October 15, 2015
Uprooted Palestinian 
In the above picture, which figure exhibits the greatest degree of humanity?
[Ed. note – A friend emailed me the article posted below along with the following comment: “If you sense this ‘rabbinical debate’ is cold-blooded, the public comments are worse (not included). Rabbis offer no context, no recognition of the origins of this intifada.” The origins of the present intifada of course include last summer’s war on Gaza, which killed more than 2,000 Palestinians, as well as the more recent attacks on the Al Aqsa mosque by Jewish settlers. You could probably also throw in land theft, endless occupation, and bulldozing of homes as causes as well.
But as you read the article below, you’ll notice, of course, that the “rabbis” are apparently wholly oblivious to these things. Their comments, as well as the reader comments below the article, should you wish to follow the link and read them, are steeped in Jewish supremacism. There is little evidence any of them view Palestinians in particular, or perhaps even non-Jews in general, as human. The comments of Rabbi David Stav are especially illustrative. Stav takes the purportedly “liberal” and “humane” position in the debate, advocating against killing wounded Palestinians. Yet even Stav, as you will observe, seems thoroughly convinced of Jewish “moral superiority” as he puts it. The irony is not to be missed: here are a group of individuals having a debate about murdering people while at the same time according a “moral superiority” to themselves.
By the way, if you have not yet read my article, Israeli Settlers: Are They ‘Civilians’ or Legitimate Military Targets?, you might wish to do so since the issues highlighted by the quoted comments in the article below overlap, on a number of levels, with the issues I covered in that previous post.]
Israel–Rabbis in Conflict Over Whether to Kill Wounded Terrorists
Israel – Several senior rabbis have raised a heated debate in the last few days over the approach in Jewish law toward a terrorist who has committed a terror attack but is subsequently wounded and incapacitated.
Earlier this week, prominent national-religious rabbi and chairman of the Tzohar rabbinical association, Rabbi David Stav, said that the nation was facing trying and difficult times but insisted that a terrorist who has committed an attack but has been wounded and therefore no longer represents a threat should not be further harmed.
“In these days in which the blood is boiling… it is important to preserve our moral superiority: [We must] not harm those who are not involved in murderous acts and we must not harm those who have already been neutralized and do not represent a threat,” the rabbi ruled.
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, municipal chief rabbi of Safed, reacted to Stav’s comments, and said a terrorist who had committed murder should himself be killed.
“It is forbidden to leave a murderer alive,” Eliyahu told the Galei Yisrael radio station on Wednesday. He accused Tzohar rabbis of “forgetting Jewish law” and said “they are only interested in looking good to non-Jews.”
“Jewish law is clear… there are courts which can avenge blood and there are individuals who can avenge blood. This is the Jewish law, if the court does not avenge the blood then an individual can avenge the blood,” he added.
To “avenge blood” is a concept in Jewish law relating to the punishment for murder and manslaughter.
“We can’t think all day about what others are thinking about us,” the rabbi concluded.
Rabbi Ben Zion Mutzafi
Another senior rabbinical figure, prominent ultra-Orthodox arbiter of Jewish law Rabbi Ben-Tzion Mutzafi, was also fiercely critical of Stav’s approach.
According to the Srugim news website, Mutzafi was asked by his students whether, if a terrorist has been wounded and incapacitated, it is permitted according to Jewish law to kill him or not.
“It is commanded to take hold of his head and hit it against the ground until there is no longer any life in it,” Mutzafi responded.
“Do not listen to Stav, for the one who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful,” he added.
Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, municipal chief rabbi of Ramat Gan and one of the most senior national-religious leaders, has also waded into the debate.
He was asked in a question on the yeshiva.org website about the differing opinions voiced by the rabbis on the issue.
Ariel backed Stav’s initial comments, replying that when the terrorist still presents a danger it is permitted to kill him.
“If the danger has passed and the terrorist is restrained or injured, [people] must act wisely, judiciously and not through spontaneous emotion,” ruled Ariel.
“In Islam, the commandment to avenge blood is a big commandment, and there is no need to add fuel to the fire. Death does not necessarily deter since the one killed becomes a ‘shahid’ [martyr]. It needs to be evaluated with security experts.”
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment