Weiss: Earlier today I complained that Americans are not getting the news about what Israel is becoming. My endless complaint. Here is someone who can cut the corridor, as they say: Max Blumenthal, whose message from Jerusalem a year ago was killed and killed and killed but still it lived, and who is now exploring the violent underbelly of Israeli settler fundamentalism, which is completely supported by the government. Here he's writing about the origins of a tract that encourages the murder of goyim, and tying it into the genocidal speech toward Palestinians by leading Orthodox rabbi Ovadia Yosef the other day (not part of this excerpt). Terrorism, in front of our eyes:
As soon as it was published late last year, Torat Ha’Melech sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an Israeli tabloid panned the book’s contents as “230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.” According to the book’s author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira... “If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder.”... Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”
In January, Shapira was briefly detained by the Israeli police, while two leading rabbis who endorsed the book, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, were summoned to interrogations by the Shabak. However, the rabbis refused to appear at the interrogations, essentially thumbing their noses at the state and its laws. And the government did nothing. The episode raised grave questions about the willingness of the Israeli government to confront the ferociously racist swathe of the country’s rabbinate...
In response to the rabbis’ public rebuke of the state’s legal system, the Israeli Attorney General and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kept silent. Indeed, since the publication of
Torat Ha’Melech, Netanyahu has strenuously avoided criticizing its contents or the author’s leading supporters. Like so many prime ministers before him, he has been cowed into submission by Israel’s religious nationalist community. But Netanyahu appears to be particularly impotent. His weakness stems from the fact that the religious nationalist right figures prominently in his governing coalition and comprises a substantial portion of his political base....
The disturbing philosophy expressed in Torat Ha’Melech emerged from the fevered atmosphere of a settlement called Yitzhar located in the northern West Bank near the Palestinian city of Nablus. Shapira leads the settlement’s Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, holding sway over a small army of fanatics who are eager to lash out at the Palestinians tending to their crops and livestock in the valleys below them. One of Shapira’s followers, an American immigrant named Jack Teitel, has confessed to murdering two innocent Palestinians and attempting to the kill the liberal Israeli historian Ze’ev Sternhell with a mail bomb. Teitel is suspected of many more murders, including an attack on a Tel Aviv gay community center.
Despite its apparent role as a terror training institute,
Od Yosef Chai has raked in nearly fifty thousanddollars from the Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs since 2007, while the Ministry of Education has pumped over 250 thousand dollars into the yeshiva’s coffers between 2006 and 2007.
this is some crazy assed stances. Radical and getting more so. Thanks Max for all of your work. Know you have been putting your own ass on the line in some cases
Where is it in Deutoronomy where it states that it is perfectly acceptable to apply different laws, treatment etc to non Jews vs Jews. All of these radical religious statements that elevate one group of people over another and voiced by fundamentalist in any Religion are frightening , dangerous and stupid
KATHLEEN- Many of these injunctions come from Talmud, not Torah. You might be interested in JEWISH HISTORY, JEWISH RELIGION: THE WEIGHT OF THREE THOUSAND YEARS by Israel Shahak. It is delightfully short and highly readable, yet chocked full of information.
Kathleen, check out the Sanhedrin.
Kathleen,
You can find Biblical sources for any number of beliefs. Leviticus 19:34 eloquently rules that non-Jews should be treated with the same love as fellow Jews.
The issue of a religious-ethnic community living among other groups is as old as the Bible and is a constant source of anxiety throughout Jewish history.
Parts of the Bible are quite horrific (take the wholesale slaughter of non-Israelites in the Book of Joshua, for example). The Talmud toned down some of the Bible’s excesses (for example, the relaxing of the injunction against intermarriage) but amped up the inter-communal animosity in countless other ways.
In dealing with non-Jews, Halacha considers several categories of non-Jew: the Cananite and the other six indigineous tribes, the Ammonites and Moabites, the resident alien (ger toshav), the Cananite slave. Different rules apply for each group.
There is always an overriding clause that nullifies previous Halachic rulings. For example in the 1930s, the pre-eminent Ashkenazi Halachic authority, Rabbi Kagan, ruled that a devout Jew is required to desecrate the Sabbath to save a Gentile’s life “in order to maintain the peace.” So, inter-communal harmony trumps other considerations.
There is no doubt in my mind that Zionism has shaped modern Halacha. By elevating obscure passages to an unprecedented prominence, settler rabbis – with Ovadia Yosef’s powerful support – have allowed settlers to desecrate the Sabbath in order to terrorize Palestinian farmers on the West Bank. Whenever you see white-shirted settlers disrupting a Palestinian farmer’s harvest (in B’tselem’s videos, among others), they are, most likely, following this ruling.
This kind of behavior would be have been foreign to Jews of a hundred years ago. Ovadia Yosef speaks with tremendous authority – but his rulings are, at the end of the day, innovations.
The same tack has been taken with the on-going debate about overt lethal discrimination in the Koran. The debate has not been limited to an internal debate between Muslims. The larger point is that the test of virtue is power. Well, for example, we have the treatment of non-Muslims in the Caliphate, and the contemporary treatment of non-Jews in the state of Israel. Many American Christians have been extremely concerned lately about
what the Koran says; very few have been concerned about about what Torah/Talmud says, reveals. Since Americans are engaged in a cultural war against Islam, or at least, Islam’s more fanatical adherents, and Americans fund Israel’s actions and support it diplomatically too, why
not have the debate as to both religions equally pursued? The Christian beliefs and history have been targeted continually during my whole life.
Are they the only main religion that is fair game, always?
>> In January, Shapira was briefly detained by the Israeli police, while two leading rabbis who endorsed the book, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, were summoned to interrogations by the Shabak. However, the rabbis refused to appear at the interrogations, essentially thumbing their noses at the state and its laws. And the government did nothing. The episode raised grave questions about the willingness of the Israeli government to confront the ferociously racist swathe of the country’s rabbinate…
>> In response to the rabbis’ public rebuke of the state’s legal system, the Israeli Attorney General and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kept silent.
>> The disturbing philosophy expressed in Torat Ha’Melech emerged from the fevered atmosphere of a settlement called Yitzhar located in the northern West Bank near the Palestinian city of Nablus. Shapira leads the settlement’s Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, holding sway over a small army of fanatics who are eager to lash out at the Palestinians tending to their crops and livestock in the valleys below them.
>> Despite its apparent role as a terror training institute, Od Yosef Chai has raked in nearly fifty thousand dollars from the Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs since 2007, while the Ministry of Education has pumped over 250 thousand dollars into the yeshiva’s coffers between 2006 and 2007.
Yup, nothing says “humanize ‘the Other’” better than a bunch of tribal goons writing / promoting / engaging in murder and their government permitting / financing their activities. How can Palestinians fail to appreciate these “better wheels”?!
Juan Cole quite rightly refers to this growing section of Israel’s population as the ‘Talibanisation’ of Israel, which aptly makes the point. Fundamentalism which is opposed to democracy, human rights or self-determination, and believes in a messianic exceptionalism. It’s all very well to say, as they will, that it is a small proportion of Israel’s Jewish population, but not only is it growing, even now it is enormously influential in government policy, and even more dangerously, among the de facto rulers of Israel – the military.
i personally feel this is an extremely important story the main stream press has completely evaded here in this country. this book, the ‘king’s torah’ is not being denounced as it should be, but defended by important rabbi’s in israel
Before an audience of 250 supporters including the far-right Israeli Knesset member Michael Ben-Ari, the rabbis declared in the name of the Holy Torah that would not submit to any attempt by the government to regulate their political activities — even and especially if those activities included inciting terrorist attacks against non-Jews. As one wizened rabbi after another rose up to inveigh against the government’s investigation of Torat Ha’Melech until his voice grew hoarse, the gathering degenerated into calls for murdering not just non-Jews, but secular Jews as well.
coteret has been consistently covering this most recently Israeli Ministry of Justice endorses extremist interpretations of Jewish Law. anyone who has not read the maariv article “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” ( updated to include max’s report) should, including all the updates at the bottom of the page (greenwald, silverstein, mj rosenberg, and December 6 2009 — Rabbi Elitzur and Ode Yosef Hai Yeshiva lead preparations for terrorizing West Bank Palestinians.. this event marked the beginning for the ‘price tags attacks’ which did bring many denouncments but no justice. while some try to portray this as a small problem the nyt yesterday mentions the population of religious settlers’ movement as 130,000. this doesn’t include israel proper.
it’s a problem. one US tax dollars are funding.
Part of the fight is theological, requiring knowledge of Torah, discussions, halacha, to which only the adherent are invited to participate.
The concept of religion justifying taking law into their own hands is the result of the messianic writing of Rabbis Kook, that took the religious view that the state of Israel was the messianic instrument, and not just another secular state that just happened to have the name Israel.
It is a struggle within Zionism, whether Zionism is essentially national and secular, or is halachic.
The left does not deal with that conflict coherently, carelessly lumping the two together.
As, Phil did above, carelessly, describing the Shas leader as “orthodox” leader, which is a generalization. It puts Gershon Gorenberg, Habad, my son, my orthodox feminist cousin in laws, in the same box as justifiers of murder.
Its important to question the rabbis on critical theological points, defining one’s reasoning originating in the spirit of deep respect for Torah and the “fear” of violating God’s commandments.
It is not an ethically compromised approach to do that, but is limited to those in the Jewish community, and must be approached very carefully.
The degree of latitude that I am criticized for here, for referring to my memory, is insufficient to make the weighted religious arguments capable of opposing those that rationalize their needs and failure of imagination as to means to meet those needs as somehow subscribing to Torah.
Torah very conspicuously compels respect for minorities, equal judgement, minimum harm towards enemies even during war, endeavoring to reconcile before entering war.
The haredi that I know are very critical of Israeli actions on the basis that it does not conform to those commandments. And, they are also periodic more assertive in demanding security than I express.
The presence of Israel and the prospect of Israel being the promised time in the promised land, caused halacha to be posed with very serious questions, which it cannot take lightly or as any rationalization for private lusts and needs.
Richard Witty wrote:
“Torah very conspicuously compels respect for minorities, equal judgement, minimum harm towards enemies even during war, endeavoring to reconcile before entering war.”
This is what I’m confused about. If you read Blumenthal’s article in toto and watch the YouTube clip that’s embedded there you’ll read and I think see one rabbi reacting to the criticism that was leveled at this King’s Torah book for saying things like it’s okay to kill babies and etc. And that rabbi’s reaction was … “hey, this book says nothing different than what’s in our Bible already,” and if you look at what Rabbi Yosef has now said, one can see that in a way all he said was taking the words of what seems a traditional enshrined doctrine and applying them to the present situation. (By merely saying they now applied to the Palestinians.)
And if you read Israel Shahak he says that indeed jewish religious texts have been fully of exactly the kind of thing in this King’s Torah and what Rabbi Yosef has said, and that while lots of it has been taken out over the years or centuries, such was done only so to not give anti-semites any evidence, so much so that he says lots of the really extreme stuff even was just re-written in a kind of code. (So that in at least some places where this or that holy text might now be reproduced as saying one has to be merciful to “all people of good will” or etc., the “code” is read as meaning only “jewish people” as all others are really just beasts of a kind, and that indeed the original text did just say “all people of the book/jews” or something like that.
So anyway I just don’t know; what the hell *is* in the bulk of the original, still sanctified texts? Is Shahak lying/exaggerating/polemicizing? Seems like this rabbi who says the King’s Torah isn’t different from the first book of the Bible doesn’t think so, but ….
Richard Witty further wrote:
“It is not an ethically compromised approach to ["question the rabbis on critical theological points"], but is limited to those in the Jewish community, and must be approached very carefully.”
Whoa. Why? Does the same apply to anti-semites? I.e. that challenging them must be done “carefully” and is limited only to other anti-semites? To Nazis? And how come I don’t see this being done when questioning muslims on their theological points?
Not really related to the specifics of the above at all but I think it might be noted anyway as regards this Rabbi Yosef’s comments that the ADL has apparently come out very strongly condemning his words. At least that’s what I read somewhere.
You are obviously not the person to articulate the arguments that would conflict with their assertions.
Halacha is not a dead fixed thing that doesn’t change.
There were two large changes in Torah and application.
1. Exile and diaspora living, starting very early, in which the concept of “put a fence around Torah” originated, in which much more careful approaches were installed to make sure that the commandments were not forgotten and applied. The way that they “accomplished” that was by communal isolation largely, self and other imposed.
2. Israel. It is a new context in Jewish religious thinking, and sadly insufficient debate. There is no new talmudic discussions formulated incorporating wide varieties of interpretations and concerns. So, Rabbi Yosef’s writings originate in a broken stream from the diaspora interpretations and also in a broken stream from the original, and a failure to inquire of what is required in the present.
The greatest sin a Torah scholar can do is to use Torah as a rationalization for personal or even collective gain or advantage. Its done all the time. Many do not regularly self-inquire to distinguish between what is “God’s will” and their own, in fact.
I don’t know if that is what Rabbi Yosef is doing or not. I know that his interpretations conflict fundamentally with my understanding, and sicken me in fact.
I am motivated to “make the better argument” if I can.
I guess I prefer simplicity, or maybe as you once said about one of my arguements, “childish”, but why do we need all this mumbo-jumbo?
You shouldn’t kill babies.
More complex – you shouldn’t use religious teachings/G-d to justify killing babies.
“It is a struggle within Zionism, whether Zionism is essentially national and secular, or is halachic.”
And gosh, what do you think the answer will be? At any rate, it must be stressed that no matter what the answer to the theological debate, any ideas of restitution and punishment for the decades of crimes already committed will be deemed anti-Semitic.
And the entire fricking world, including secular Jews, must wait patiently and abide Israel’s crimes and general intransigence until those Rabbis argue it out.
And if those Rabbis die first? No, we mustn’t think of that, G-d won’t let it happen!
What an ass you are, Witty, and the rest of your ilk. (us mooses don’t like ilk much) One minute the Gentiles are hot to kill all the Jews, which they could accomplish in a hot second, but the next minute the entire world must wait while Kooks in Israel argue over how not-very-bad it is to kill them.
Sorta seems like there’s a pretty common-sense answer for the Gentiles, considering the position you wish them to take.
Frankly, I’m waiting for G-d Hisself to tell me the answer to all those Talmud questions. When He e-mails (G-mails?) me and tells me my Jewishness demands killing Gentile babies, I’ll listen.
If I don’t hear from Him, I’ll stick to the more conservative course, and stick with the good ol’ Ten Commandments.
BTW, has anybody told those Rabbis (teachers) that God took away the priesthood from Jews? And we don’t have to regard those Rabbis’ opinions as anything other than ludicrous suggestions?
Now, I consider myself a good Jew (and you can go f—k yourself) and I’m always ready to change my opinion, as soon as I hear direct from the G-d.
Oh crap, gotta run! The shrubbery is on fire!
You know, I think G-d was ready to speak until he heard what these nut jobs were saying, and his jaw hit the ground (cloud?) leaving him speechless.
I keep a fire extinguisher near my shrub, just in case…..
‘Its important to question the rabbis on critical theological points, defining one’s reasoning originating in the spirit of deep respect for Torah … but is limited to those in the Jewish community, and must be approached very carefully.’
Playing the exclusivist card, eh? When the pope equated ordination of women priests to child abuse, he was flogged mercilessly in the secular press, and quite properly so.
But extremist rabbis, advocating murder, are immune from questioning by non-believers? Sorry. No. When religion turns political, there is no ‘faith-based exemption’ card.
RW there is something so off putting in your comments that it difficult to even reply. Here is the undisputed story: a rabbi is telling his flock when it is permissible to exterminate non-Jewish neighbors. And you reply, not with outrage, but an admonition to us who are not steeped in Halalic traditions or whatever, have no right to comment. Further, one must carefully enter this discussion in order to not hurt the feelings of these advocates of genocide. This is too strange for words. Please tell us Richard, what moral compass guides your actions?
I reply with strategy to opposition.
I’m a step and a half past outrage. That you can only conceive of outrage as political response, is a failing on your part.
So we’re supposed to assume you are off somewhere being outraged about extremist rabbis using Judaism as a vehicle for genocide, even though you are working to shield this particular rabbi from criticism?
I think one doth protest too much. The Palestinians have had to deal with this crap for 10 years without you as much as batting an eyelid – in pretty much every mainstream media outlet in the US.
It’s one of the reasons I find it hypocritical to highlight Koranic passages, and not do the same for Jewish law, and bible verses.
While it’s true that the degree varies as to how radical these interpetations of sacred text get, and how widespread these fundamentalist interpretations are – their is no denying that anyone’s “holy book” put under the microscope reveals unpleasant instructions.
Clearly, it is the actions and rhetoric of adherents that is to be judged, and the extent that the religious and civic power structure accept and condone, or condemn and reject such actions and rhetoric. There is plenty of blame to go around in that regard, as well as a lot to commend – from each belief group.
Not surprisingly, I had heard nothing myself (that I remember) about the actions of Jack Teitel or the attempted murder of historian Sternhell (and that’s as someone who tries to stay current on I/P issues).
Its actually hypocritical NOT to note the parallels in approaches.
Both need to be confronted within their own communities. I expect that most secular lay Muslims, cannot argue for an interpretation of Koran over another.
Phil, Adam, Max cannot credibly argue for an interpretation of halacha over another. (Maybe they can. I don’t know.)
Someone needs to.
American reconstructionist, reform, conservative, modern orthodox rabbis cannot. Sadly, no woman rabbi could. No even rebel former hasid rabbis can (say like Zalman Schacter).
It takes diving in, engaging, adhering, and then it may take decades or generations to have an effect.
“Both need to be confronted within their own communities.”
Leave the haredi allloooone!
So tell me Witty, what’s your son’s take on all this? I never killed the guy who drew on my notebook, but I still call myself a Jew. Shameful, huh?
I am reminded of something… :)
Is that Jack Teitel’s sister in that video clip?
Can we then agree that sectarians should have no say in how the secular world addresses issues as their approach would always insert their invisible buddy with the attendant dogma?
Seems fair.
Witty, you wrote, I expect that most secular lay Muslims, cannot argue for an interpretation of Koran over another.
You are completely unaware of what Islam is. (Stick to your knowledge of the Torah and the the Talmud.) Colonel Pat Lang who knows Islam better than most non-Muslim pundits (and delivered a fascinating talk about it, available online) wrote:
What you’ve suggested is asking the *impossible* and would most likely cause more bloodshed and violence than ever before in history.
You want faith groups (each within their own “kind” apparantly) to determine what the proper interpretations of the sacred texts are. Will you lump Catholics and Protestants together? If not, how many variations on Protestantism? Where to LDS fit? How many variations on Mormonism?
You gone from merely annoying to something far more out of touch.
What will you do with new revelations?
It’s all just ludicrous.
(Emphasis added.)
You desperately need an editor, Witty. Your whole commentary could really have been pared down to one incisive, hard-hitting statement that veritably buried in a mountain of chaff.
You desperately need an editor, Witty.
i’m particularly intrigued by this passage:
oh really!
Just listened to a 90-minute panel discussion titled Image of Muslims in the US featuring James Zogby, Salam al-Maryati, President of MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL, America, and Azizah Al-Hibri, Chair, Muslim Women for Human Rights.
There discussion was so reasonable, so filled with character and integrity, it made one weep for the US that, apparently, exists only in a fantasied past.
Right on que an ignorant member of the press posed the question: “NAME the MODERATE Muslims who condemned . . .”
Well, turnabout is fair play: Is tough guy Benjamin Netanyahu such an impotent wuss that he cannot condemn the terror tactics of a rabbi who preaches mass homicide? Or maybe mass homicide — as long as it’s only goyim — is integral to Judaism, just as violence is integral to Islam (and, to shatter the parallel, stupid is, increasingly, integral to Americanism).
This kind of thinking is not limited to Israel.
A few months ago Chuck Schumer –one of the leading Israel firsters in the Senate — was quoted as saying the Palestinians should be economically strangled because they did not accept the Torah and King David.
Here is a good one
link to seminal.firedoglake.com
Every time BYahoo appears in public, he should be asked if he condemns Ovadia Yosef’s remarks, as he has so far refused to do.
Thanks for sharing.
The “ignorant member of the press” you’re talking about in the Q&A?
James Lafferty, Virginia Anti-Sharia Task Force.
Demonstrating in the NY Israel rally: link to youtube.com
Go figure?
Anti-Sharia Taskforce. I, I.. Agggh…
Just two points to make.
1) This kill the goyim attitude is one of the main reason’s Christians have pogromed Jews over the Centuries. Wonder where the idea that Jews steal Christian Babies and offer them as sacifices? Look no further.
2) Why can’t Alexander Solzhenitzyn book “200 Years Together” be translated into English from Russian and published. According to those who have read the German and Russian editions, he examines how this type of mentality and attitudes effected secular Jews who mostly worked in the Checka, in the early 1920s.
This virulent Jewish racism exhibited by extremist rabbis has an echo effect across all levels of society.
Here’s a site that is translating Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together. They are raising/ have raised money to pay for a translation from the original Russian to English. Translating from the French version would probably have been easier but I guess they want to be exactly exact in the translation.
link to ethnopoliticsonline.com
Here is the translation of Chapter 18 “The 1920′s” addressing the Jewish part in revol Russia
link to ethnopoliticsonline.com
I haven’t had time to read thru it except for a few pages but it starts off with the breaking of the repression of the Jews in Russia and the results thereafter.
I had looked for a translation several years ago when it was first mentioned but couldn’t find one so forgot about it….but I knew that sooner or later someone would translate it and put in on the net.
examines how this type of mentality and attitudes effected secular Jews who mostly worked in the Checka, in the early 1920s.
It was more than “worked in the Checka.” Read Sever Plocker history lesson “Stalin’s Jews” in ynetnews.
link to ynetnews.com
Well there are a couple of ways to treat this.
We could wonder about what would happen if a group like the KKK published a similar book in the USA about the necessity of killing Jews .
Or we could wonder why the Palestine lobby (they need one) doesn’t put up huge billboards in cities advertising the Rabbi’s book in the US. LOL.
What’s not funny is that the Israeli government did nothing about it.
“What’s not funny is that the Israeli government did nothing about it.”
Does nothing about it? Oh, they do a hell of a lot about it! In fact, I read right here on this very website that the Israeli Army draws many soldiers and many Officers from those who live in the settlements. Do you understand the implications of that? Another words, they draw their people from a pool of criminals, to put it plainly.
“they draw their people from a pool of criminals, ”
I think we had already guessed that.
This passage takes takes the doctrine of preemption to a whole new level:
“There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”
I’m sure Richard and others have a far greater knowledge of this, but I remember that certain Orthodox sects did not have to serve in the IDF. If these guys serve, that’s not a good thing for the IDF. Kinda puts a crimp in the command structure.
Another reason to put conditions on foreign aid. The Israeli govt. helps fund them which means our govt. indirectly does too.
Back in 1864 Colorado militia under the command of Colonel Chivington carried out the infamous Sand Creek massacre of 150 peaceful Indians. When asked why his men had deliberately killed Indian children Chivington is reported to have replied “nits make lice.”
When another people is demonized as sub-human the most unspeakable atrocities become not only possible but probable.
Chivington and modern day genocidal rabbis are truly brothers under the skin.
one shot two kills.
The Israeli govt. helps fund them which means our govt. indirectly does too. An NGO worker based in Durfur published an anecdotal article in the Online Journal last year in which he claimed that all donations for Durfur (millions) were secretly funneled to the Israeli settlements.
That’s a pretty serious accusation, MRW. Do you have a link to the article? I have to confess, I find myself somewhat skeptical about how that could even happen.
Yes I too would be interested to see this evidence MRW.
I googled and found this:
link to onlinejournal.com
Darfur aid dollars funding West Bank settlements
By Thomas C. Mountain
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 19, 2010, 00:21
ASMARA, Eritrea — Persons working with aid organizations assisting the victims of the Darfur conflict have passed on the news that they have confirmed through their contacts in the so called “Save Darfur Coalition” that millions of dollars raised to help the Darfur refugees have ended up in Israeli bank accounts. These accounts help fund programs that include illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
These sources inside the pro-Israel organizations that control the “Save Darfur Coalition” estimate that over $100 million was raised for Darfur, though the exact amount may never be known due to the murky nature of the financial statements these organizations submit. What is known is that over half the money raised for Darfur was consumed by “operational expenses” for these organizations, meaning bloated salaries, expense accounts and the multimillion dollar publicity campaign that helped generate the donations. Only about 10 percent of the donations received ever made it to the Darfur refugees, with several million ending up in Israeli bank accounts.
The Darfur funds were diverted to Israel by either co-mingling the funds with those used to support the Israeli projects or through a more complex system of grants to other “aid” or “relief” organizations that allowed the eventual destination of the funds to be almost impossible to trace.
more at link…
Chaos and Shingo. Here you go:
link to onlinejournal.com
But it was also available with this google search:
online journal darfur israeli settlements
Hmm. I appreciate that you linked this article but I find myself still skeptical. I’m unfamiliar with this web site and its credibility level, and the notion that the portrayal of events in Darfur is fraudulent is something I’m inclined to reject. It’s been exploited to score political points, and I could even see how the pieces fit together for this to be a theft and money laundering scheme for the Israeli settlement project… but… I need more evidence and corroboration before I’m willing to take it seriously.
Chaos, I said it was anecdotal. I sincerely doubt any evidence of this would ever see the light of day in any press.
But it also means they leave the dirty work of baby killing up to others; they just cheer them on and provide the approval from sacred texts.
I’ll give those Rabbis this, in America, religious charlatans who demand that their followers kill, or be ready to kill (such as the Mormons) traditionally say that God told them this. In Israel all you gotta do is say that it says so in some moldy old books that hardly anybody has read. Now, that’s chutzpah.
Israel will kill Judaism, make no mistake. G-d, may be a fiction, nobody really knows, and He ain’t saying, but land and money are real.
And don’t forget how active these kind of rabbis are in the IDF, encouraging soldiers to show no mercy to ‘the other’.
Kathleen mentions Deuteronomy – chapter 23, one of the most difficult according to the Eerdman’s Commentary, distinguishes between different types of foreigner – Ammonites and Moabites are never to be admitted to the assembly, Edomites and Egyptians are to be accorded a degree of respect. Numbers 9 requires strangers in the midst to be admitted to the Passover festival if they wish and if they observe all the rules. Senator Schumer – whose remark, mentioned by fillmorehagan, about King David seemed to me to cross the border from religious extremism into religious mania – might note that David was descended through Ruth from the worst kind of foreigners, the Moabites.
The idea of killing alien or enemy babies comes from the Exodus story of the death of the Egyptian firstborn, from the ‘not sparing any who breathed’ terminology of Joshua (see ch. 11) and from Psalm 137, written against the Babylonians, and cursing the Edomites for taking the Babylonian side – though there’s a kind of deep irony in the fact that Zerubbabel, tasked by the prophets with rebuilding the Temple, was both a descendant of the Davidic royal house and also had a name probably meaning ‘child of Babylon’ – ie a name reminiscent of the very category spoken of in such terrifying terms by the Psalm. Mind you, even the Psalm isn’t really a warrant for genocide.
Presumably the final editors of the Hebrew Bible knew that they were composing text against text, inviting interpretation upon interpretation. I don’t think they were composing a work of modern liberalism, but I would be quite interested to ask some of the extremist rabbis (or have a Jewish friend ask on my behalf) how they understand the more liberal-sounding Num.9 and Dt.23. Num.9 was cited by Herzl, I think, in his kinder and gentler moods.
Can anyone tell us who the ‘king’ in ‘the King’s Torah’ is? Is this God Himself in royal aspect or are we to think of a human scion of the old royal house waiting to be revealed?
S-nolonger thinks that ferocious Jewish attitudes underlie the ‘blood libels’ – my belief is that we should recall that accusations of abominable sacrifice weren’t uncommon in the ancient world and were directed by Romans against Christians, who found it convenient to deflect themt against the Jews.
suckle the MONSTER, you grow the Monster
my how zionism and israel have suckled the Monster until today it is the MONSTER that threatens all
every few years this gets out – this extremist, racist, murderous crazy version of Judaism … the timing now is more disturbing as israel ramps up for more war (Gaza again, Syria, Lebanon again, and Iran) … these fouls creatures – who expound this hate and terrorist-level religiosity need to be marginalized … but, as others have pointed out in these very comments, the criticism is insrael and among its leadership is nonexistent
Dear silentnolonger,
What contemptible nonsense: the pogroms were conducted because of racist gentiles in the 17th-20th centuries, not because of racist rabbis in the 20th-21st centuries. And maybe 200 YEARS TOGETHER hasn’t been translated into English because there isn’t a large enough audience for Jew-hating anticommunist drivel? I don’t know for sure, I can’t read Russian.
The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005 has three chapters from the book translated by his son(s). It’s far from Jew-hating anticommunist drivel.
Shout out to Max Blumenthal, if you’re reading the comments: great job. I hope this is the basis of a new book.
What we have here is the interpretation of the context here with these religious “zealots,” they have chosen not to live as a nation with diversity but to interpret all of the “Other” as enemy. So essentially, they have set the frame of the supposed first conquering in biblical lore (yes, lore) and have chosen to interpret the the conquering of the enemy in the land like the biblical counterpart.
So there is no intention to be a “neighbor” in this scenario, but to conquer and kill the enemy. By “blessing” it with the biblical narrative they invoke the deity which is supposed to allow this atrocious behavior. Plain and simple, this is what we are dealing with in this case. There is no need for “deep exclusive rabbinical deliberations,” there is a need for the application of common law – you do not have deliberations in the face of murder and mayhem. However, if you are so inclined you can pray privately while the law is applied. This is what happens when you think you can contravene thousands of years of teaching, dub yourself with messianic privilege, turn the land into something above the word you say you adhere to, and turn the people into a self-fulfilling messiah.
An interesting video –
“GOD LIKES A GOOD GENOCIDE”
Richard Witty August 31, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Phil, Adam, Max cannot credibly argue for an interpretation of halacha over another. (Maybe they can. I don’t know.)
Someone needs to.
That’s a canard. You don’t need to be a scholar to know when somebody is condoning murder. It’s enough to know that Halacha (or any system) can be interpreted in more than one way + the fact that a highly influential leader such as Ovadia Yosef can move people to action through his words to determine that he’s playing with fire.
Any of the American clergy you disparage can see through that. You should follow their lead.
The point is that the argument will continue to be made, if not countered.
The horror of the statement is obvious, and needs to be confronted.
As Phil refers, there is a struggle for the soul of the Jewish community. Noone here is undertaking that struggle in the sense that it needs to be addressed.
Politics are dismissed. Arguments based on humanism or rational skepticism are dismissed.
Conclusions such as “this is what Jews are really like” are racist, fascist.
And, there is no question that this idiotic interpretation is growing in prominence in Jewish and Israeli community. It is not a center right-wing approach that is ridiculed politically.
It is much farther than that.
These really are wars of zealots, fanatics in both communities, both extremely dangerous, murderous. And, they both undertake it.
They dare others to us/them to the death positions.
It is no coincidence that they rear up during times at which the pursuit of peace is possible. Peace means that they are unimportant, that their “I told you so” does not turn out be quite prophetic.
We have yet to hear you do anything except berate and belittle us for disagreeing with a rabbi who endorses baby-killing.
You somehow did not understand my point?
MHughes, Can anyone tell us who the ‘king’ in ‘the King’s Torah’ is? Is this God Himself in royal aspect or are we to think of a human scion of the old royal house waiting to be revealed?
It’s the second option. The settlers are particularly fond of the closing section of Maimonides’ (1135 – 1204) monumental Halachic work, the Yad. In “The Laws of Kings and their Wars” the “king” is the King Messiah. This section opens with the statement: “The children of Israel were commanded three commandments when they entered the Land: to destroy Amalek, to appoint a king and to build the Temple.”
Central to their religious thinking is that they are the harbingers of the messianic age. They are actively engaged in realizing Maimonides’ three point plan.
How many children did Israel have? (Abraham’s great-granchildren.)
Thanks, how interesting. The king before the Temple, I suppose, like David before Solomon.
I would argue that Leviticus 19:34 does no apply to Palestinians, as it speaks about aliens who live “in your land”, as opposed to natives who live in their own. Is it really possible to build a convincing halachic argument against Torat Ha’Melech? Without injecting some extra-Biblical morality?
I think that if you want to base ethics on the Bible without a prior philosophical basis, you can “convincingly” argue almost anything.