13 August 2011, Gush Shalom גוש שלום http://zope.gush-shalom.org (Israel)
Uri Avnery אורי אבנרי
“THE PEOPLE Demand Social Justice!” 250 thousand protesters chanted in unison in Tel Aviv last Saturday. But what they need – to quote an American artist - is “more unemployed politicians”.
Fortunately, the Knesset has gone on a prolonged vacation, three months. For as Mark Twain quipped: “No man’s life or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”
As if to prove this point, MK Avi Dichter submitted, on the very last day of the outgoing session, a bill so outrageous that it easily trumps all the many other racist laws lately adopted by this Knesset.
“DICHTER” IS A German name and means “poet”. But no poet he. He is the former chief of the secret police, the “General Security Service” (Shin-Bet or Shabak).
(“Dichter also means “more dense”, but let’s not dwell on that.)
He proudly announced that he had spent a year and a half smoothening and sharpening this particular project, turning it into a legislative masterpiece.
And a masterpiece it is. No colleague in yesterday’s Germany or present-day Iran could have produced a more illustrious piece. The other members of the Knesset seem to feel so, too – no less than 20 of the 28 members of the Kadima faction, as well as all the other dyed-in-the-wool racist members of this august body, have proudly put their name to this bill as co-authors.
The very name - “Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People” - shows that this Dichter is neither a poet nor much of an intellectual. Secret police chiefs seldom are.
“Nation” and “People” are two different concepts. It is generally accepted that a people is an ethnic entity, and a nation is a political community. They exist on two different levels. But never mind.
It is the content of the bill that counts.
WHAT DICHTER proposes is to put an end to the official definition of Israel as a “Jewish and Democratic State”.
He proposes instead to set clear priorities: Israel is first and foremost the nation-state of the Jewish people, and only as a far second a democratic state. Wherever democracy clashes with the Jewishness of the state, Jewishness wins, democracy loses.
This makes him, by the way, the first right-wing Zionist (apart from Meir Kahane) who openly admits that there is a basic contradiction between a “Jewish” state and a “democratic” state. Since 1948, this has been strenuously denied by all Zionist factions, their phalanx of intellectuals and the Supreme Court.
What the new definition means is that the State of Israel belongs to all the Jews in the world – including Senators in Washington, drug-dealers in Mexico, oligarchs in Moscow and casino-owners in Macao, but not to the Arab citizens of Israel, who have been here for at least 1300 years since the Muslims entered Jerusalem. Christian Arabs trace their ancestry back to the crucifixion 1980 years ago, Samaritans were here 2500 years ago and many villagers are probably the descendents of the Canaanites, who were already here some 5000 years ago.
All these will become, once this bill is law, second-class citizens, not only in practice, as now, but also in official doctrine. Whenever their rights clash with what the majority of the Jews considers necessary for the preservation of the interests of the “nation-state of the Jewish people” – which may include everything from land ownership to criminal legislation –their rights will be ignored.
THE BILL itself does not leave much room for speculation. It spells things out.
The Arabic language will lose its status as an “official language” – a status it enjoyed in the Ottoman Empire, under the British Mandate and in Israel until now. The only official language in the Nation-State etc will be Hebrew.
No less typical is the paragraph that says that whenever there is a hole in Israeli law (called “lacuna”’ or lagoon), Jewish law will apply.
“Jewish law” is the Talmud and the Halakha, the Jewish equivalent of the Muslim Sharia. It means in practice that legal norms adopted 1500 years ago and more will trump the legal norms evolved over recent centuries in Britain and other European countries. Similar clauses exist in the laws of countries like Pakistan and Egypt. The similarity between Jewish and Islamic law is not accidental - Arabic-speaking Jewish sages, like Moses Maimonides (“the Rambam”) and their contemporary Muslim legal experts influenced each other.
The Halakha and the Sharia have much in common. They ban pork, practice circumcision, keep women in servitude, condemn homosexuals and fornicators to death and deny equality for infidels. (In practice, both religions have modified many of the harsher penalties. In the Jewish religion, for example, “an eye for an eye” now means compensation. Otherwise, as Gandhi so aptly said, we would all be blind by now.)
After enacting this law, Israel will be much nearer to Iran than to the USA. The “Only Democracy in the Middle East” will cease to be a democracy, but be very close in its character to some of the worst regimes in this region. “At long last, Israel is integrating itself in the region,” as an Arab writer mocked - alluding to a slogan I coined 65 years ago: “Integration in the Semitic Region”.
MOST OF the Knesset members who signed this bill fervently believe in “the Whole of Eretz-Israel” – meaning the official annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
They don’t mean the “One-State solution” that so many well-intentioned idealists dream about. In practice, the only One State that is feasible is one governed by Dichter’s law - the “Nation-State of the Jewish People” - with the Arabs relegated to the status of the Biblical “hewers of wood and drawers of water”.
Sure, the Arabs will be a majority in this state – but who cares? Since the Jewishness of the state will override democracy, their numbers will be irrelevant. Much as the number of blacks was in Apartheid South Africa.
LET’S HAVE a look at the party to which this poet of racism belongs: Kadima.
When I was in the army, I was always amused by the order: “the squad will retreat to the rear – forward march!”
This may sound absurd, but is really quite logical. The first part of the order relates to its direction, the second to its execution.
“Kadima” means “forward”, but Its direction is backward.
Dichter is a prominent leader of Kadima. Since his only claim to distinction is his former role as chief of the secret police, this must be why he was elected. But he has been joined in this racist project by more than 80% of the Kadima Knesset faction – the largest in the present parliament.
What does this say about Kadima?
Kadima has been a dismal failure in practically every respect. As an opposition faction in parliament it is a sad joke – indeed, I dare say that when I was a one-man faction in the Knesset, I generated more opposition activity than this 28-headed colossus. It has not formulated any meaningful stand on peace and the occupation, not to mention social justice.
Its leader, Tzipi Livni, has proved herself a total failure. Her only achievement has been her ability to keep her party together – no mean feat, though, considering that it consists of refugees (some would say traitors) from other parties, who hitched their cart to Ariel Sharon’s surging horses when he left the Likud. Most Kadima leaders left the Likud with him, and – like Livni herself – are deeply steeped in Likud ideology. Some others came from the Labor Party, arm in arm with that unsavory political prostitute, Shimon Peres.
This haphazard collection of frustrated politicians has tried several times to outflank Binyamin Netanyahu on the right. Its members have co-signed almost all the racist bills introduced in recent months, including the infamous “Boycott Law” (though when public opinion rebelled, they withdrew their signature, and some of them even voted against.)
How did this party get to be the largest in the Knesset, with one more seat than Likud? For left-wing voters, who were disgusted by Ehud Barak’s Labor Party and who dismissed the tiny Meretz, it seemed the only chance to stop Netanyahu and Lieberman. But that may change very soon.
LAST SATURDAY’s huge protest demonstration was the largest in Israel’s history (including the legendary “400,000 demo” after the Sabra-Shatilah massacre, whose real numbers were slightly lower). It may be the beginning of a new era.
It is impossible to describe the sheer energy emanating from this crowd, consisting mostly of 20-30-year-olds. History, like a gigantic eagle, could be felt beating its wings above. It was a jubilant mass, conscious of its immense power.
The protesters were eager to shun “politics” – reminding me of the words of Pericles, some 2500 years ago, that “just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean that politics won’t take an interest in you!”
The demonstration was, of course, highly political – directed against Netanyahu, the government and the entire social order. Marching in the dense crowd, I looked around for kippa-wearing protesters and could not spot a single one. The whole religious sector, the right-wing support group of the settlers and Dichter’s Law, was conspicuously absent, while the Oriental Jewish sector, the traditional base of Likud, was amply represented.
This mass protest is changing the agenda of Israel. I hope that it will result in due course in the emergence of a new party, which will change the face of the Knesset beyond recognition. Even a new war or another “security emergency” may not avert this.
That will surely be the end of Kadima, and few will mourn it. It would also mean bye-bye to Dichter, the Secret Police poet.
Mostrando postagens com marcador Bible. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Bible. Mostrar todas as postagens
terça-feira, 16 de agosto de 2011
sexta-feira, 12 de agosto de 2011
Clergy welcome scholars at annual theological conference
11 August 2011, Ma'an News Agency http://www.maannews.net (Palestine)
Bethlehem (Ma'an) -- The sixth international theological conference opened Monday in Bethlehem, as theologians and intellectuals gathered from more than 17 countries and various Christian denominations.
The mayor of Bethlehem, a representative of President Mahmoud Abbas, and the minister of tourism arrived on behalf of the government, and clergymen Munib Younan and Atallah Hanna welcomed participants.
They stressed that the visit to the holy land reflected a desire to return to the roots of the Christian religion. Such pilgrimages motivate members of their faith to defend their values, they said.
A common theme of the opening statements was the organizers' call for participants to refute "false interpretations" of the Bible which justify "unethical procedures against the Palestinian people."
Christianity in its most pure interpretation rejects violence, tyranny, and violations of human dignity; consequently, the texts of the Bible cannot contain such interpretations, the clerics insisted.
The week-long conference is expected to host discussions about the role of theology and biblical research as well as what both subjects offer as messages to refute Zionism and its proponents around the world.
Delegates representing Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican interpretations are in attendance.
In 2009, Palestinian Christians from all denominations gathered in the same West Bank city to demand sanctions on Israel and to jointly reject Christian Zionism.
Clergy have termed their movement the Palestine Kairos Initiative, modeled after black South Africa's 1985 Kairos Document, a theological statement that called on churches to join the fight against apartheid.
In the same theme, over a dozen leaders of the region's Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican and Baptist traditions co-authored "A moment of truth", a point-by-point rejection of the occupation and a call for action against it.
The initiative urges the international community to begin "a system of economic sanctions and boycott to be applied against Israel," and to "engage in divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation."
The message insists, however, "These advocacy campaigns must be carried out with courage, openly sincerely proclaiming that their object is not revenge but rather to put an end to the existing evil, liberating both the perpetrators and the victims of injustice."
Bethlehem (Ma'an) -- The sixth international theological conference opened Monday in Bethlehem, as theologians and intellectuals gathered from more than 17 countries and various Christian denominations.
The mayor of Bethlehem, a representative of President Mahmoud Abbas, and the minister of tourism arrived on behalf of the government, and clergymen Munib Younan and Atallah Hanna welcomed participants.
They stressed that the visit to the holy land reflected a desire to return to the roots of the Christian religion. Such pilgrimages motivate members of their faith to defend their values, they said.
A common theme of the opening statements was the organizers' call for participants to refute "false interpretations" of the Bible which justify "unethical procedures against the Palestinian people."
Christianity in its most pure interpretation rejects violence, tyranny, and violations of human dignity; consequently, the texts of the Bible cannot contain such interpretations, the clerics insisted.
The week-long conference is expected to host discussions about the role of theology and biblical research as well as what both subjects offer as messages to refute Zionism and its proponents around the world.
Delegates representing Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican interpretations are in attendance.
In 2009, Palestinian Christians from all denominations gathered in the same West Bank city to demand sanctions on Israel and to jointly reject Christian Zionism.
Clergy have termed their movement the Palestine Kairos Initiative, modeled after black South Africa's 1985 Kairos Document, a theological statement that called on churches to join the fight against apartheid.
In the same theme, over a dozen leaders of the region's Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican and Baptist traditions co-authored "A moment of truth", a point-by-point rejection of the occupation and a call for action against it.
The initiative urges the international community to begin "a system of economic sanctions and boycott to be applied against Israel," and to "engage in divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation."
The message insists, however, "These advocacy campaigns must be carried out with courage, openly sincerely proclaiming that their object is not revenge but rather to put an end to the existing evil, liberating both the perpetrators and the victims of injustice."
sexta-feira, 22 de julho de 2011
IJV RESPONSE TO KAIROS PALESTINE DOCUMENT*
A Moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of palestinian suffering
22 July 2011, Independent Jewish Voices-Canada (IJV) http://ijvcanada.org (Canada)
Introduction
Independent Jewish Voices-Canada (IJV) is a national organization of Jews committed to a resolution of the conflict in Israel/Palestine based on the application of international law and respect for the human rights of all people.
Independent Jewish Voices wholeheartedly endorses the analysis and recommendations of A moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering, a seminal document drafted by senior church leaders in Israel/Palestine, and circulated by the ecumenical group, Kairos Palestine.
In addition, IJV strongly supports the document’s call for the world’s churches to join the international, non-violent, ethically-based campaign of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), an initiative whose goal is to pressure Israel to comply with international law and respect Palestinians’ human rights. We believe that this campaign has the potential to pressure Israel to adopt more ethical and just practices.1
In the following, we outline specific responses to A moment of truth. In the subsequent section, we include a brief critique of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) response to A moment of truth (2010).2
The IJV Response to A moment of truth
IJV strongly endorses the analysis and recommendations contained in the Kairos Palestine document. We see it as a profoundly compassionate call to the peoples of the world – including the people of Israel – to help Israel turn away from the crimes and injustices rooted in its ongoing occupation. The document calls on Israel to become “a state for all its citizens, with a vision constructed on respect for religion but also equality, justice, liberty and respect for pluralism and not on domination by a religion or a numerical majority”. Kairos Palestine, 2009:16
We see many parallels between the position of the Kairos Palestine writers and the point of view of IJV. Throughout its long history, Judaism, like Christianity, has included both those who promote justice and compassion, and those who protect the powerful at the expense of justice and the less strong. Marc Ellis, the Jewish theologian, describes those who promote justice and peace as Jews of conscience, in contrast to those who pursue power at all costs, whom he labels “Constantinian Jews” (2009:xii)
Although IJV is a human rights organization, and not religiously-based, we are committed to acting as Jews of conscience. Like Kairos Palestine, our members are united by a commitment to pursue social justice, the universal of human rights, and the rigorous application of international law.
IJV members who are religiously inclined can point to core Jewish religious values in the Torah which reflect this perspective. For example, the injunction “do not ill-treat a stranger [i.e., the non-Jew] or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Israel” (Exodus 22:21) appears 36 times in the Torah. In 2002, British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks declared “I regard this as one of the core projects of a state that is true to Judaic principles” (quoted in Freedland, 2002). Rabbi Simean ben Gamaliel, one of Judaism’s most respected sages, quoted Zacharia 8:16: “Execute truth, justice and peace, within your gates,” and emphasized that “these three are interlinked when justice is done, truth is achieved, and peace is established” (Pirke Avot, 1:18). In addition, there is a long tradition of secular Jewish movements which have promoted universal justice and equality (Klug, 2008). However, as Mike Marquesee’s excellent historical study noted, “both Zionists and anti-Zionists, liberals and fundamentalists can find succour in the prophetic texts” (2008:231). Many Israeli rabbis (and politicians) cite scripture to justify Israel’s claims to all the land mentioned in the Bible and use it to attempt to sanctify the violent expulsion of the Palestinians from their land (Shahak, 2002). For example, Rabbi Zvi Yehud Kook said “This land is ours, there are no Arab lands here…within its entire biblical borders it belongs to Israeli rule…this is the decision of divine politics which no earthly politics can overcome” (quoted in Arieli, 2011).
It is our view that all people have an ethical obligation to reject such expedient arguments. Instead we must dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of peace rooted in social justice and compassion. A moment of truth reflects these values and we therefore enthusiastically support it. IJV agrees with the Kairos document that the international campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions constitutes an ethical and non-violent response to the crimes it enumerates. The campaign is rooted, not in a desire to damage Israel, but, rather, to help liberate Israel from the dangerously destructive (and self-destructive) path that it has pursued for many years. Our belief in the moral and practical force of BDS motivated our organization’s 2009 decision to adopt a resolution supporting BDS. Support for BDS campaigns is now one of IJV’s highest priorities.
More specifically, we endorse the view of A moment of truth that:
1. Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its many oppressive elements – the separation wall, the blockade of Gaza, the ever-expanding system of Israeli colony-settlements, the proliferation of military checkpoints on Palestinian lands, the enforced separation of family members, the restriction of the exercise of religious liberty, the denial of refugees’ right of return, the arbitrary arrest and torture of prisoners, the expulsion of Palestinians from Jerusalem and the related pressure on them to emigrate, the disregard for international law and United Nations resolutions, the application of collective punishment, and other egregious actions – constitute serious ethical, moral and legal violations. Along with economic and other consequences, these violations directly injure and kill Palestinians. Simultaneously, these actions blight the lives of Israelis as well as those who are not directly involved,inuring them to systematic and ongoing violations of ethics and integrity.
2. While all human-rights violations must be condemned, we believe that it is necessary to situate the Palestinian violence that exists – as well as some of the major internal political conflicts within Palestinian society – in the context of overwhelming oppression rooted in decades of Israel’s occupation. We believe it is relevant in this context to acknowledge that Israel has for decades been free to act with impunity. This is due, in large part, to the enormous political and financial support it has enjoyed from the international community. As A moment of truth argues, ending the occupation and the associated injustices through the application of non-violent, ethical tools like BDS will eliminate the most significant causes of Palestinian violence.
3. Israel cannot ethically justify its systematic abuse of the Palestinian people by characterizing legitimate Palestinian resistance as “terrorism” or by pointing to the human-rights failings of other Middle Eastern countries. The requirement to act ethically and morally is an imperative which cannot be abandoned by reference to the real or imagined failings of others. Members of civil society – all of us! – have an ethical obligation to speak out and to take action against injustice and to promote justice, peace and dignity. Resistance against oppression is an ethical obligation not only for the oppressed, but also for those who have made oppression possible by supporting, condoning, or simply ignoring it.
4.Israel cannot claim Biblical justification for the sins associated with its occupation. For a detailed analysis of theologically-based Jewish opposition to Zionism, readers are referred to A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, written by IJV member and University of Montreal professor, Yakov Rabkin (2006). Nur Masalha’s The Bible and Zionism (2007) exposes the historically inaccurate Biblical basis for Israel’s claims to Jewish ownership of the land.
5. The Bible does not provide Jewish Israelis with a legal claim to the land. Jews from Europe, the United States, Canada, Russia, and elsewhere, who have chosen to settle in Israel cannot invoke a legitimate aboriginal claim to this land. As the Canadian philosopher Michael Newman argues, “Each individual person certainly has a right to live somewhere, but an ethnic group has no right to live somewhere together.… [N]o one seems to think that all Italians, all over the world, have a right to live in one huge nation, excluding all others. If they all want to go back to Italy, fine, but certainly they [don’t have the right to] to expel others to make room in their ‘homeland,’ or expand that homeland to fulfill the project of reversing their Diaspora” (2005:12).
The IJV response to the Canadian Jewish Congress reaction to A moment of truth
In stark contrast to the thoughtful, compassionate and balanced tone of the Kairos Palestine document, the Canadian Jewish Congress’s response is hostile, defensive and logically inconsistent. The CJC response repeatedly responds to concerns raised in the Kairos Palestine document by setting up straw men and knocking them down. Rather than a meaningful and methodical engagement with the arguments made in A moment of truth, a reflective document which takes as its starting point the consequences of Israel’s long occupation, the CJC response deploys the time-worn language of hasbara – the Hebrew word used by the Israel government and its supporters to describe efforts to explain the government’s actions and to promote and defend Israel in the face of criticism. The term is a euphemism for pro-Israel propaganda. IJV regrets that there is little intellectual depth to the CJC critique, and notes that while there is an apparent attempt to link the CJC’s comments to the observations in the Kairos document, any such link is illusory.
It is clear to us that the CJC responders refused to hear the words so eloquently put forward by the authors of the Kairos document. On the basis of what is presented in the CJC’s response, we are forced to conclude that the serious dialogue initiated by those who drafted the Kairos document has fallen on
deaf ears. The consequence of this refusal to hear is that the CJC piece amounts to little more than a tired rehashing of traditional rationalizations of Israeli intransigence. It does not constitute a worthy response to the heartfelt cry for justice embodied in A moment of truth.
In addition to its other failings, what comes across from the CJC authors is an apparently deep-seated desire to “even the score” with the writers of the Kairos document. This is not surprising. Those who attempt to defend or rationalize injustice often respond angrily when others recognize that what they are doing is unjust. In situations such as this, it is advantageous to turn the tables – to deny misdeeds and to minimize or rationalize those that cannot be denied; to blame the victim for whatever has transpired; to feign victimhood oneself; to invoke guilt to silence outside observers; and finally, if all else fails, to threaten those who continue to insist that the injustice must be addressed. It is our observation that the CJC document and, indeed, hasbara in general, is characterized by the use of such techniques.
Ultimately, all hasbara-based strategy is designed to avoid engaging with the issues raised and to disclaim responsibility. Thus, if the victim of injustice is provoked to act against his oppression, the victimizer can respond by arguing that it is he who is the innocent victim.
This is not the place for a detailed refutation of the time-worn “explanations” contained in the CJC document; many other writers, some of whom we reference here, have prepared full and nuanced analyses on the subject.
Conclusion
With Kairos Palestine, IJV affirms that it is a moral and ethical imperative to acknowledge the reality of Israel’s oppression of Palestinian people and to take action to end that oppression. This is essential, as much for the moral integrity and long-term security of Jewish Israelis, as it is for the well-being of the Palestinians. IJV therefore wholeheartedly endorses the A moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering. We join with the framers of the Kairos Palestine document in calling for the implementation of BDS and other actions to encourage Israel to abandon its unconscionable practices and policies.
1IJV recognizes that the “Boycott Law,” passed in the Israel Knesset on 11 July 2011 complicates matters. We note, however, that challenges to the law were filed in Israel’s High Court of Justice on 12 July 2011 by Israel human rights and pro-peace organizations.
2 On 1 July 2011, the Canadian Jewish Congress ceased independent activities. Its functions have been taken over by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy.
References and Readings
Amit, Zalman and Daphna Levit. (2011). Israeli Rejectionism: A hidden agenda in the Middle East Peace Process. New York: Pluto Press.
Arieli, Shaul. “We must Stop Israel from becoming a theocracy,” Ha’Aretz, 6 July 2011.
Canadian Jewish Congress. (2010). “ CJC Response to KAIROS Palestine’s policy paper, ‘A Moment of Truth’ ”
Ellis, Marc. (2009). Judaism does not equal Israel. New York: The New Press.
Engler, Yves. (2010). Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid. Halifax: Fernwood.
Freedland, Jonathan. “‘Israel Set on Tragic Path,’ says Chief Rabbi,” The Guardian, 27 August 2002.
Hassan, Zaha and Steven Goldberg. (n.d.). “Israel’s Wall: An Analysis of its Legal Validity under U.S. and International Law.” Website of U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.
Kairos Palestine. (2009). “A moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering.”
Klug, Francesca (2008). “Lessons from History.” In Anne Karpf, Brian Klug, Jacqueline Rose and Barbara Rosenbaum (eds.), A time to speak out: Independent Jewish Voices on Israel, Zionism and Jewish Identity. London: Verso.
Marquesee, Mike. (2008). “The Jews and the Left.” In Anne Karpf, Brian Klug, Jacqueline Rose and Barbara Rosenbaum (eds.), A Time to Speak Out: Independent Jewish Voices on Israel, Zionism and Jewish Identity. London: Verso.
Masalha, Nur. (2007). The Bible and Zionism: Invented traditions, archaeology and post-colonialism in Israel-Palestine. London: Zed Books.
Newman, Michael. (2005). “The Case Against Israel.” Petrolia, California: Counterpunch.
Pesikta Kahana. (Various dates). 140 b;cf, Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 1:18.
Rabkin, Yakov M. (2006). A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism (translated by Fred A. Reed).Halifax: Fernwood.
Shahak, Israel. (2002)
1IJV recognizes that the “Boycott Law,” passed in the Israel Knesset on 11 July 2011 complicates matters. We note, however, that challenges to the law were filed in Israel’s High Court of Justice on 12 July 2011 by Israel human rights and pro-peace organizations.
2 On 1 July 2011, the Canadian Jewish Congress ceased independent activities. Its functions have been taken over by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy.
). Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. London: Pluto Press.
---------------------
*Kairos Palestine Document “A Moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of palestinian suffering” http://www.kairospalestine.ps/sites/default/Documents/English.pdf (Shalom 1492)
22 July 2011, Independent Jewish Voices-Canada (IJV) http://ijvcanada.org (Canada)
Introduction
Independent Jewish Voices-Canada (IJV) is a national organization of Jews committed to a resolution of the conflict in Israel/Palestine based on the application of international law and respect for the human rights of all people.
Independent Jewish Voices wholeheartedly endorses the analysis and recommendations of A moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering, a seminal document drafted by senior church leaders in Israel/Palestine, and circulated by the ecumenical group, Kairos Palestine.
In addition, IJV strongly supports the document’s call for the world’s churches to join the international, non-violent, ethically-based campaign of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), an initiative whose goal is to pressure Israel to comply with international law and respect Palestinians’ human rights. We believe that this campaign has the potential to pressure Israel to adopt more ethical and just practices.1
In the following, we outline specific responses to A moment of truth. In the subsequent section, we include a brief critique of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) response to A moment of truth (2010).2
The IJV Response to A moment of truth
IJV strongly endorses the analysis and recommendations contained in the Kairos Palestine document. We see it as a profoundly compassionate call to the peoples of the world – including the people of Israel – to help Israel turn away from the crimes and injustices rooted in its ongoing occupation. The document calls on Israel to become “a state for all its citizens, with a vision constructed on respect for religion but also equality, justice, liberty and respect for pluralism and not on domination by a religion or a numerical majority”. Kairos Palestine, 2009:16
We see many parallels between the position of the Kairos Palestine writers and the point of view of IJV. Throughout its long history, Judaism, like Christianity, has included both those who promote justice and compassion, and those who protect the powerful at the expense of justice and the less strong. Marc Ellis, the Jewish theologian, describes those who promote justice and peace as Jews of conscience, in contrast to those who pursue power at all costs, whom he labels “Constantinian Jews” (2009:xii)
Although IJV is a human rights organization, and not religiously-based, we are committed to acting as Jews of conscience. Like Kairos Palestine, our members are united by a commitment to pursue social justice, the universal of human rights, and the rigorous application of international law.
IJV members who are religiously inclined can point to core Jewish religious values in the Torah which reflect this perspective. For example, the injunction “do not ill-treat a stranger [i.e., the non-Jew] or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Israel” (Exodus 22:21) appears 36 times in the Torah. In 2002, British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks declared “I regard this as one of the core projects of a state that is true to Judaic principles” (quoted in Freedland, 2002). Rabbi Simean ben Gamaliel, one of Judaism’s most respected sages, quoted Zacharia 8:16: “Execute truth, justice and peace, within your gates,” and emphasized that “these three are interlinked when justice is done, truth is achieved, and peace is established” (Pirke Avot, 1:18). In addition, there is a long tradition of secular Jewish movements which have promoted universal justice and equality (Klug, 2008). However, as Mike Marquesee’s excellent historical study noted, “both Zionists and anti-Zionists, liberals and fundamentalists can find succour in the prophetic texts” (2008:231). Many Israeli rabbis (and politicians) cite scripture to justify Israel’s claims to all the land mentioned in the Bible and use it to attempt to sanctify the violent expulsion of the Palestinians from their land (Shahak, 2002). For example, Rabbi Zvi Yehud Kook said “This land is ours, there are no Arab lands here…within its entire biblical borders it belongs to Israeli rule…this is the decision of divine politics which no earthly politics can overcome” (quoted in Arieli, 2011).
It is our view that all people have an ethical obligation to reject such expedient arguments. Instead we must dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of peace rooted in social justice and compassion. A moment of truth reflects these values and we therefore enthusiastically support it. IJV agrees with the Kairos document that the international campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions constitutes an ethical and non-violent response to the crimes it enumerates. The campaign is rooted, not in a desire to damage Israel, but, rather, to help liberate Israel from the dangerously destructive (and self-destructive) path that it has pursued for many years. Our belief in the moral and practical force of BDS motivated our organization’s 2009 decision to adopt a resolution supporting BDS. Support for BDS campaigns is now one of IJV’s highest priorities.
More specifically, we endorse the view of A moment of truth that:
1. Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its many oppressive elements – the separation wall, the blockade of Gaza, the ever-expanding system of Israeli colony-settlements, the proliferation of military checkpoints on Palestinian lands, the enforced separation of family members, the restriction of the exercise of religious liberty, the denial of refugees’ right of return, the arbitrary arrest and torture of prisoners, the expulsion of Palestinians from Jerusalem and the related pressure on them to emigrate, the disregard for international law and United Nations resolutions, the application of collective punishment, and other egregious actions – constitute serious ethical, moral and legal violations. Along with economic and other consequences, these violations directly injure and kill Palestinians. Simultaneously, these actions blight the lives of Israelis as well as those who are not directly involved,inuring them to systematic and ongoing violations of ethics and integrity.
2. While all human-rights violations must be condemned, we believe that it is necessary to situate the Palestinian violence that exists – as well as some of the major internal political conflicts within Palestinian society – in the context of overwhelming oppression rooted in decades of Israel’s occupation. We believe it is relevant in this context to acknowledge that Israel has for decades been free to act with impunity. This is due, in large part, to the enormous political and financial support it has enjoyed from the international community. As A moment of truth argues, ending the occupation and the associated injustices through the application of non-violent, ethical tools like BDS will eliminate the most significant causes of Palestinian violence.
3. Israel cannot ethically justify its systematic abuse of the Palestinian people by characterizing legitimate Palestinian resistance as “terrorism” or by pointing to the human-rights failings of other Middle Eastern countries. The requirement to act ethically and morally is an imperative which cannot be abandoned by reference to the real or imagined failings of others. Members of civil society – all of us! – have an ethical obligation to speak out and to take action against injustice and to promote justice, peace and dignity. Resistance against oppression is an ethical obligation not only for the oppressed, but also for those who have made oppression possible by supporting, condoning, or simply ignoring it.
4.Israel cannot claim Biblical justification for the sins associated with its occupation. For a detailed analysis of theologically-based Jewish opposition to Zionism, readers are referred to A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, written by IJV member and University of Montreal professor, Yakov Rabkin (2006). Nur Masalha’s The Bible and Zionism (2007) exposes the historically inaccurate Biblical basis for Israel’s claims to Jewish ownership of the land.
5. The Bible does not provide Jewish Israelis with a legal claim to the land. Jews from Europe, the United States, Canada, Russia, and elsewhere, who have chosen to settle in Israel cannot invoke a legitimate aboriginal claim to this land. As the Canadian philosopher Michael Newman argues, “Each individual person certainly has a right to live somewhere, but an ethnic group has no right to live somewhere together.… [N]o one seems to think that all Italians, all over the world, have a right to live in one huge nation, excluding all others. If they all want to go back to Italy, fine, but certainly they [don’t have the right to] to expel others to make room in their ‘homeland,’ or expand that homeland to fulfill the project of reversing their Diaspora” (2005:12).
The IJV response to the Canadian Jewish Congress reaction to A moment of truth
In stark contrast to the thoughtful, compassionate and balanced tone of the Kairos Palestine document, the Canadian Jewish Congress’s response is hostile, defensive and logically inconsistent. The CJC response repeatedly responds to concerns raised in the Kairos Palestine document by setting up straw men and knocking them down. Rather than a meaningful and methodical engagement with the arguments made in A moment of truth, a reflective document which takes as its starting point the consequences of Israel’s long occupation, the CJC response deploys the time-worn language of hasbara – the Hebrew word used by the Israel government and its supporters to describe efforts to explain the government’s actions and to promote and defend Israel in the face of criticism. The term is a euphemism for pro-Israel propaganda. IJV regrets that there is little intellectual depth to the CJC critique, and notes that while there is an apparent attempt to link the CJC’s comments to the observations in the Kairos document, any such link is illusory.
It is clear to us that the CJC responders refused to hear the words so eloquently put forward by the authors of the Kairos document. On the basis of what is presented in the CJC’s response, we are forced to conclude that the serious dialogue initiated by those who drafted the Kairos document has fallen on
deaf ears. The consequence of this refusal to hear is that the CJC piece amounts to little more than a tired rehashing of traditional rationalizations of Israeli intransigence. It does not constitute a worthy response to the heartfelt cry for justice embodied in A moment of truth.
In addition to its other failings, what comes across from the CJC authors is an apparently deep-seated desire to “even the score” with the writers of the Kairos document. This is not surprising. Those who attempt to defend or rationalize injustice often respond angrily when others recognize that what they are doing is unjust. In situations such as this, it is advantageous to turn the tables – to deny misdeeds and to minimize or rationalize those that cannot be denied; to blame the victim for whatever has transpired; to feign victimhood oneself; to invoke guilt to silence outside observers; and finally, if all else fails, to threaten those who continue to insist that the injustice must be addressed. It is our observation that the CJC document and, indeed, hasbara in general, is characterized by the use of such techniques.
Ultimately, all hasbara-based strategy is designed to avoid engaging with the issues raised and to disclaim responsibility. Thus, if the victim of injustice is provoked to act against his oppression, the victimizer can respond by arguing that it is he who is the innocent victim.
This is not the place for a detailed refutation of the time-worn “explanations” contained in the CJC document; many other writers, some of whom we reference here, have prepared full and nuanced analyses on the subject.
Conclusion
With Kairos Palestine, IJV affirms that it is a moral and ethical imperative to acknowledge the reality of Israel’s oppression of Palestinian people and to take action to end that oppression. This is essential, as much for the moral integrity and long-term security of Jewish Israelis, as it is for the well-being of the Palestinians. IJV therefore wholeheartedly endorses the A moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering. We join with the framers of the Kairos Palestine document in calling for the implementation of BDS and other actions to encourage Israel to abandon its unconscionable practices and policies.
1IJV recognizes that the “Boycott Law,” passed in the Israel Knesset on 11 July 2011 complicates matters. We note, however, that challenges to the law were filed in Israel’s High Court of Justice on 12 July 2011 by Israel human rights and pro-peace organizations.
2 On 1 July 2011, the Canadian Jewish Congress ceased independent activities. Its functions have been taken over by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy.
References and Readings
Amit, Zalman and Daphna Levit. (2011). Israeli Rejectionism: A hidden agenda in the Middle East Peace Process. New York: Pluto Press.
Arieli, Shaul. “We must Stop Israel from becoming a theocracy,” Ha’Aretz, 6 July 2011.
Canadian Jewish Congress. (2010). “ CJC Response to KAIROS Palestine’s policy paper, ‘A Moment of Truth’ ”
Ellis, Marc. (2009). Judaism does not equal Israel. New York: The New Press.
Engler, Yves. (2010). Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid. Halifax: Fernwood.
Freedland, Jonathan. “‘Israel Set on Tragic Path,’ says Chief Rabbi,” The Guardian, 27 August 2002.
Hassan, Zaha and Steven Goldberg. (n.d.). “Israel’s Wall: An Analysis of its Legal Validity under U.S. and International Law.” Website of U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.
Kairos Palestine. (2009). “A moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering.”
Klug, Francesca (2008). “Lessons from History.” In Anne Karpf, Brian Klug, Jacqueline Rose and Barbara Rosenbaum (eds.), A time to speak out: Independent Jewish Voices on Israel, Zionism and Jewish Identity. London: Verso.
Marquesee, Mike. (2008). “The Jews and the Left.” In Anne Karpf, Brian Klug, Jacqueline Rose and Barbara Rosenbaum (eds.), A Time to Speak Out: Independent Jewish Voices on Israel, Zionism and Jewish Identity. London: Verso.
Masalha, Nur. (2007). The Bible and Zionism: Invented traditions, archaeology and post-colonialism in Israel-Palestine. London: Zed Books.
Newman, Michael. (2005). “The Case Against Israel.” Petrolia, California: Counterpunch.
Pesikta Kahana. (Various dates). 140 b;cf, Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 1:18.
Rabkin, Yakov M. (2006). A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism (translated by Fred A. Reed).Halifax: Fernwood.
Shahak, Israel. (2002)
1IJV recognizes that the “Boycott Law,” passed in the Israel Knesset on 11 July 2011 complicates matters. We note, however, that challenges to the law were filed in Israel’s High Court of Justice on 12 July 2011 by Israel human rights and pro-peace organizations.
2 On 1 July 2011, the Canadian Jewish Congress ceased independent activities. Its functions have been taken over by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy.
). Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. London: Pluto Press.
---------------------
*Kairos Palestine Document “A Moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of palestinian suffering” http://www.kairospalestine.ps/sites/default/Documents/English.pdf (Shalom 1492)
sexta-feira, 1 de julho de 2011
THE JEWISH AYATOLLAHS
2 Junho 2011, Uri Avnery's Column http://www.avnery-news.co.il (Israel)
A protestant priest in Berlin decrees that a Christian who employs a Jew will be banished from his parish.
Impossible? Indeed. Except in Israel – in reverse, of course.
The rabbi of Safed, a government employee, has decreed that it is strictly forbidden to let apartments to Arabs – including the Arab students at the local medical school. Twenty other town rabbis – whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers, mostly secular, including Arab citizens - have publicly supported this edict.
A group of Israeli intellectuals lodged a complaint with the Attorney General, arguing that this is a case of criminal incitement. The Attorney General promised to investigate the matter with all due haste. That was half a year ago. “Due haste” has not yet produced a decision.
The same goes for another group of rabbis, who prohibited employing Goyim.
(In ancient Hebrew, “Goy” just meant a people, any people. In the Bible, the Israelites were called a “holy Goy”. But in the last centuries, the term has come to mean non-Jews, with a decidedly derogatory undertone.)
THIS WEEK, Israel was in uproar. The turmoil was caused by the arrest of Rabbi Dov Lior.
The affair goes back to a book released more than a year ago by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira. Shapira is, perhaps, the most extreme inhabitant of Yitzhar, which is perhaps the most extreme settlement in the West Bank. Its members are frequently accused of carrying out pogroms in the nearby Palestinian villages, generally in “retaliation” for army actions against structures that have been built without official consent.
The book, called Torat ha-Melekh (“the Teaching of the King”) deals with the killing of Goyim. It says that in peacetime, Goyim should generally not be killed – not because of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” which, according to the book, applies to Jews only, but because of God’s command after the Deluge (Genesis 9:6): “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man.” This applies to all Goyim who fulfill some basic commandments.
However, the situation is totally different in wartime. And according to the rabbis, Israel has been at war since its foundation, and probably will be for ever more.
In war, in every place where the presence of a Goy endangers a Jew, it is permitted to kill him, even though he be a righteous goy who bears no responsibility for the situation. It is permitted – indeed, recommended – to kill not only enemy fighters, but also those who “support” or “encourage” them. It is permitted to kill enemy civilians if this is helpful for the conduct of the war.
(Intentionally or not, this is reflected in the tactics employed by our army in the “Cast Lead” operation: to protect the life of a single Israeli soldier, it is permissible to kill as many Palestinians as necessary. The result: some 1300 dead Palestinians, half of them non-combatants, as against five soldiers killed by hostile action. Six more were killed by “friendly fire”.)
What really set off a storm was a passage in the book that says that it is permitted to kill children, when it is clear that once they grow up, they can be “harmful”.
It is customary for a book by a rabbi interpreting Jewish law to bear the endorsement – called haskama (“agreement”) – of other prominent rabbis. This particular masterpiece bore the “haskama” of four prominent rabbis. One of them is Dov Lior.
RABBI LIOR (the name can be translated as “I have the light” or “the light has been given to me”) stands out as one of the most extreme rabbis in the West Bank settlements – no mean achievement in a territory that is abundantly stocked with extreme rabbis, most of whom would be called fascist in any other country. He is the rabbi of Kiryat Arba, the settlement on the fringes of Hebron that cultivates the teachings of Meir Kahane and that produced the mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein.
Lior is also the chief of a Hesder yeshiva, a religious school affiliated with the army, whose pupils combine their studies (purely religious) with privileged army service.
When the book – now in its third printing – first appeared, there was an uproar. No rabbi protested, though quite a number discounted its religious argumentation. The Orthodox distanced themselves, if only on the ground that it violated the religious rule that forbids “provoking the Goyim”.
Following public demand, the Attorney General started a criminal investigation against the author and the four signatories of the “haskama”. They were called in for questioning, and most did appear and protested that they had had no time to read the book.
Lior, the text of whose “haskama” testified to the fact that he had read the book thoroughly, did not heed repeated summons to appear at the police station. He ignored them openly and contemptuously. This week the police reacted to the insult: they ambushed the rabbi on the “tunnel road” – a road with several tunnels between Jerusalem and Hebron, reserved for Jews – and arrested him. They did not handcuff him and put him in a police car, as they normally would, but replaced his driver with a police officer, who drove him straight to a police station. There he was politely questioned for an hour and set free.
The news of the arrest spread like wildfire throughout the settlements. Hundreds of the “Youth of the Hills” – groups of young settlers who carry out pogroms and spit on the law – gathered at the entrance to Jerusalem, battled with the police and cut the main road to the capital.
(I can’t really complain about that, because I was the first to do so. In 1965, I was elected to the Knesset and Teddy Kollek was elected mayor of Jerusalem. One of the first things he did was to pander to the Orthodox and close whole neighborhoods on the Shabbat. One of the first things I did was to call on my supporters to protest. We closed the entrance to Jerusalem for some hours until we were forcibly removed.)
But closing roads and parading the released Lior triumphantly on their shoulders was not the only thing the young fanatics did. They also tried to storm the Supreme Court building. Why this building in particular? That t requires some explanation.
THE ISRAELI right-wing, and especially the settlers and their rabbis, have long lists of hate objects. Some of these have been published. I have the honor of appearing on most. But the Supreme Court occupies a place high up, if not at the very top.
Why? The court has not covered itself with glory when dealing with the occupied territories. It has allowed the destruction of many Palestinian homes as retaliation for “terrorist” acts, approved “moderate” torture, assented to the “separation fence” (which was condemned by the international court), and generally positioned itself as an arm of the occupation.
But in some cases, the law has not enabled the court to wriggle out of its responsibilities. It has called for the demolition of “outposts” set up on private Palestinian property. It has forbidden “targeted killing” if the person could be arrested without risk, it has decreed that it is unlawful to prevent an Arab citizen from living in a village on state-owned land, and so on.
Each such decision drew a howl of rage from the rightists. But there is a deeper reason for the extreme antagonism.
UNLIKE MODERN Christianity, but very much like Islam, the Jewish religion is not just a matter between Man and God, but also a matter between Man and Man. It does not live in a quiet corner of public life. Religious law encompasses all aspects of public and private life. Therefore, for a pious Jew - or Muslim - the European idea of separation between state and religion is anathema.
The Jewish Halakha, like the Islamic Shari’a, regulates every single aspect of life. Whenever Jewish law clashes with Israeli law, which one should prevail? The one enacted by the democratically elected Knesset, which can be changed at any moment if the people want it, or the one handed down by God on Mount Sinai for all time, that cannot ever be changed (at most can be interpreted differently)?
Religious fanatics in Israel insist that religious law stands above the secular law (as in several Arab counties), and that the state courts have no jurisdiction over the clerics in matters that concern religion (as in Iran). When the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, the most respected Orthodox rabbi easily mobilized 100 thousand protesters in Jerusalem. For years now, religious cabinet ministers, law professors and politicians, as well as their political supporters, have been busy chipping away at the integrity, independence and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
This is the crux of the matter. The Attorney General considers a book calling for the killing of innocent children an act of criminal incitement. The rabbis and their supporters consider this an impertinent interference in a learned religious debate. There can be no real compromise between these two views.
For Israelis, this is not just an academic question. The entire religious community, with all its diverse factions, now belongs to the rightist, ultra-nationalist camp (except for pitiful little outposts like Reform and Conservative Jewry, who are the majority among American Jews). Transforming Israel into a Halakha state means castrating the democratic system and turning Israel into a second Iran governed by Jewish ayatollahs.
It will also make peace impossible for all time, since according to the rabbis all of the Holy Land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River belongs solely to the Jews, and giving the Goyim even an inch of it is a mortal sin, punishable by death. For this sin, Yitzhak Rabin was executed by the student of a religious university, a former settler.
Not the whole religious camp subscribes to the unrelenting extremism of Rabbi Lior and his ilk. There are many other trends. But all of these keep quiet. It is Lior, the rabbi who Possesses the Light, and his like-minded colleagues, who chart the course.
A protestant priest in Berlin decrees that a Christian who employs a Jew will be banished from his parish.
Impossible? Indeed. Except in Israel – in reverse, of course.
The rabbi of Safed, a government employee, has decreed that it is strictly forbidden to let apartments to Arabs – including the Arab students at the local medical school. Twenty other town rabbis – whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers, mostly secular, including Arab citizens - have publicly supported this edict.
A group of Israeli intellectuals lodged a complaint with the Attorney General, arguing that this is a case of criminal incitement. The Attorney General promised to investigate the matter with all due haste. That was half a year ago. “Due haste” has not yet produced a decision.
The same goes for another group of rabbis, who prohibited employing Goyim.
(In ancient Hebrew, “Goy” just meant a people, any people. In the Bible, the Israelites were called a “holy Goy”. But in the last centuries, the term has come to mean non-Jews, with a decidedly derogatory undertone.)
THIS WEEK, Israel was in uproar. The turmoil was caused by the arrest of Rabbi Dov Lior.
The affair goes back to a book released more than a year ago by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira. Shapira is, perhaps, the most extreme inhabitant of Yitzhar, which is perhaps the most extreme settlement in the West Bank. Its members are frequently accused of carrying out pogroms in the nearby Palestinian villages, generally in “retaliation” for army actions against structures that have been built without official consent.
The book, called Torat ha-Melekh (“the Teaching of the King”) deals with the killing of Goyim. It says that in peacetime, Goyim should generally not be killed – not because of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” which, according to the book, applies to Jews only, but because of God’s command after the Deluge (Genesis 9:6): “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man.” This applies to all Goyim who fulfill some basic commandments.
However, the situation is totally different in wartime. And according to the rabbis, Israel has been at war since its foundation, and probably will be for ever more.
In war, in every place where the presence of a Goy endangers a Jew, it is permitted to kill him, even though he be a righteous goy who bears no responsibility for the situation. It is permitted – indeed, recommended – to kill not only enemy fighters, but also those who “support” or “encourage” them. It is permitted to kill enemy civilians if this is helpful for the conduct of the war.
(Intentionally or not, this is reflected in the tactics employed by our army in the “Cast Lead” operation: to protect the life of a single Israeli soldier, it is permissible to kill as many Palestinians as necessary. The result: some 1300 dead Palestinians, half of them non-combatants, as against five soldiers killed by hostile action. Six more were killed by “friendly fire”.)
What really set off a storm was a passage in the book that says that it is permitted to kill children, when it is clear that once they grow up, they can be “harmful”.
It is customary for a book by a rabbi interpreting Jewish law to bear the endorsement – called haskama (“agreement”) – of other prominent rabbis. This particular masterpiece bore the “haskama” of four prominent rabbis. One of them is Dov Lior.
RABBI LIOR (the name can be translated as “I have the light” or “the light has been given to me”) stands out as one of the most extreme rabbis in the West Bank settlements – no mean achievement in a territory that is abundantly stocked with extreme rabbis, most of whom would be called fascist in any other country. He is the rabbi of Kiryat Arba, the settlement on the fringes of Hebron that cultivates the teachings of Meir Kahane and that produced the mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein.
Lior is also the chief of a Hesder yeshiva, a religious school affiliated with the army, whose pupils combine their studies (purely religious) with privileged army service.
When the book – now in its third printing – first appeared, there was an uproar. No rabbi protested, though quite a number discounted its religious argumentation. The Orthodox distanced themselves, if only on the ground that it violated the religious rule that forbids “provoking the Goyim”.
Following public demand, the Attorney General started a criminal investigation against the author and the four signatories of the “haskama”. They were called in for questioning, and most did appear and protested that they had had no time to read the book.
Lior, the text of whose “haskama” testified to the fact that he had read the book thoroughly, did not heed repeated summons to appear at the police station. He ignored them openly and contemptuously. This week the police reacted to the insult: they ambushed the rabbi on the “tunnel road” – a road with several tunnels between Jerusalem and Hebron, reserved for Jews – and arrested him. They did not handcuff him and put him in a police car, as they normally would, but replaced his driver with a police officer, who drove him straight to a police station. There he was politely questioned for an hour and set free.
The news of the arrest spread like wildfire throughout the settlements. Hundreds of the “Youth of the Hills” – groups of young settlers who carry out pogroms and spit on the law – gathered at the entrance to Jerusalem, battled with the police and cut the main road to the capital.
(I can’t really complain about that, because I was the first to do so. In 1965, I was elected to the Knesset and Teddy Kollek was elected mayor of Jerusalem. One of the first things he did was to pander to the Orthodox and close whole neighborhoods on the Shabbat. One of the first things I did was to call on my supporters to protest. We closed the entrance to Jerusalem for some hours until we were forcibly removed.)
But closing roads and parading the released Lior triumphantly on their shoulders was not the only thing the young fanatics did. They also tried to storm the Supreme Court building. Why this building in particular? That t requires some explanation.
THE ISRAELI right-wing, and especially the settlers and their rabbis, have long lists of hate objects. Some of these have been published. I have the honor of appearing on most. But the Supreme Court occupies a place high up, if not at the very top.
Why? The court has not covered itself with glory when dealing with the occupied territories. It has allowed the destruction of many Palestinian homes as retaliation for “terrorist” acts, approved “moderate” torture, assented to the “separation fence” (which was condemned by the international court), and generally positioned itself as an arm of the occupation.
But in some cases, the law has not enabled the court to wriggle out of its responsibilities. It has called for the demolition of “outposts” set up on private Palestinian property. It has forbidden “targeted killing” if the person could be arrested without risk, it has decreed that it is unlawful to prevent an Arab citizen from living in a village on state-owned land, and so on.
Each such decision drew a howl of rage from the rightists. But there is a deeper reason for the extreme antagonism.
UNLIKE MODERN Christianity, but very much like Islam, the Jewish religion is not just a matter between Man and God, but also a matter between Man and Man. It does not live in a quiet corner of public life. Religious law encompasses all aspects of public and private life. Therefore, for a pious Jew - or Muslim - the European idea of separation between state and religion is anathema.
The Jewish Halakha, like the Islamic Shari’a, regulates every single aspect of life. Whenever Jewish law clashes with Israeli law, which one should prevail? The one enacted by the democratically elected Knesset, which can be changed at any moment if the people want it, or the one handed down by God on Mount Sinai for all time, that cannot ever be changed (at most can be interpreted differently)?
Religious fanatics in Israel insist that religious law stands above the secular law (as in several Arab counties), and that the state courts have no jurisdiction over the clerics in matters that concern religion (as in Iran). When the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, the most respected Orthodox rabbi easily mobilized 100 thousand protesters in Jerusalem. For years now, religious cabinet ministers, law professors and politicians, as well as their political supporters, have been busy chipping away at the integrity, independence and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
This is the crux of the matter. The Attorney General considers a book calling for the killing of innocent children an act of criminal incitement. The rabbis and their supporters consider this an impertinent interference in a learned religious debate. There can be no real compromise between these two views.
For Israelis, this is not just an academic question. The entire religious community, with all its diverse factions, now belongs to the rightist, ultra-nationalist camp (except for pitiful little outposts like Reform and Conservative Jewry, who are the majority among American Jews). Transforming Israel into a Halakha state means castrating the democratic system and turning Israel into a second Iran governed by Jewish ayatollahs.
It will also make peace impossible for all time, since according to the rabbis all of the Holy Land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River belongs solely to the Jews, and giving the Goyim even an inch of it is a mortal sin, punishable by death. For this sin, Yitzhak Rabin was executed by the student of a religious university, a former settler.
Not the whole religious camp subscribes to the unrelenting extremism of Rabbi Lior and his ilk. There are many other trends. But all of these keep quiet. It is Lior, the rabbi who Possesses the Light, and his like-minded colleagues, who chart the course.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)