinians and violations of the rules of war by soldiers who said “the rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles and their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the non-Jews who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war.” http://tinyurl.com/4p7v5wo
The Arab League commissioned an Independent International Fact Finding Committee. It submitted a report that was forwarded to the ICC Prosecutor. The Committee found (pages 6 & 7) that although operation Cast Lead had not been carried out by the IDF to destroy the Palestinians of Gaza as a group, individual soldiers may well have had such an intent and might therefore be prosecuted for the crime. That finding was based on the brutality of some of the killing and reports that some soldiers had acted under the influence of rabbis who had encouraged them to believe that the Holy Land should be cleansed of non-Jews. The Commission recommended that other states take separate action to have Israel investigated for possible failure to prevent genocide and failure to punish genocide. http://www.arableagueonline.org/las/picture_gallery/reportfullFINAL.pdf
This must be why a few days ago an innocent 65-year old Palestinian was shot in his bed and just yesterday a farmer in Gaza was shot on his land close to the buffer zone while he was tying up his donkey.
And the other week it was the sister of a peaceful protestor who was also killed, both buried beside each other. And 2011 has already seen an alarming number of Palestinian deaths for one excuse or another.
Are they all just “mistakes”, or justified or are these soldiers heeding the words of these rabbis? How can anyone call killing 2, 3 or 4 Palestinians a week genocide?
8 Palestinians were killed by the IDF in the first 10 days of January.
http://www.hybridstates.com/2011/01/israel-accelerates-rate-of-killing-palestinians-in-early-2011/
This is not an article advocating genocide. This is an article that takes future genocide for granted. Clearly, there is no longer any need to advocate genocide in religious circles.
That is what’s truly terrifying.
Spot on.
I am sorry to undercut your attention grabbing introduction but the expression “Jews to the ovens” was not expressed during WWII. It became ‘fashionable’ with the Sabra when the DPs or displaced persons came to Israel.
Rather ironically, the command was actually to wipe Amalek from the memory of men, at least as Professor James Moffat translated it.
And once in control of the land, the Jews were not ordered to kill all remaining non-Jews, but any non-Jew who dedicated his children to Molek (ie: reserved them for sacrifice.) The injunction was to prevent the slaughter of innocents.
God isn’t quite as blood thirsty as the Atheists would have us believe.
Actually the halacha is, according to the Rambam, that before conquering the 7 nations of Canaan AND Amalek one must call them to peace, i.e. to surrender (meaning accepting Israelite rule and accepting basic moral rules (the 7 Noachide laws)). If they accept it is forbidden to harm them, if they refuse one must only attack from 3 sides leaving them one direction to flee should they choose. Only if they stay to fight does the commandment of annihilation apply.
It’s a mistake to think that very ancient peoples were necessarily morally primitive, and I’ve always thought that the modern, liberal/atheist interpretation of the various biblical struggles was essentially both prim and patronizing.
The archeological record in the British Isles may suggest the opposite, because the most ancient sites see human remains being treated with very great care and reverence, with no sign whatsoever of human sacrifice, which only appears with Celtic and Druidic religions in the late copper age.
The materials scientist Prof. J.E. Gordon did conclude, in “Why We Don’t Fall Through the Floor” that the materials people worked with did seem to affect their state of mind. (He didn’t think iron workers were ever very happy!)
His book is both a scientific and a social study, and it’s actually a help to understanding the behaviour of ancient people, to know what sort of things their economy and technology required them to do, and which resources actually mattered to them. (And, therefore, which other things they did through cultural choice.)
As soon as you start making metal, permanent control of territory starts to matter to you and it is this, not “women and cattle” that communities often fought over. They probably fought a lot less often than we might suppose.
But as I understand it, the battle between the Jews and other inhabitants, was because God did not want them to adopt the religious and cultural practices of the others.
In naming the Palestinians as Amalekites and effectively assuming, and not just advocating, their extermination, the Rabbis have adopted the actual culture of Amalek, heart and soul.
I don’t think the good rabbis meant to give the Palestinians a direction to flee do you?
Well, not unless it was into the desert, which was what Herman Goering’s father did with the Hero tribe in Namibia at the turn, of, well, last, century.
I rather doubt that the Rabbis in this instance have either Shmuel’s learning nor his conscience. If they cannot change what is written in scripture to suit themselves, they will take words from scripture, willfully and repeatedly use them wrongly and thereby change their meaning in common usage, redefining right and wrong in the process.
After the English Civil War, Parliament passed a law (short lived, but well-meant and certainly the product of some intelligent reductionism) defining blasphemy solely as teaching the equivalence of good and evil.
Both the Rabbis and Sarah Palin, could easily be convicted on that score.
Was that really Herman Goering’s father?!!
What a family!
Not that it is really important, but yelling or spray-painting “Jews to the ovens” looks more like a post-war Neo-Nazi thing to me. I don’t think it was a slogan in the Nazi period, as even the Nazi’s did not dare to declare openly what their real intentions were. They used sanitized, veiled language instead.
I compiled an oral history of an Auscwitz survivor who returned to her home in Hungary shortly after the end of the war only to find graffiti sprayed on the walls saying: “Izik, we didn’t finish the job, you’ll be next.” When the graffiti was reported by the Jews to the local Soviet commander he found those who wrote the graffiti and they were never heard from again. One way to handle these things.
This article is an abomination.
It was written is a small magazine, owned by some crazy sect who calls themselves Jews.
As an Israeli, I will be the first to stand before them and defend anybody with my life, if they would ever get to be strong enough to try it.
Not that I saw anybody helping the poor Israeli guys who happen to make a wrong turn and ended being lynched in Palestinian villages.
# free man)
By “the poor Israeli guys . . . lynched in Palestinian villages [more than one ?]”
are you talking about the two soldiers (socalled non-combattants reservists) who acidentally entered Ramallah on Oct 12 2000, in the beginning of the second Intifada ??
And could you please tell us how many Palestinain civilians had already been killed by Oct 12. You don’t have to include the 13 unarmed Israeli Palestinians killed throughout the Galilea during peaceful demonstrations. But you’re right, they were killed in a much more ‘civilized’ manner, and I even think the Israeli soldiers were ‘crying while shooting’.
The Ramallah killings were vile, repulsive & an offense against humanity & decency. They helped destroy any sense among mainstream Israelis that peace was possible w. Palestinians. They may’ve set the peace process back by years if not longer at least as far as Israelis are concerned.
But no killings are humane or decent including the ones of Palestinians which you mention.
Again, off topic. Comments must relate directly to the post.
As for the magazine, it’s distributed in most Orthodox synagogues in Israel & the founder of the magazine was one of Israel’s most prominent rabbis. Unless you wish to say that all of Orthodox Judaism in Israel is a ‘small crazy sect’…
Richard, for years i have been attending Friday night service in an orthodox syngaouge in the place i live (and in many others)
i never onced seen this magazine, until you published it. the strange thing about it is that one of the Rabbi’s who participate in the website is Shlomo Aviner, who even though he resides in Beit-El is known to be a very moderate Rabbi, and was acused by Dov Lior for being fundded by Meretz has he anounced that the Israeli-Palastinian conflict is not of a religous nature, he was among the group of Rabbi’s who stood against the group who commited Pulsa-Denura etc.
this is so strange that he would agree that his name would be on the front page of a website that hosts such an article.
There are 3 main rabbis involved the other is the chief rabbi of Tzfat. All 3 have prominent roles in the Orthodox community in Israel. That’s what makes this so heinous.
Sholomo Aviner is not in any way “moderate” with one notable exception, when the IDF enacted the disengagement from Gaza he called to all soldiers not to disobey orders, against other rabbis who called on their supporters in the IDF to refuse the orders to evacuate.
Aside from this he is rather extreme: Lives in Bet-El, is head of a Yeshivah in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem, calls on women to marry at the age of 18 and not to study, never to give up an inch of territories under any circumstances – need I go on?
I’m not religious myself, however I always thought Judaism was about loving thy neighbor (Rabi Akiva, there…there) , treating the people from other nations like they were your own “ki ger haiita beeretz mitsrim”, and never do your peer what is hated by you. Anybody who make “obliterate Amalek” as him main motto, or even applying that term on current situations are crazy and disturb people in my mind. If it is accepted by the majority of the orthodox Jews, that makes Judaism a crazy sect in my mind.
Actually, free man, you do not need to wait. You can stand before the people collecting rubble in the Gaza buffer zone, or before the elderly farmer who was tying up his donkey…
It would be great to see an Israeli help these poor Palestinians.
with all due respect, people with missiles, anti-tank weapons and tons of ammunition, does not qualify.
A lot of the people shot in the buffer zone are NOT armed with “missiles, anti-tank weapons and tons of ammunition.” They are just tending their own land or collecting rubble to make a living. That is the point.
You are in denial about what goes on there when you say that they do not deserve your heroic protection.
Thank you for your home made psychology, I may leave my therapist now.
Joke aside, you’re right that people there suffer while most of them just try to make a living. I feel their pain cause I know what it is like to be afraid to die by doing the normal day to day chores. I knew how it feels when bombs go off near you when you go to school, or worse when your children go to school.
The thing is, we’re in a state of war between Israel and the Aza Strip. In fact the same words that we’re apolled and discussed by, when said by a non political Jew figure (and rightfully so), are written in the Aza ruler party charter.
Something more to note is that the destruction of the other, is in the charter of only one side in the story and it is not the Israeli side.
You know something?
Maybe that’s exactly what we should do.
Wonder how many people could be gathered for a rally in gaza.
well, infront of gaza.
Hi,
Keep in mind that the UN definition for “Genocide” since 1948 did not have to involve killing.
Wikipedia Excerpt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1944.
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Because of the influence of Joseph Stalin, this definition of genocide under international law does not include political groups.
For years, we’ve heard about Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map, even though the correct translation referred to the wiping the “Zionist Regime” off the map. Imagine the Iranian’s or Palestinian’s making such a statement? What’s astonishing is how this NEVER makes it on the TV in America. Tells me who is “deciding” what we hear
I’m confused by the reference to Chabad in the paragraph about tax exempt charities in the original post, it seems to be a non-sequitor. Does Chabad have something to do with promoting violence against Palestinians, or has anyone affiliated with it in an official capacity ever made similar statements about exterminating them?
Yes. Chabad rabbis have advocated extreme violence against Palestinians. A number in fact would support such extreme measures as advocated in this magazine article.
Richard,
This post was picked up by URUK.net:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m73956&hd=&size=1&l=e
regards,
ellen
Rest assured, most of us can differentiate between real Judiasm/Israel, and these terrorists. And they ARE terrorists , whether they’re Heads of States or not. We know the real Jews are not them, nor share the same beliefs as them. They proclaim themselves to be Jews, but in reality, they could care less about the real Jewish people…
These “rabbis” should start wearing swastikas. As a jew I am horrified and disgusted by the very thought of such evil. Just who do they think they are?
The Torah commentator Ibn Ezra writes that the reason Parshat Yitro (with its account of Yitro meeting Moses and reuniting him with his wife, Yitro’s daughter) immediately follows the war with Amalek in Parshat Beshalach is to emphasise that when one wars with Amalek, one must be careful not to accidentally kill the descendants of Yitro, who are righteous. Everyone must understand that killing the descendants of Yitro is _wrong_; they really helped outwith the killing of Sisera, hell, they’re even Jewish! So I hope that’s some comfort to everyone involved.
My son is a relatively recent Chabadnik, now studying in Paris.
When he first got involved, I was very concerned that he was entering an out and out cult including the prospect of self-convincing political expression.
I’ve overtly asked numerous Chabad rabbis of their understanding of Israel-Palestinian identity and relations, and received radically different responses.
At an invited gathering of yeshiva students in Brooklyn last year, at a shabbos dinner, they don’t turn anyone away from their door, and apparently have some regular homeless (chabadniks) come. One stood up to make a speech of the need to “defend ourselves” and at the end of his tirade started a chant of “bomb them, bomb them”, referring to Palestinians (I don’t remember what time of year this was happening, what was happening in Israel). Close to half of the yeshiva students joined in.
It offended me and scared me. I approached the head of the yeshiva the next day, and asked if that was what was taught at the yeshiva, and he waffled a little and then said that the individual was not speaking of halacha, but only his personal perspective. I still didn’t get any clarity on what he himself taught.
That it happened at all upset me. I spoke to my son about it the next day, and told him that if that was what was taught, that I wanted him to leave immediately. And, that if participated in that evocation of hate of civilians, that he was violating a fundamental principal of mine, and that the commandment “to honor me” extends beyond calling me weekly, but actually includes some substance.
In my home town, my wife and I spoke at some length to another local chabad rabbi (a close friend).
My wife brought up the question as to the equivalence of Palestinian to Amalek in fact and in rhetoric. His response was that there is no people Amalek on the planet now and there is no substance to any equivalence. He went further to state that the equivalence is in fact racism. (He is very loathe to condemn others, any others, so to state that about rabbis that he might encounter, and that he otherwise might even respect, was a large statement to my mind.)
Is it true that chabad (named here), or other religious groups equate Amalek and Palestinians? Its certainly a horrible risk, that the collective fear and animosity would morph into something more banal or ever even being considered acted on in any light.
I like my friend’s model of being reluctant to condemn, especially given our proclivity to exagerate and polemicize. I personally fear a prejudicial hatred of orthodox Jews on the basis that “they are all racist” as well.
Your local Chabad rabbi knows you well & doesn’t want to hurt yr feelings or cause conflict bet. you & yr son (& possibly lose a convert), so he tells you what you want to hear. But I’m sorry to tell you that the equivalence is a very strong theme among frum regligious Zionists like Chabad, Young Israel, etc. Many Chabad rabbis believe in this devoutly.
Yr rabbi has to be tolerant of the hate of his fellow rabbis or he’d have to leave Chabad. But it’s still rather cowardly of him to rationalize his inaction in this way.
Thank you Richard. Extremists are very dangerous people. Sometimes, they grab enough power to make nightmares come true.
Ridiculous. How do you know whether the Amalekites had a reason for attacking the Israelites or not? Were you there?
Wrote about it here in this blog. Do yr homework next time & Google my site before commenting. It’s save you & us a lot of time.
The reason, according to Midrash, as to why Amalek was so deserving of absolute extermination is threefold:
1. Because they went to war for no actual reason other than the Jewishness of their target. Their land was not threatened, and the Israelites had no beef with them. It was the anti-semitic act per se.
2. Their war was conducted in a cowardly fashion by attacking the stragglers (probably women. children, elderly and invalids) instead of the expected war against soldiers.
3. The attack is in fact an attack against god who had just given the Torah to the Israelites and performed miracles publically for all to see, and yet these feared not and attacked, as it were, the devine.
Oh, come on! It is a total anachronism to use the word anti-Semitism for a situation where you have a bunch of tribes who go to war with each other once every season in order to steal each other’s cattle or women or whatever.
The term anti-Semitism becomes appropriate only after the situation developed where you had a majority singling out a minority as a target.
Elisabeth:
Of couse the term “anti-semitism” is anachronistic, but the idea isn’t.
That’s exactly the point, Amalek’s attack wasn’t about tribal warfare and petty women\slave\cattle\chattle stealing, but was an attack based on pure hatred for the sake of hatred (in Hebrew; “lishmah”).
As far as I am aware there is actually no evidence that there ever existed a tribe called “Amalek”, a fact that would imply that the reason for telling this “myth” in the Torah is purely in order to learn life’s lessons in the form of allegory.
These rabbis of course have taken this way too far….
If the ‘myth’ in the Torah is supposed to give a life lesson in the form of an allegory, this lesson seems to be not a universal, but a rather ethnocentric one.
So this “imaginary Amalek-tribe” attacked the Jews ONLY because they were Jews and for no other reasons. Wow, I do understand better now why every critique of Israel is automatically labeled ‘anti-semitic’ by its defenders at home and abroad. The Palestinians won’t accept Israel simply because they’re anti-semitic, Goldstone is anti-semitc, etc etc. No reason for introspection since there is only one explanation : Israel is hated, critiziced or whatever ONLY because Jewish.
Deir Yassin:
Of course this lesson about Amalek is ethnocentric and not universal!
The Torah was given\written only for Jews – that’s abundantly clear to all who read it! There is not even the slightest attempt at universalism, all the laws, mitzvot, prohibitions and history are for and about Jews (Israelites).
If other peoples found ideas there that seemed to them appropriate, that doesn’t make it universally orientated.
Unlike the Quran or the New Testament there is also no evangelical ideal or call to other nations to believe or adhere to that which is contained in the Torah. It’s a manuscript for Jewishness, and Jewishness only!
I’m glad that through this you have finally understood the Jewish\Israeli psyche (not written cynically) – you hit the nail on the head that many Jews\Israelis will always be wary of the motives of their criticizers, some even to the extent that any criticizer is anti-semetic until proven otherwise.
Yes that’s exactly true. This is the exact argument I hear everyday, everywhere. It is by far the prevailing viewpoint in israel. And everytime I hear it, it is said with complete conviction.
Moreover, an expanded form of this idea is fast gaining popularity – EVERYONE is antisemitic. The whole damned world. Doesn’t have to be a critic.
Scary.
The strange thing about you is that you seem to think all of this is funny (at least you seem to enloy rubbing it into the face of us ‘outsiders’),when in reality of course it is sometyhing that should worry you deeply. Such a mindset may be just fine when living in separate neigborhoods or villages as a minority without power, but as foundation for the rule of a country it is a recipe for disaster.
#shmuel)
“…that you finally understand the Jewish/Israeli psyche”.
Well, according to the ‘semitic myth’, we are cousins, and if you read Israel Belkind, Ben Gourion/Ben Zvi (1918) or Tsvi Misinai, the Palestinian fellahîn are descendants of the Hebrews who weren’t expulsed/migrate after the destruction of the Temple. Many specific Palestinian cultural traits, vocabulary and topographic names do confirm that, according to anthropologists who have worked on this topic.
Elisabeth;
What a strange comment – where have I been jocular about the subject that you should think I think it is “funny”?
I re-read all my comments here and I am at a loss to see from where you think I don’t take this subject seriously.
I at no point even hinted what my personal feeling is about anti-semitism or criticism of Israel, but merely tried to explain the mind-set of many Jews\Israelis as a basis to understanding why Israel acts as it does in a seemingly illogical and even immoral fashion.
I far from think this to be amusing, I actually live here and have to bare the consequences of my governments actions or lack thereof, whereas you, I think, live elsewhere.
I also heard stories that in the South Hebron area until very recently there were still families in Yata who lit candles on Fridays and on Hanukah, and tithed bread.
So on that interesting note I bid you good night, cos!
Apparently I completely misread the attitude behind your remarks. One reason is of course the medium: We don’t hear or see tone of voice or facial expressions.
But the confusion is also caused by what you write. For instance: “Of course the term “anti-semitism” is anachronistic, but the idea isn’t.”
Well, if there was no primordial hatred of Jews going back to antiquity then the IDEA of anti-semitism is an anachronism too of course. So I thought you were just joking around.
Another thing is that the story of Amalek itself never says anything about Amalek’s attack being an attack based on pure hatred for the sake of hatred. That must be an interpretation added later by Jewish tradition. But you quote this tradition very seriously, as if it were fact, and even defend the use of the term anti-semitic for Amalek’s motives based on it… and THEN you turn around and say: Oh well, the whole story was probably a myth, but it functioned to teach us life’s lesson.
More joking around, it seemed to me, when the lesson (everyone hates us for no reason) that is hung on this story (even though there is no basis for it in the story itself) is of course really sad and nonsensical.
And finally, in your reply to Deir Yassin, when you stressed that the Jewish\Israeli psyche is ethnocentric and sees anti-semitism everywhere, you did not seem sad but almost exultant.
In short: Read somewhere else by someone who does not know you, the attitude could be misinterpreted.
Good night!
That brings us back to the debate a few months ago, about how extensive and potentially destructive the Israeli nuclear arsenal was, and who it was it was aimed at. Should the people who say that Israel will take the WHOLE world with it, be taken at face value?
A war almost entirely of yr own making.
Another no-no. We’ve discussed the Hamas charter enough here for 10 lifetimes. Another subject, please.
{ 4 trackbacks }