"The IDF’s Home Front Command has imposed restrictions on the residents of northern Israel – schools are closed and hospitals are operating underground – but the Kol HaTorah continues and yeshivos in northern Israel are continuing their usual intense Elul schedule.
On the other hand, the tense security situation cannot be ignored and some yeshivos are considering moving to central Israel if the situation worsens."
I haven’t seen a swipe at chareidim in this post. Your paranoia is on the verge of again becoming uncontrollable. It’s time to double your Haldol dosage.
One of the hyperlinks early in the article links to a blog post about how a Haredi news organization claimed that the Haredi yeshiva bochurim were responsible rather than the Mossad.
Thank you for writing such a thoughtful and helpful essay. I sent it to others. I have wondered how this issue could be explained to non-Israelis, and your explanation and conclusion are excellent.
R’ Slifkin articulated very concisely some things that are largely basic common sense. What he left out is that this common-sense always eludes certain people because non-Jews & left-leaning Jews who wring their hands every time Israel strikes our enemies do NOT have Israel’s best interests in mind, much as they may pretend they do, perhaps even to themselves.
Note how the vast majority of these ’humane’ types express little or no concern over each act of Palestinian terrorism (which did not begin with 10/7):
One Palestinian girl was killed? Do you know how many random, individual Israelis were murdered in the MONTHS preceding Oct. 7—run over by Palestinians in cars, stabbed to death, etc.? Including young children.
After each horrific incident, there was some ‘deploring’ & ‘condemning’ as always from the ‘experts’—but no one was overly ‘concerned’ that this would ‘Derail’ the Peace Process’ since there is clearly no reasoning or real peace with this bunch of psychotic savages—
—Funny how the loss of Israeli civilian lives is considered a sad-but-unavoidable part of Israel existing among the Arab states (& terrorists), but when an Arab child dies because of their own govt’s insane behavior, Israel ‘may be complicating the situation’.
Anytime you hear “Israel has the right to defend itself, BUT…” you are likely talking to someone who does NOT really, deep down in their gut, believe Israel has the right to defend itself. They would like Israel to defend itself in an abstract, invisible way, in which no Arabs get injured.
…After each horrific incident of depraved Palestinian terrorism (it’s not only Hamas—these were often random ‘regular’ Palestinians), there was some ‘deploring’ & ‘condemning’ as always from the ‘experts’—but no one was overly ‘concerned’ that this would ‘Derail’ the Peace Process’—it’s always expected that Israel will bravely carry on in its endless attempts to negotiate peace with a bunch of psychotic savages.
Funny how the loss of Israeli civilian lives is considered a sad-but-unavoidable part of Israel existing among the Arab states (& terrorists), but when an Arab child dies because of their own govt’s insane behavior, Israel ‘may be complicating the situation’.
Anytime you hear “Israel has the right to defend itself, BUT…” you are likely talking to someone who does NOT really, deep down in their gut, believe Israel has the right to defend itself. They would like Israel to defend itself in an abstract, invisible way, in which no Arabs get injured.
Yes - Thank God and also our ingenuity that we were able to neutralize many terrorists thereby either eliminating or greatly reducing the change of a horrible assault with minimal collateral damage.
No - hahahah gender reassignment hahaha from the liver to the knees.
And thank you for teasing out important Torah principles about rejoicing at the destruction of evil.
Also, I find videos of the Hezbollah terrorists suffering in hospital beds disturbing. Perhaps it would have been better to have put in more of the explosive material in the beepers, to ensure that the person carrying it died from the explosion, instead of just being seriously injured.
I know that they're ruthless enemies, and would have displayed absolutely no mercy if they would perform an October 7th-type attack on communities in Israel's north (as they indeed intended to do). But, there's a difference between killing the enemy with mustard gas, which prolongs their suffering, as opposed to nuking them so that they're vaporized instantly.
ברור לו מיתה יפה--Choose out a merciful form of execution.
And serve as a warning to others. (You always let a couple get away.) Every Hezbollah terrorist limping down the street from now on is a message to anyone who may think of joining.
". Perhaps it would have been better to have put in more of the explosive material in the beepers, to ensure that the person carrying it died from the explosion, instead of just being seriously injured."
You mention Purim. the Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:16 “uveyom“) make a point of noting that both Purim and Chanukah are the day after the victory. We do not celebrate their downfall, we celebrate our lives resuming as they should. One could say that the whole institution of Shushan Purim was to insure we avoid the conclusion you are taking from Purim.
Fine, I was speaking shorthand... We celebrate the rededication of the Beis haMiqdash. A core element of our life as Jews resuming because that particular battle was won.
Pesach too is about Leaving Egypt (I don't know the target audience, but I am translating יציאת מצרים), it isn't Plague of the Firstborm Day
Thank you very much for this post. I was disturbed by the people posting criticisms. Come on, we (Jews in Israel, certainly, but also Jews abroad) have been in what is at best a very tense situation, and at worst a horrible one, for a year. (Thousands of years, but let's focus on this.) And then this great victory comes along, one which is, at the same, you have to admit, somewhat funny. And these nannies lecture us that we can't celebrate? That we can't laugh? Even for a few days, before things get serious again (as they have)?
H.L. Mencken defined a "Puritan" as someone who is always frightened by the thought that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time. That's what these people are, sorry.
That's what they are at *best*. I just came across by a young whippersnapper in the US who runs something called the "Halachic [sic] Left," which seems to exist mostly to attack Israel when it defends itself. They have literally had rallies attacking Israel. (It seems you can count their membership on one hand, but of course the media fawns over them. They consider themselves, and maybe they actually are, sister organization to a similarly noxious and sanctimonious group in Israel.) And wouldn't you know it, this lovely is also "troubled" (from, of course, the safety of New York) by the memes and even the bombings. Here he is yelling about how Israel is killing poor civilians for a year and when Israel does the exact opposite...he has the chutzpah to attack them as well.
Again, he and his ilk are in the minority here. Most of those who are "troubled" by the memes are just over-thinking "moral" lecturers. But no, neither has a point.
Just curious, where have you seen most of the criticism? On social media? I don't usually venture too far beyond cnn so I actually haven't personally seen anything significant in terms of criticism (even cnn seemed to hold off on criticizing this time)
Yup, I've now seen more and more ppl coming out heavily against it. I read the NYT "ethicist" article btw. I feel like these ppl are living in a fantasy world and totally ignoring the fact that we are dealing with ruthless terrorists who want nothing more than to brutally destroy us.
Israel let Hezbollah off easy. Israel could have killed alot more of the barbarians if the pagers etc: had more explosives. Holding back against evil does not work. IMHO Israel did not kill enough of the monsters, so imho israel was way too nice and made a mistake.
It think it's a little more subtle than that. If you are someone who has been directly affected by Hezbollah (or other related) terrorism, then at laughing the cell phone/radio explosions is a perfect natural reaction. For others (affected or not), even necessary violence is never a laughing matter; it's something that needs to be done sometimes as a necessary evil, but always lamented, even without considering the inevitable collateral violence against innocents.
The next question is: are the posts here just personal musings or an attempt to reach an audience with a message. If the former, then you post based on your personal feeling. If the latter, you might consider that your audience includes those for home the jokes are a salve and those for whom such jokes make light of evils of violence, however necessary, and adjust either the posts or the forum accordingly.
As far as reaching back for Jewish precedent, I don't think that is fruitful. The Torah condones many acts of war that were taken for granted as acceptable at the time and that are no longer considered morally acceptable; these include mass killing non-combatants of the losing side, looting and the taking of slaves including sex slaves. It is hard to extrapolate from there to our current situation.
Killing our enemies is not evil. Not a necessary evil, not any sort of evil. That you wrote that only illustrates that it's your morals that need a bit of a correction.
Well, you respond in kind. You may try to drive out nature with a pitchfork, but it will keep coming back. Maybe in bosky suburban Baltimore you don't have to worry about savages (well, you do, but you think you don't), but most of the world doesn't have that luxury.
The IDF (generally and in principle) doesn't respond in kind because the vast majority of the country believes it would be completely immoral. They don't follow the morality of Hamas as you suggest. You are entitled to believe that whetever Hamas does to an Israeli town, the IDF should do to a Gazan town, but that's an extremist fringe ideology. Unfortunately, some ministers in the government agree with you.
And you speak as an expert on Israeli public opinion? "Vast majority"? "Extremist fringe"? You have declared up high from Baltimore not only what Israelis should do, not only what they should believe, but what they *do* believe? Nice.
And you speak as an expert on Israeli public opinion? "Vast majority"? "Extremist fringe"? You have declared up high from Baltimore not only what Israelis should do, not only what they should believe, but what they *do* believe? Nice.
Yes, I know with high certainty that Israelis retained basic moral principles despite what they've been through, even from over here in Baltimore. They don't believe that if A rapes B, B should rape A
I tend to agree. But R’ Slifkin is addressing those who, ignorantly or dishonestly, worry that reacting positively to a successful, strike against your enemies, goes against Jewish values. They can’t have it both ways: If they give a darn about Jewish values, they should look at our scripture.
(of course, truly woke, hard-Left Jews don’t actually care about scripture, God’s will or Jewish values, any more than they care about Israeli lives. They simply pushed their Lefty agenda, rebranded as “Jewish values” for certain markets.)
As I pointed out, "our scripture" condones and celebrates many thing that were considered moral at the time but no longer considered so. By Biblical standards, there was really nothing immoral about 7 Oct other than that we were on the wrong end of it. But no one thinks that is the case. They believe that killing enemy civilians and raping the enemy is bad no matter who does it against whom.
That’s a flippant misrepresentation. Rape was NOT acceptable “by biblical standards”.
That’s not to say attitudes were precisely the same as today, and to be sure, asking a woman out on a date without first asking her permission to ask her out on a date was not considered rape back then. So yeah, “biblical standards” were not woke.
War was always hell, and arguably moreso in those days. But some ancient armies—& societies— at least aspired to humane standards as they perceived them, while others gleefully leaned into the barbarity… Just like today.
No one here is in the mood for progressive historical revisionism or false moral equivalencies
Understood your point the first time you said it… and refuted it. Not gonna play your game.
Some people like arguing for the sake of arguing… or to subtly undermine Israeli/Jewish concerns by minimizing, pushing false equivalencies, or blurring lines of differentiation between, say, the singular moral discipline of the IDF, and the inherent depravity of Palestinian terrorists.
Also I think that you missed my point. The IDF doesn't operate by Biblical morality because Biblical morality of war no longer applies. That is why looking back to Tanach to justify current gloating/joking over the pager/radio bombs is not valid reasoning.
That's exactly my point. You can't look back in Tanach and say "see it's a Jewish value to gloat over and joke about horrific injuries to enemy combatants" because what is in there is based on the morality of war that existed at the time and is not relevant today.
I don't think you've thought about the evil they've caused to us enough in context. Take five minutes and think about one atrocity from Oct 7 and put yourself in the shoes of that girl's brother or father and try not to feel joy at such news!
Yes, a bit of a sop to nebach those poor Israelis who are too deeply affected to see things as clearly as the Enlightened in the Diaspora. A YU rosh yeshiva (you can guess which one) pulled that one after Trump one: "At least if Israelis are racist..."
Did it ever occur to you that we see things more *clearly* than you?
I've never been one to moralize war actions and the outcomes, most assuredly death but also the maiming and destruction. As much as some see this as a political war it is a war waged by one religion against any and all others who refuse to follow and surrender to it's dogma under penalty of death, after they do what they please without any moralizing of anything but their hate.
I spoke with a rabbi the day after the pagers exploded. He felt bad that anyone was blinded. I respect that. I also thought about those who lost their hands and how they wouldn’t be able to throw stones at the honor killings.
"The Rabbi felt bad for anyone who was blinded" Did you explain to him these were murderers, potential rapist, terrorist??
If the Rabbi was a judge, and a case of a guy that just held up a hardworking storekeeper and for a few dollars shot and killed him. Would he feel bad the killer has to sit in a cage for X amount of years??
Challenge the Rabbi, don't respect him. Feel bad for the innocent not the guilty.
If someone wants to be empathetic I’m not going to “challenge “ them. Let them be the way they are. But that’s the way I am. And I understand how you feel about it the way you do. I really do.
You can be happy for the death of terrorists and sad for the little girl at the same time especially if you haven’t accustomed yourself to hating on your own people who are somewhere else than you on the sprectrum of belief in metaphysics 24/7 because they banned your book. If your heart hasn’t been long ago corroded by irrational hate for people that believe in a mythology different from your own mythology. Assuming there was a heart to be corroded. Especially if you don’t give mussar 24/7 to people that never heard of you. Yes, if that were the case, you could rejoice over our victory and be very sad that it was necessary to cut off a little girl’s life before she ever lived. It’s not too late, the human capacity for empathy is resilient. Thanks for letting us know what to think and feel. Where would we be without your thoughtful and compassionate Rabbinical guidance.
Non-combatant casualties are solely the responsibility of the aggressor in initiating war against a peaceful neighbor. It is clear to anyone who holds a proper pro-reason morality that this is the case. It is years of altruist claims to the contrary that have worn away the ability of people to understand the concept of justice.
Also, we don't see very much compassion from the Palestinian side for the civilian deaths on October 7th.
Soldiers were killed? Palestinian response: "They're a legitimate military target. Even the young women in the lookout towers."
But the people in the kibbutzim? Palestinian response: "Oh, those are "settlers". They're living on "occupied Palestinian land". "
The people killed at the Nova music festival? Palestinian response: "Having a music festival outside the open-air prison of Gaza is like having a music festival outside Auschwitz during the Holocaust!"
Or, even better, Palestinians deny that any civilians were killed.
Weird take bro. Natan was clearly saying that we should be sad about the innocent deaths; take a moment to mourn, to reflect on that. But his article was full of moral clarity, one I think most of us are with him on easily, and hopefully some without such moral clarity on this particular issue will see the matter properly. I'm not on the same side as natan in many issues, but personally, you blaming his past and finding an enemy in this rather coherent article seems to show your hatred of him and what he stands for more then anything else...
Shulman. Take it on down the road. I am unable to follow what the hell you are driving at. Moral clarity represents hatred to you somehow? What is your goddam point? Maybe get some fresh air. And your comment addresses Nathan. My comment was to Charles. Are you OK?
R’ Slifkin was addressing people who do believe, and are supposedly concerned that feeling good about a victory goes against Jewish values.
No one celebrated this BECAUSE of divinely mandated, ethical norms… Though it’s worth noting how many secular types consistently refuse to condemn anti-Israel terrorism—precisely because of their own vague, malleable & thoroughly hypocritical “moral code”.
You are 100% right - and we are in full agreement - the only point I was trying to make (which clearly I didn't make well) was as someone a bit more agnostic about the bigger metaphysical questions - and having argued with many of the folks you mention above ad infinitum about Israel's moral stance - and our strident support for ourselves - and our extended community - I simply try to avoid scriptural insight or reference to arrive at the same place. (which clearly, makes me both foolish - and in the wrong place, sharing that on a comment thread designed to do exactly that :) My feelings have always been - (having grown up debating these questions within the container of my own immediate family who are far more observant and wise) is - what ought to be clear here - when it comes to navigating the most difficult questions of war - should be as as clear from the least observant amongst us- to the most. This isn't how human minds work, my own included - but this is, at least from my perspective - a helpful heuristic in arriving at a more durable truth.
However to bring in this "Charles" guy - who is foolish and childish, by claiming anyone who argues his point of view, feverishly and earnestly is hate. So lets leave him out.
I think you are missing the good Rabbis point:
He is NOT saying do not have empathy and sadness for the little girl who died - We all do. Any innocent life lost, tears at the heartstrings.
Here is another way of saying it:
Even as we are troubled, sad, and upset about the unintended casualties, we have to look at the greater picture - we have hit murderess and terrorist with the least problematic episodes in comparison to any other way.
Hi Saul! Of course - per your final paragraph - we are in 100% agreement - and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that agreement - as a quick re-reading of my own words above -might suggest otherwise. (one of the liabilities of tackling topics like these - in moments like these - on a lazy, hazy Saturday- and on a very small screen :)
Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock. - Psalm 137:9 - The psalmist speaking of the judgment on Babylon who did similar things to the Jewish babies in the siege(s) against Jerusalem.
I have three children in the IDF -- which i dont think matters for the purposes of this answer. I, for one, didnt like it. We did what we think we had to do. The memes, the jokes, the taunting -- unless there is a purpose (like Tokyo Rose or what have you) -- I would have preferred that we just moved on to the next battle.
Hi Nachum, yours is one of several comments dismissing critics of Israel. Other readers have described critics, and their criticism of the pager attack, as puritanical, hypocritical, naive, and out of touch with the reality of life in Israel. But I think there are some legitimate moral and practical concerns about this attack. I will share a few:
1) We know that everyone who received a pager was associated with Hezbollah, an organization that has been attacking Israel since Oct. 8--and directly causing the evacuation of about 65,000 Israelis. However, Hezbollah has many non-combatant members, including health care workers. Should we celebrate an attack that killed non-combatants along with combatants? Do we really know the ratio so we can dismiss this concern?
2) An attack on rank-and-file militia members when they are on the home front, out of uniform and in their homes, is not consistent with the rules of warfare. There is a difference between killing a soldier in war and (say) bombing a pub where soldiers go when they are off duty. Should we disregard the distinction between a war-zone and the home front--*even for rank-and-file soldiers*? If so--we must acknowledge that this is a major shift in our rules of warfare. I don't really want to spell out the implications of this.
3) The pager attack has heightened the risk of an all-out war, and will certainly provoke a retaliatory response (r"l). Following Yahya Ayyash's* assassination, Hamas carried out four suicide bombings that killed seventy-eight Israelis over two months in 1996. Rabbi Slifkin points out that this is not part of the *moral* calculus, but still, I cannot celebrate an attack that might push us into an all-out war.
4) The pager attack, while certainly a stunning cover operation, is just another in a long string of Israel's tactical responses to Hezbollah that don't add up to any coherent strategy. See Lazar Berman's article in TOI with the headline, "String of IDF successes might cause Nasrallah to back down, but won’t lead to victory." Quoting Berman: "Only determined, aggressive military moves against Hamas, coupled with a civil effort to replace the terror group, free from domestic political considerations, can bring the victory in Gaza that is long overdue. And when the time comes for Israel to fight Hezbollah on the ground in Lebanon, the same principles will apply."
I'm sorry, this is sick. "Health care workers"? "Uniforms"? Seriously? These are terrorists. "Home front"? They attack from their homes? Where are they supposed to be? Who are you, Michael Walzer?
Also, you could *try* to be consistent. In your point 3 you talk about how much you fear a wider war. (With some ineffectual noisemaking in an attempt to assure us you aren't *completely* sick.) And then in your point 4 you...call for a full out war. Make up your mind.
Had to read it twice till I found your swipe at chareidim. Didn't think you would leave that out of an article.
Of course, you didn't let us down.
(Hint: it's one of the hyperlinks in the beginning)
Thanks for always being the clown you are!
Oh, come on, that's funny, like much of this is. The only people not crediting the Mossad are the charedim and the Mossad itself.
Classic from 'Yeshiva World News'....
"The IDF’s Home Front Command has imposed restrictions on the residents of northern Israel – schools are closed and hospitals are operating underground – but the Kol HaTorah continues and yeshivos in northern Israel are continuing their usual intense Elul schedule.
On the other hand, the tense security situation cannot be ignored and some yeshivos are considering moving to central Israel if the situation worsens."
@ Who left,
I haven’t seen a swipe at chareidim in this post. Your paranoia is on the verge of again becoming uncontrollable. It’s time to double your Haldol dosage.
One of the hyperlinks early in the article links to a blog post about how a Haredi news organization claimed that the Haredi yeshiva bochurim were responsible rather than the Mossad.
One wonders which category the Chareidim fall into in R Slikfins dichotomy of being allowed to rejoice or not
There are different ways to celebrate. My all means praise and thank G-d and the IDF. There is no need to mock injuries or share explicit videos.
Thank you for writing such a thoughtful and helpful essay. I sent it to others. I have wondered how this issue could be explained to non-Israelis, and your explanation and conclusion are excellent.
R’ Slifkin articulated very concisely some things that are largely basic common sense. What he left out is that this common-sense always eludes certain people because non-Jews & left-leaning Jews who wring their hands every time Israel strikes our enemies do NOT have Israel’s best interests in mind, much as they may pretend they do, perhaps even to themselves.
Note how the vast majority of these ’humane’ types express little or no concern over each act of Palestinian terrorism (which did not begin with 10/7):
One Palestinian girl was killed? Do you know how many random, individual Israelis were murdered in the MONTHS preceding Oct. 7—run over by Palestinians in cars, stabbed to death, etc.? Including young children.
After each horrific incident, there was some ‘deploring’ & ‘condemning’ as always from the ‘experts’—but no one was overly ‘concerned’ that this would ‘Derail’ the Peace Process’ since there is clearly no reasoning or real peace with this bunch of psychotic savages—
—Funny how the loss of Israeli civilian lives is considered a sad-but-unavoidable part of Israel existing among the Arab states (& terrorists), but when an Arab child dies because of their own govt’s insane behavior, Israel ‘may be complicating the situation’.
Anytime you hear “Israel has the right to defend itself, BUT…” you are likely talking to someone who does NOT really, deep down in their gut, believe Israel has the right to defend itself. They would like Israel to defend itself in an abstract, invisible way, in which no Arabs get injured.
…After each horrific incident of depraved Palestinian terrorism (it’s not only Hamas—these were often random ‘regular’ Palestinians), there was some ‘deploring’ & ‘condemning’ as always from the ‘experts’—but no one was overly ‘concerned’ that this would ‘Derail’ the Peace Process’—it’s always expected that Israel will bravely carry on in its endless attempts to negotiate peace with a bunch of psychotic savages.
Funny how the loss of Israeli civilian lives is considered a sad-but-unavoidable part of Israel existing among the Arab states (& terrorists), but when an Arab child dies because of their own govt’s insane behavior, Israel ‘may be complicating the situation’.
Anytime you hear “Israel has the right to defend itself, BUT…” you are likely talking to someone who does NOT really, deep down in their gut, believe Israel has the right to defend itself. They would like Israel to defend itself in an abstract, invisible way, in which no Arabs get injured.
Berl Katznelson, godfather of the Israeli Left, already remarked in the 1930's that Jews have a strange disease of taking their enemies' side.
(This was back when the Israeli Left was killing terrorists and building settlements.)
How we celebrate also matters.
Yes - Thank God and also our ingenuity that we were able to neutralize many terrorists thereby either eliminating or greatly reducing the change of a horrible assault with minimal collateral damage.
No - hahahah gender reassignment hahaha from the liver to the knees.
And thank you for teasing out important Torah principles about rejoicing at the destruction of evil.
I agree with this 100%. I also think that people who have been directly affected should not be judged if they enjoy such jokes.
Also, I find videos of the Hezbollah terrorists suffering in hospital beds disturbing. Perhaps it would have been better to have put in more of the explosive material in the beepers, to ensure that the person carrying it died from the explosion, instead of just being seriously injured.
I know that they're ruthless enemies, and would have displayed absolutely no mercy if they would perform an October 7th-type attack on communities in Israel's north (as they indeed intended to do). But, there's a difference between killing the enemy with mustard gas, which prolongs their suffering, as opposed to nuking them so that they're vaporized instantly.
ברור לו מיתה יפה--Choose out a merciful form of execution.
Actually from a military perspective it’s better to wound enemies then kill them because wounded enemies use a lot more resources.
And serve as a warning to others. (You always let a couple get away.) Every Hezbollah terrorist limping down the street from now on is a message to anyone who may think of joining.
". Perhaps it would have been better to have put in more of the explosive material in the beepers, to ensure that the person carrying it died from the explosion, instead of just being seriously injured."
Which would have maimed bystanders.
Disagree completely, they are a visual ongoing message to their surroundings of the consequences of fucking with Israel. I'm happy to gloat over it.
From a army of jihadis
To a harem of a blinded amputee eunuchs 🤯
A buried body gets visited occasionally, a mutilated emasculated warrior sends a signal in perpetuity to the society where they dwell.
Islam punishes with amputations, the parallel exists for them to understand the painful permanent results
Troll.
God continues to bless His Chosen People. ♥️🙏🏻
You mention Purim. the Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:16 “uveyom“) make a point of noting that both Purim and Chanukah are the day after the victory. We do not celebrate their downfall, we celebrate our lives resuming as they should. One could say that the whole institution of Shushan Purim was to insure we avoid the conclusion you are taking from Purim.
The celebration is repeated every year!
... on the dates we first reap the booms of having won. Not the anniversary of the death of the wicked
The fighting against the Seleucids went on for *decades* after the original Chanukah. Life did not "resume."
Also, Megillat Taanit is full of holidays marking military defeats of enemies.
By the way, Pesach night is *before* God killed all the Egyptians.
Fine, I was speaking shorthand... We celebrate the rededication of the Beis haMiqdash. A core element of our life as Jews resuming because that particular battle was won.
Pesach too is about Leaving Egypt (I don't know the target audience, but I am translating יציאת מצרים), it isn't Plague of the Firstborm Day
Thank you very much for this post. I was disturbed by the people posting criticisms. Come on, we (Jews in Israel, certainly, but also Jews abroad) have been in what is at best a very tense situation, and at worst a horrible one, for a year. (Thousands of years, but let's focus on this.) And then this great victory comes along, one which is, at the same, you have to admit, somewhat funny. And these nannies lecture us that we can't celebrate? That we can't laugh? Even for a few days, before things get serious again (as they have)?
H.L. Mencken defined a "Puritan" as someone who is always frightened by the thought that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time. That's what these people are, sorry.
That's what they are at *best*. I just came across by a young whippersnapper in the US who runs something called the "Halachic [sic] Left," which seems to exist mostly to attack Israel when it defends itself. They have literally had rallies attacking Israel. (It seems you can count their membership on one hand, but of course the media fawns over them. They consider themselves, and maybe they actually are, sister organization to a similarly noxious and sanctimonious group in Israel.) And wouldn't you know it, this lovely is also "troubled" (from, of course, the safety of New York) by the memes and even the bombings. Here he is yelling about how Israel is killing poor civilians for a year and when Israel does the exact opposite...he has the chutzpah to attack them as well.
Again, he and his ilk are in the minority here. Most of those who are "troubled" by the memes are just over-thinking "moral" lecturers. But no, neither has a point.
Just curious, where have you seen most of the criticism? On social media? I don't usually venture too far beyond cnn so I actually haven't personally seen anything significant in terms of criticism (even cnn seemed to hold off on criticizing this time)
It gets better! John Brennan says it was a war crime, and Leon Panneta says it was terrorism. I notice a pattern developing.
Yup, I've now seen more and more ppl coming out heavily against it. I read the NYT "ethicist" article btw. I feel like these ppl are living in a fantasy world and totally ignoring the fact that we are dealing with ruthless terrorists who want nothing more than to brutally destroy us.
Well, the New York Times ran a piece from a (Jewish, naturally) "ethicist" yesterday declaring the exploding beepers to be a war crime.
Well, social media, but come on, it included AOC herself.
Israel let Hezbollah off easy. Israel could have killed alot more of the barbarians if the pagers etc: had more explosives. Holding back against evil does not work. IMHO Israel did not kill enough of the monsters, so imho israel was way too nice and made a mistake.
It think it's a little more subtle than that. If you are someone who has been directly affected by Hezbollah (or other related) terrorism, then at laughing the cell phone/radio explosions is a perfect natural reaction. For others (affected or not), even necessary violence is never a laughing matter; it's something that needs to be done sometimes as a necessary evil, but always lamented, even without considering the inevitable collateral violence against innocents.
The next question is: are the posts here just personal musings or an attempt to reach an audience with a message. If the former, then you post based on your personal feeling. If the latter, you might consider that your audience includes those for home the jokes are a salve and those for whom such jokes make light of evils of violence, however necessary, and adjust either the posts or the forum accordingly.
As far as reaching back for Jewish precedent, I don't think that is fruitful. The Torah condones many acts of war that were taken for granted as acceptable at the time and that are no longer considered morally acceptable; these include mass killing non-combatants of the losing side, looting and the taking of slaves including sex slaves. It is hard to extrapolate from there to our current situation.
Killing our enemies is not evil. Not a necessary evil, not any sort of evil. That you wrote that only illustrates that it's your morals that need a bit of a correction.
This is the morality of ancient times and of Hamas. The Zionists took Islamic lands and thus are our all our enemies who we can kill at will.
Well, you respond in kind. You may try to drive out nature with a pitchfork, but it will keep coming back. Maybe in bosky suburban Baltimore you don't have to worry about savages (well, you do, but you think you don't), but most of the world doesn't have that luxury.
The IDF (generally and in principle) doesn't respond in kind because the vast majority of the country believes it would be completely immoral. They don't follow the morality of Hamas as you suggest. You are entitled to believe that whetever Hamas does to an Israeli town, the IDF should do to a Gazan town, but that's an extremist fringe ideology. Unfortunately, some ministers in the government agree with you.
And you speak as an expert on Israeli public opinion? "Vast majority"? "Extremist fringe"? You have declared up high from Baltimore not only what Israelis should do, not only what they should believe, but what they *do* believe? Nice.
And you speak as an expert on Israeli public opinion? "Vast majority"? "Extremist fringe"? You have declared up high from Baltimore not only what Israelis should do, not only what they should believe, but what they *do* believe? Nice.
Yes, I know with high certainty that Israelis retained basic moral principles despite what they've been through, even from over here in Baltimore. They don't believe that if A rapes B, B should rape A
I tend to agree. But R’ Slifkin is addressing those who, ignorantly or dishonestly, worry that reacting positively to a successful, strike against your enemies, goes against Jewish values. They can’t have it both ways: If they give a darn about Jewish values, they should look at our scripture.
(of course, truly woke, hard-Left Jews don’t actually care about scripture, God’s will or Jewish values, any more than they care about Israeli lives. They simply pushed their Lefty agenda, rebranded as “Jewish values” for certain markets.)
As I pointed out, "our scripture" condones and celebrates many thing that were considered moral at the time but no longer considered so. By Biblical standards, there was really nothing immoral about 7 Oct other than that we were on the wrong end of it. But no one thinks that is the case. They believe that killing enemy civilians and raping the enemy is bad no matter who does it against whom.
"By Biblical standards, there was really nothing immoral about 7 Oct other than that we were on the wrong end of it."
No.
And "that we were on the wrong end of it" is enough. We look out for old number one.
That’s a flippant misrepresentation. Rape was NOT acceptable “by biblical standards”.
That’s not to say attitudes were precisely the same as today, and to be sure, asking a woman out on a date without first asking her permission to ask her out on a date was not considered rape back then. So yeah, “biblical standards” were not woke.
War was always hell, and arguably moreso in those days. But some ancient armies—& societies— at least aspired to humane standards as they perceived them, while others gleefully leaned into the barbarity… Just like today.
No one here is in the mood for progressive historical revisionism or false moral equivalencies
וַֽיִּצְבְּאוּ֙ עַל־מִדְיָ֔ן כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיַּֽהַרְג֖וּ כׇּל־זָכָֽר׃
וַיִּשְׁבּ֧וּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל אֶת־נְשֵׁ֥י מִדְיָ֖ן וְאֶת־טַפָּ֑ם וְאֵ֨ת כׇּל־בְּהֶמְתָּ֧ם וְאֶת־כׇּל־מִקְנֵהֶ֛ם וְאֶת־כׇּל־חֵילָ֖ם בָּזָֽזוּ׃
וְעַתָּ֕ה הִרְג֥וּ כׇל־זָכָ֖ר בַּטָּ֑ף וְכׇל־אִשָּׁ֗ה יֹדַ֥עַת אִ֛ישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּ֥ב זָכָ֖ר הֲרֹֽגוּ׃
וְכֹל֙ הַטַּ֣ף בַּנָּשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יָדְע֖וּ מִשְׁכַּ֣ב זָכָ֑ר הַחֲי֖וּ לָכֶֽם׃
This was par of the course in ancient times and the Torah goes with it. No one except perhaps the right-wing RZ today think that is is any way moral.
Understood your point the first time you said it… and refuted it. Not gonna play your game.
Some people like arguing for the sake of arguing… or to subtly undermine Israeli/Jewish concerns by minimizing, pushing false equivalencies, or blurring lines of differentiation between, say, the singular moral discipline of the IDF, and the inherent depravity of Palestinian terrorists.
Also I think that you missed my point. The IDF doesn't operate by Biblical morality because Biblical morality of war no longer applies. That is why looking back to Tanach to justify current gloating/joking over the pager/radio bombs is not valid reasoning.
Where is the refutation?
מלחמת מדין is not relevant.
That's exactly my point. You can't look back in Tanach and say "see it's a Jewish value to gloat over and joke about horrific injuries to enemy combatants" because what is in there is based on the morality of war that existed at the time and is not relevant today.
I don't think you've thought about the evil they've caused to us enough in context. Take five minutes and think about one atrocity from Oct 7 and put yourself in the shoes of that girl's brother or father and try not to feel joy at such news!
Yes, I agree and that was what I was addressing in the second sentence.
Got it! My bad
Yes, a bit of a sop to nebach those poor Israelis who are too deeply affected to see things as clearly as the Enlightened in the Diaspora. A YU rosh yeshiva (you can guess which one) pulled that one after Trump one: "At least if Israelis are racist..."
Did it ever occur to you that we see things more *clearly* than you?
I've never been one to moralize war actions and the outcomes, most assuredly death but also the maiming and destruction. As much as some see this as a political war it is a war waged by one religion against any and all others who refuse to follow and surrender to it's dogma under penalty of death, after they do what they please without any moralizing of anything but their hate.
I spoke with a rabbi the day after the pagers exploded. He felt bad that anyone was blinded. I respect that. I also thought about those who lost their hands and how they wouldn’t be able to throw stones at the honor killings.
"The Rabbi felt bad for anyone who was blinded" Did you explain to him these were murderers, potential rapist, terrorist??
If the Rabbi was a judge, and a case of a guy that just held up a hardworking storekeeper and for a few dollars shot and killed him. Would he feel bad the killer has to sit in a cage for X amount of years??
Challenge the Rabbi, don't respect him. Feel bad for the innocent not the guilty.
If someone wants to be empathetic I’m not going to “challenge “ them. Let them be the way they are. But that’s the way I am. And I understand how you feel about it the way you do. I really do.
She didn't say he was an Orthodox Rabbi.
You can be happy for the death of terrorists and sad for the little girl at the same time especially if you haven’t accustomed yourself to hating on your own people who are somewhere else than you on the sprectrum of belief in metaphysics 24/7 because they banned your book. If your heart hasn’t been long ago corroded by irrational hate for people that believe in a mythology different from your own mythology. Assuming there was a heart to be corroded. Especially if you don’t give mussar 24/7 to people that never heard of you. Yes, if that were the case, you could rejoice over our victory and be very sad that it was necessary to cut off a little girl’s life before she ever lived. It’s not too late, the human capacity for empathy is resilient. Thanks for letting us know what to think and feel. Where would we be without your thoughtful and compassionate Rabbinical guidance.
Non-combatant casualties are solely the responsibility of the aggressor in initiating war against a peaceful neighbor. It is clear to anyone who holds a proper pro-reason morality that this is the case. It is years of altruist claims to the contrary that have worn away the ability of people to understand the concept of justice.
Also, we don't see very much compassion from the Palestinian side for the civilian deaths on October 7th.
Soldiers were killed? Palestinian response: "They're a legitimate military target. Even the young women in the lookout towers."
But the people in the kibbutzim? Palestinian response: "Oh, those are "settlers". They're living on "occupied Palestinian land". "
The people killed at the Nova music festival? Palestinian response: "Having a music festival outside the open-air prison of Gaza is like having a music festival outside Auschwitz during the Holocaust!"
Or, even better, Palestinians deny that any civilians were killed.
Thank you.
Weird take bro. Natan was clearly saying that we should be sad about the innocent deaths; take a moment to mourn, to reflect on that. But his article was full of moral clarity, one I think most of us are with him on easily, and hopefully some without such moral clarity on this particular issue will see the matter properly. I'm not on the same side as natan in many issues, but personally, you blaming his past and finding an enemy in this rather coherent article seems to show your hatred of him and what he stands for more then anything else...
My comment was addressed to Charles.
As was mine:)
Shulman. Take it on down the road. I am unable to follow what the hell you are driving at. Moral clarity represents hatred to you somehow? What is your goddam point? Maybe get some fresh air. And your comment addresses Nathan. My comment was to Charles. Are you OK?
I'm not sure where happening here, but I was addressing Charles, not you. What you said was fine in my eyes... Am I misunderstanding?
My confusion Shulman. Sorry. No excuse. Thank you for your understanding.
I argue that in general Jewish Tradition even calls for ambivalence about the fall of one's enemies and that the end of their evil required their own deaths. I have a source-filled post here: http://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/2014/01/08/compassion-for-our-enemies/
My comment was aimed solely at Charles, sorry for any confusion.
R’ Slifkin was addressing people who do believe, and are supposedly concerned that feeling good about a victory goes against Jewish values.
No one celebrated this BECAUSE of divinely mandated, ethical norms… Though it’s worth noting how many secular types consistently refuse to condemn anti-Israel terrorism—precisely because of their own vague, malleable & thoroughly hypocritical “moral code”.
You are 100% right - and we are in full agreement - the only point I was trying to make (which clearly I didn't make well) was as someone a bit more agnostic about the bigger metaphysical questions - and having argued with many of the folks you mention above ad infinitum about Israel's moral stance - and our strident support for ourselves - and our extended community - I simply try to avoid scriptural insight or reference to arrive at the same place. (which clearly, makes me both foolish - and in the wrong place, sharing that on a comment thread designed to do exactly that :) My feelings have always been - (having grown up debating these questions within the container of my own immediate family who are far more observant and wise) is - what ought to be clear here - when it comes to navigating the most difficult questions of war - should be as as clear from the least observant amongst us- to the most. This isn't how human minds work, my own included - but this is, at least from my perspective - a helpful heuristic in arriving at a more durable truth.
Appreciate and respect what you wrote. Thank You!
However to bring in this "Charles" guy - who is foolish and childish, by claiming anyone who argues his point of view, feverishly and earnestly is hate. So lets leave him out.
I think you are missing the good Rabbis point:
He is NOT saying do not have empathy and sadness for the little girl who died - We all do. Any innocent life lost, tears at the heartstrings.
Here is another way of saying it:
Even as we are troubled, sad, and upset about the unintended casualties, we have to look at the greater picture - we have hit murderess and terrorist with the least problematic episodes in comparison to any other way.
We really are in agreement.
Hi Saul! Of course - per your final paragraph - we are in 100% agreement - and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that agreement - as a quick re-reading of my own words above -might suggest otherwise. (one of the liabilities of tackling topics like these - in moments like these - on a lazy, hazy Saturday- and on a very small screen :)
Thank you for your excellent response.
Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock. - Psalm 137:9 - The psalmist speaking of the judgment on Babylon who did similar things to the Jewish babies in the siege(s) against Jerusalem.
I have three children in the IDF -- which i dont think matters for the purposes of this answer. I, for one, didnt like it. We did what we think we had to do. The memes, the jokes, the taunting -- unless there is a purpose (like Tokyo Rose or what have you) -- I would have preferred that we just moved on to the next battle.
Maybe not, but think it's funny
Sometimes you get the feeling that the critics of Israel are *happy* when "innocents" are killed. Gives them something to go on about.
Absolutely.
And knowing the propaganda, "killed" needs quotes as well.
Hi Nachum, yours is one of several comments dismissing critics of Israel. Other readers have described critics, and their criticism of the pager attack, as puritanical, hypocritical, naive, and out of touch with the reality of life in Israel. But I think there are some legitimate moral and practical concerns about this attack. I will share a few:
1) We know that everyone who received a pager was associated with Hezbollah, an organization that has been attacking Israel since Oct. 8--and directly causing the evacuation of about 65,000 Israelis. However, Hezbollah has many non-combatant members, including health care workers. Should we celebrate an attack that killed non-combatants along with combatants? Do we really know the ratio so we can dismiss this concern?
2) An attack on rank-and-file militia members when they are on the home front, out of uniform and in their homes, is not consistent with the rules of warfare. There is a difference between killing a soldier in war and (say) bombing a pub where soldiers go when they are off duty. Should we disregard the distinction between a war-zone and the home front--*even for rank-and-file soldiers*? If so--we must acknowledge that this is a major shift in our rules of warfare. I don't really want to spell out the implications of this.
3) The pager attack has heightened the risk of an all-out war, and will certainly provoke a retaliatory response (r"l). Following Yahya Ayyash's* assassination, Hamas carried out four suicide bombings that killed seventy-eight Israelis over two months in 1996. Rabbi Slifkin points out that this is not part of the *moral* calculus, but still, I cannot celebrate an attack that might push us into an all-out war.
4) The pager attack, while certainly a stunning cover operation, is just another in a long string of Israel's tactical responses to Hezbollah that don't add up to any coherent strategy. See Lazar Berman's article in TOI with the headline, "String of IDF successes might cause Nasrallah to back down, but won’t lead to victory." Quoting Berman: "Only determined, aggressive military moves against Hamas, coupled with a civil effort to replace the terror group, free from domestic political considerations, can bring the victory in Gaza that is long overdue. And when the time comes for Israel to fight Hezbollah on the ground in Lebanon, the same principles will apply."
*y'mach shmo v'zichro
Utopian nonsense
endlessly lamenting victories is somehow hardwired into Jewish thinking
I'm sorry, this is sick. "Health care workers"? "Uniforms"? Seriously? These are terrorists. "Home front"? They attack from their homes? Where are they supposed to be? Who are you, Michael Walzer?
Also, you could *try* to be consistent. In your point 3 you talk about how much you fear a wider war. (With some ineffectual noisemaking in an attempt to assure us you aren't *completely* sick.) And then in your point 4 you...call for a full out war. Make up your mind.
4) kill the enemy,harass them
That s good enough reason for anything Israel does.
3) the enemy needs no excuse to escalate. They want to destroy Israel and started war.
1) collateral damage of war that Lebanon started.
2) they are terrorists and can be killed anytime and any place