Rabbi Slifkin, as I said in a different comment, there is a great deal of anger against Hamas right now. They perpetrated a terrible blow against the people of Israel. People are fed up and frustrated with them, and the rage has reached a boiling point. Although in normal times, the rule of law applies, these are not normal times. What does Judaism say about extrajudicial punishment? As with many things, the answer is not black-and-white. Historically there has been much discussion on this topic. The concept may be controversial, but it too has its place, especially in times like this. Obviously, this doesn't automatically acquit the soldiers, especially if they engaged in the terrible act of משכב זכר. But it's important to remember the context before jumping to conclusions, or reflexively putting full faith and trust in liberal judges over soldiers who paid in blood and tears.
There was no mishkav zachar. The allegation- but who cares about innocent until proven guilty, let's just string 'em up now- is that some instrument was involved.
The video shows absolutely nothing. It certainly doesn't show any homosexual activity. And please refrain from such childish language when you're around adults.
After reading the long list of issues (A-I) The main issue was not even mentioned, and that is that in midst of a war with Hamas, all the court cares about is what some IDF soldiers did in the heat of the moment.
First of all, figure out a way to enforce the law without virtue signaling to the enemy. Second, what has the court brought up to bring against terrorists to further deter them? nothing, all they look at is if they are getting enough "humanitarian aid" and if the pay for slay money is allowed to be withheld. Obviously Chareidim is important too to them.
The court hasn't indicted them because there is actually no law. There is no law because the government is incompetent. When there is a law, then the court system will take it up.
Israel needs to maintain the moral high ground. What the soldiers allegedly did negates that, and gives Israel a black eye. I was shocked to hear the allegations.
I think a key point that underlies much of the rhetoric here is a general distrust of the court system to judge fairly because they are:
a) out of touch office-based judges who don't understand what it means to be at war with bloodthirsty terrorists
b) generally very left wing which would feasibly influence their decision making
c) influenced by international pressure to come down hard on 'war crimes.'
You are correct that this is dangerous, and historically such a distrust of government systems has led to countless civil wars, but your post doesn't help alleviate that distrust. In fact arguably some of your posts over the past couple of years will have contributed to that distrust!
I lost you at (A). That is importing Hamas ideology into Religious Zionism. It's OK to sexually assault another human because they are evil and they deserve it? It's also OK to participate in a pogrom in Arab village because they are evil and deserve it? And it's OK for Baruch Goldstein to massacre Palestinians because of course they are evil and deserved it? That's the ideology of the National Security Minister. And that's the ideology of Hamas on 7 Oct. The Jews are all Ben Gvir and they all deserve it.
Is that really what Religious Zionism is about? Apparently, even the Charedim are right twice a day.
Could you explain what you meant by your first paragraph? You wrote "Let’s take it as a given that nobody needs to feel sympathy for whatever happens to a Hamas terrorist. Thus, A) [what the prisoner deserved] does not need to be a point of disagreement. However, what some fail to realize is that it most certainly does not follow from this that it is legitimate for soldiers to abuse the prisoner."
What I take from this is that there is no issue with the morality of raping a prisoner as long as we judge him to be evil enough. But we still can't allow it for these other reasons.
Moreover, you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Ben Gvir not only thinks that raping prisoners is OK, but that mass shootings of Arabs is OK. This is not some isolated one-off about the fate of a single detainee. This twisted morality that has infected Religious Zionism is the one that leads one to think that a prisoner deserved to be raped is the same one that leads to pogroms in Arab villages, to Baruch Goldstein, and when applied by the other side to the rape and murder of 7 Oct.
Let's make this much clearer. No one deserved to be raped and the immorality of the act is the first issue, not the last.
You're reading more into my words than I meant. All I meant was that nobody needs to feel sorry for the Hamas guy. Not that people should rape rapists.
But even if someone were to believe this, it would still be a leap to say that it's okay to shoot innocent Arabs.
This is why Israel's gov't system is outdated and does not work. How exactly did Ben Gvir get elected? Did he run against anyone in a primary? He is sort of like a unelected senator and a Presidential cabinet member rolled into one, right? In America, we run campaigns and have debates to try to clarify people's positions and let voters decide. In Israel, it's about who you can make deals with, it seems. I think Israel should change the way it's govt works. I do not know if the US system is perfect either but it seems to be open to the voters more.
There might be pros to the american elective system, but as a whole the israeli one is a lot more democratic, and the problem with Ben Gvir is primarily that there IS a consequent segment of the population that does think like him or worse. That's exactly why the Supreme Court is important.
It's a combination of a sector (Religious Zionists) supporting Ben Gvir and Smotrich; Netanyahu turning off enough the right to cause an almost 50/50 split between the blocks, thus giving power to the extreme; as well as Netanyahu doing anything he can to hold on to power.
He and Smotrich got enough votes to have their combined party pass the Knesset threshold. There were enough voters with other choices who choose to vote for them. A small minority of the country, but not an insignificant percentage of the RZ electorate.
No, they didn't. Or, more accurately, we have no way of knowing either way. They ran as a technical bloc. They only split into their component parts once they entered into the knesset.
Your three cases - 1) Hamas terrorists, 2) random residents of an Arab village, 3) random Muslims praying in Hebron, are not at all comparable. #1 did horrible things and deserves a severe punishment, though presumably not a vigilante one. #2 and #3, as a rule, did nothing wrong and deserve no harm done to them. Just because Ben Gvir supports all three does not mean that R Slifkin, or the mainstream of the RZ community, is willing to consider #2 and #3.
Of what relevance is the fact that the doctor may have a relationship with the Netanyahus and whether or not the doctor may have demonstrated in favor of judicial reform?
There are many who believe the charges are entirely fabricated and are therefore protesting the arrest.
I think another issue for protesters is that even if soldiers have committed acts that should be punished, perhaps the issue is of lower priority than a host of other issues that should be dealt with more immediately.
On what grounds would one believe that the charges are false? How would you know?
It's interesting that in the same comment, you claim that perhaps even if they did it, the issue should not be dealt with. Do you see the connection between the two comments?
Because the enemy has every reason to lie! and has no neemanut according to halacha. Even if the accusation was that the soldiers KILLED some of these Jew-murderers, all of Am Yisrael should be scandalized by the actions taken against the soldiers, and do everything to protect them for your "justice."
Not so interesting. We've seen no evidence of guilt. Either they did not do it, in which case people feel that it's a fabricated case or they may have done something. If they have done something, it should be dealt with but according to the priority it carries with it. Conceivably, during a war, there are more important things to deal with than this.
I think it's more interesting that you did not address my question about the relevance of mentioning the opinion on judicial reform of the doctor who said there was no evidence of the accusations.
If the case is politically motivated, it requires evidence. The article disqualifies the doctor (who said the physical evidence indicates the terrorist self-inflicted) because the doctor is somehow connected to the Netanyahus. It also says that he signed a petition in favor of the judicial reform. How is that relevant? The implication is that the doctor is unreliable bc of his political associations and opinions. This only makes sense if the case is political rather than evidence based. Given that the soldiers have been identified as having political leanings that are opposite those of the yoetzet mishpatit, I can believe this case is trumped up and I would like to see evidence.
If this theory is correct, it is a very serious breach of justice and explains the anger the case is generating in Israel.
To be clear, if the accused are in fact guilty they should get a fair trial and be punished appropriately. I believe this case is not the highest priority in Israel right now.
I'd like to add that the theory of the political nature of the case exists without Rabbi Slifkin's article. I mentioned what he wrote bc the part I referred to supports the theory.
That would be true if it made the news on it's own. Not if Israel publicized it. The allegations came from inmates so I don't know how the world would find out (unless they were released).
You can add it, I suppose. It would seem to be a worse problem than chareidi men serving with female soldiers. But perhaps it doesn't matter as long as the alleged abusers are secular, since they (presumably) engage in all sorts of forbidden sexual activities, according to those who avoid service.
I have heard about this disgrace only in general terms. What was controversial about the “way” in which the offending soldiers were arrested?
Regarding the offense itself, there is no way to describe it other than “disgrace”. The defense that “it’s war, sh*t happens” is unacceptable. War crimes are still just that: crimes, which should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If the soldiers are innocent, a thorough investigation should reveal that. If they are found to be guilty, they should be punished severely and publicly, to show the world that such shameful, criminal conduct will not be tolerated in a civilized nation like Israel.
All this is to say nothing of the fact that just because our enemies behave like savages, that does not give us license to do the same. Whatever happened to “tohar haneshek”?
I do not agree with your assessment that the chareidi issues are "the most serious of Israel’s internal problems." The messianic fervor of many of those on the right wing are apt to make Israel into an international pariah and draw us into war.
I agree. Both need to be addressed, but this is much, much worse. There is no point at all defending a rogue state where fascist mobs have the upper hand.
I would add that International Human Rights Law is in large part a response to the use of chemical weapons in WW1, the massive civilian death tolls of WW2 and the Holocaust. Unfortunately, Israel has repeatedly chosen to violate that law and most Israeli citizens seem to think Israel isn’t obligated to follow it, as if the Holocaust somehow gives Israel a free pass to inflict ‘lesser’ crimes on others. It doesn’t. Israelis believe in and use the very things that were used to incite and facilitate genocide against our ancestors: supposed moral superiority, dehumanization of the other, and collective guilt and punishment. Instead of welcoming international efforts to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, Israel ridicules them and not infrequently tries to evade them. We should all object to this and do what we can to make Israel the moral beacon it should be.
One major theme in Jewish history (at least it seems to me) is that appeals to populism, vigilante justice, political parties / non-state-actors "going rogue", etc. -- whether those involved are Jews or not -- is very rarely "good for the Jews".
Worshipping the army and believing it could never be questioned was also the reason why it took so long to finally prove captain Dreyfus' innocence. Given that this story is an important part of the zionist narrative, it's baffling how quickly some right-wing israelis are prompt to fall in the same pit.
A major concern should now surely be the extent to which a minority of heavily armed sicarii can - and will - initiate and escalate violence to tip the country into civil conflict. This will of course be pooh-poohed with the usual hubris, but the last few years and especially under this 'government' of zealots, a deliberate state of anarchy has been allowed to proliferate. These people are being armed and prepared for a deadly confrontation - and this example they are seeing how far they can push the boundaries - and to what extent the MKs and other 'leaders' will be dealt with. I suspect nothing will happen (because the PM will never relinquish his power) and we will see more and more of such actions.
Rabbi Slifkin, as I said in a different comment, there is a great deal of anger against Hamas right now. They perpetrated a terrible blow against the people of Israel. People are fed up and frustrated with them, and the rage has reached a boiling point. Although in normal times, the rule of law applies, these are not normal times. What does Judaism say about extrajudicial punishment? As with many things, the answer is not black-and-white. Historically there has been much discussion on this topic. The concept may be controversial, but it too has its place, especially in times like this. Obviously, this doesn't automatically acquit the soldiers, especially if they engaged in the terrible act of משכב זכר. But it's important to remember the context before jumping to conclusions, or reflexively putting full faith and trust in liberal judges over soldiers who paid in blood and tears.
There was no mishkav zachar. The allegation- but who cares about innocent until proven guilty, let's just string 'em up now- is that some instrument was involved.
The video shows absolutely nothing. It certainly doesn't show any homosexual activity. And please refrain from such childish language when you're around adults.
After reading the long list of issues (A-I) The main issue was not even mentioned, and that is that in midst of a war with Hamas, all the court cares about is what some IDF soldiers did in the heat of the moment.
Why on earth would you claim that this is "all" the court cares about? Do you mean that the court should not care about it at all?
First of all, figure out a way to enforce the law without virtue signaling to the enemy. Second, what has the court brought up to bring against terrorists to further deter them? nothing, all they look at is if they are getting enough "humanitarian aid" and if the pay for slay money is allowed to be withheld. Obviously Chareidim is important too to them.
The court hasn't indicted them because there is actually no law. There is no law because the government is incompetent. When there is a law, then the court system will take it up.
I always wondered what the courts role in Israel was other than criminal court if there is no official body of law, but I just hear back soundbites.
From here:
https://www.runi.ac.il/media/q1ydrzv3/friedmann.pdf
The Chancellor's song
The Law is the true embodiment
Of everything that's excellent.
It has no kind of fault or flaw,
And I, my Lords, embody the Law.***
בתרגום חופשי:
שיר הצ'נסלור
החוק מגלם את כל הנפלא והמצוין,
הוא נקי מכל פגם או דופי.
ואני, רבותיי, מגלם את החוק,
ובכך טמון כל היופי.
The whole article is worth reading. That bit is from page 3 of the PDF.)
Thanks, will take some time but I look forward to reading
That is the court's job. Fighting is the job of other soldiers.
This is perhaps the most insane comment I’ve seen ever read in comment section (and that’s saying a lot)…
Israel needs to maintain the moral high ground. What the soldiers allegedly did negates that, and gives Israel a black eye. I was shocked to hear the allegations.
I'd rather be alive than have the moral high ground before a bunch of people who hate us anyway.
It's not a choice between one or the other.
It's certainly being presented that way.
I've not seen a single person other than you claim that sexually assaulting prisoners saves Israeli lives.
Huh, Hamas seems to feel that sexual assault of their enemies is a sign of victory.
My point precisely. Many within RZ have adopted the morality of Hamas.
Yes, sexual assault on prisoners is literally saving Israeli lives. They should be given a medal for their contribution to the war effort. /s
Don't know much about Arabs, do ya?
All I meant is that we don't need to feel sorry for the guy. Not that it was okay that it happened.
I think David feels sorry for him.
I think a key point that underlies much of the rhetoric here is a general distrust of the court system to judge fairly because they are:
a) out of touch office-based judges who don't understand what it means to be at war with bloodthirsty terrorists
b) generally very left wing which would feasibly influence their decision making
c) influenced by international pressure to come down hard on 'war crimes.'
You are correct that this is dangerous, and historically such a distrust of government systems has led to countless civil wars, but your post doesn't help alleviate that distrust. In fact arguably some of your posts over the past couple of years will have contributed to that distrust!
I lost you at (A). That is importing Hamas ideology into Religious Zionism. It's OK to sexually assault another human because they are evil and they deserve it? It's also OK to participate in a pogrom in Arab village because they are evil and deserve it? And it's OK for Baruch Goldstein to massacre Palestinians because of course they are evil and deserved it? That's the ideology of the National Security Minister. And that's the ideology of Hamas on 7 Oct. The Jews are all Ben Gvir and they all deserve it.
Is that really what Religious Zionism is about? Apparently, even the Charedim are right twice a day.
That's not what I wrote at all. I wasn't addressing the impropiety of the act. (Which I should have done in a separate point)
Could you explain what you meant by your first paragraph? You wrote "Let’s take it as a given that nobody needs to feel sympathy for whatever happens to a Hamas terrorist. Thus, A) [what the prisoner deserved] does not need to be a point of disagreement. However, what some fail to realize is that it most certainly does not follow from this that it is legitimate for soldiers to abuse the prisoner."
What I take from this is that there is no issue with the morality of raping a prisoner as long as we judge him to be evil enough. But we still can't allow it for these other reasons.
Moreover, you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Ben Gvir not only thinks that raping prisoners is OK, but that mass shootings of Arabs is OK. This is not some isolated one-off about the fate of a single detainee. This twisted morality that has infected Religious Zionism is the one that leads one to think that a prisoner deserved to be raped is the same one that leads to pogroms in Arab villages, to Baruch Goldstein, and when applied by the other side to the rape and murder of 7 Oct.
Let's make this much clearer. No one deserved to be raped and the immorality of the act is the first issue, not the last.
You're reading more into my words than I meant. All I meant was that nobody needs to feel sorry for the Hamas guy. Not that people should rape rapists.
But even if someone were to believe this, it would still be a leap to say that it's okay to shoot innocent Arabs.
So when Allied troops mowed down SS men in the liberated camps, you'd have been horrified?
It must be nice and pleasant in Baltimore.
This is why Israel's gov't system is outdated and does not work. How exactly did Ben Gvir get elected? Did he run against anyone in a primary? He is sort of like a unelected senator and a Presidential cabinet member rolled into one, right? In America, we run campaigns and have debates to try to clarify people's positions and let voters decide. In Israel, it's about who you can make deals with, it seems. I think Israel should change the way it's govt works. I do not know if the US system is perfect either but it seems to be open to the voters more.
There might be pros to the american elective system, but as a whole the israeli one is a lot more democratic, and the problem with Ben Gvir is primarily that there IS a consequent segment of the population that does think like him or worse. That's exactly why the Supreme Court is important.
It's a combination of a sector (Religious Zionists) supporting Ben Gvir and Smotrich; Netanyahu turning off enough the right to cause an almost 50/50 split between the blocks, thus giving power to the extreme; as well as Netanyahu doing anything he can to hold on to power.
"In America we run primaries" (paraphrased)
Apparently we do not anymore.
He and Smotrich got enough votes to have their combined party pass the Knesset threshold. There were enough voters with other choices who choose to vote for them. A small minority of the country, but not an insignificant percentage of the RZ electorate.
They got 10% of the vote of the country. That's not a "small minority."
That's why they joined initially, but in the end they both ended up with enough on their own.
No, they didn't. Or, more accurately, we have no way of knowing either way. They ran as a technical bloc. They only split into their component parts once they entered into the knesset.
Your three cases - 1) Hamas terrorists, 2) random residents of an Arab village, 3) random Muslims praying in Hebron, are not at all comparable. #1 did horrible things and deserves a severe punishment, though presumably not a vigilante one. #2 and #3, as a rule, did nothing wrong and deserve no harm done to them. Just because Ben Gvir supports all three does not mean that R Slifkin, or the mainstream of the RZ community, is willing to consider #2 and #3.
Of what relevance is the fact that the doctor may have a relationship with the Netanyahus and whether or not the doctor may have demonstrated in favor of judicial reform?
There are many who believe the charges are entirely fabricated and are therefore protesting the arrest.
I think another issue for protesters is that even if soldiers have committed acts that should be punished, perhaps the issue is of lower priority than a host of other issues that should be dealt with more immediately.
On what grounds would one believe that the charges are false? How would you know?
It's interesting that in the same comment, you claim that perhaps even if they did it, the issue should not be dealt with. Do you see the connection between the two comments?
Because the enemy has every reason to lie! and has no neemanut according to halacha. Even if the accusation was that the soldiers KILLED some of these Jew-murderers, all of Am Yisrael should be scandalized by the actions taken against the soldiers, and do everything to protect them for your "justice."
Not so interesting. We've seen no evidence of guilt. Either they did not do it, in which case people feel that it's a fabricated case or they may have done something. If they have done something, it should be dealt with but according to the priority it carries with it. Conceivably, during a war, there are more important things to deal with than this.
I think it's more interesting that you did not address my question about the relevance of mentioning the opinion on judicial reform of the doctor who said there was no evidence of the accusations.
Why do you need to see evidence of guilt? Leave that to the judge and the lawyers.
If the case is politically motivated, it requires evidence. The article disqualifies the doctor (who said the physical evidence indicates the terrorist self-inflicted) because the doctor is somehow connected to the Netanyahus. It also says that he signed a petition in favor of the judicial reform. How is that relevant? The implication is that the doctor is unreliable bc of his political associations and opinions. This only makes sense if the case is political rather than evidence based. Given that the soldiers have been identified as having political leanings that are opposite those of the yoetzet mishpatit, I can believe this case is trumped up and I would like to see evidence.
If this theory is correct, it is a very serious breach of justice and explains the anger the case is generating in Israel.
To be clear, if the accused are in fact guilty they should get a fair trial and be punished appropriately. I believe this case is not the highest priority in Israel right now.
I'd like to add that the theory of the political nature of the case exists without Rabbi Slifkin's article. I mentioned what he wrote bc the part I referred to supports the theory.
Not punishing soldiers who ought to be punished is liable to lead to a cutoff of arms shipments from the USA.
That would be true if it made the news on it's own. Not if Israel publicized it. The allegations came from inmates so I don't know how the world would find out (unless they were released).
It's been making plenty of worldwide news. Only Israel doesn't report.
How
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-teiman-detention-whistleblowers-intl-cmd/index.html
Point taken.
"A) What the prisoner deserved":
Aren't sexual acts committed by soldiers against a (male) prisoner also a huge religious issue? Or is it suddenly ok if the prisoner "deserved" it?
You're right, I should have split that off into a separate point.
You can add it, I suppose. It would seem to be a worse problem than chareidi men serving with female soldiers. But perhaps it doesn't matter as long as the alleged abusers are secular, since they (presumably) engage in all sorts of forbidden sexual activities, according to those who avoid service.
Just to address the religious technicality. I imagine it was done with an object rather than the soldier's body.
Also we don't know that the soldiers accused of doing this were religious.
I would assume so, but isn't that also considered a form of forbidden sexual contact?
No
I have heard about this disgrace only in general terms. What was controversial about the “way” in which the offending soldiers were arrested?
Regarding the offense itself, there is no way to describe it other than “disgrace”. The defense that “it’s war, sh*t happens” is unacceptable. War crimes are still just that: crimes, which should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If the soldiers are innocent, a thorough investigation should reveal that. If they are found to be guilty, they should be punished severely and publicly, to show the world that such shameful, criminal conduct will not be tolerated in a civilized nation like Israel.
All this is to say nothing of the fact that just because our enemies behave like savages, that does not give us license to do the same. Whatever happened to “tohar haneshek”?
I do not agree with your assessment that the chareidi issues are "the most serious of Israel’s internal problems." The messianic fervor of many of those on the right wing are apt to make Israel into an international pariah and draw us into war.
I agree. Both need to be addressed, but this is much, much worse. There is no point at all defending a rogue state where fascist mobs have the upper hand.
In addition to the Sedeh Teiman episode, there is also the matter of the ongoing settler violence and murder in the West Bank.
Glad to see you're on board with the Israel-haters in the White House, who use the same excuses.
Do you mean to deny that there has been ongoing settler violence in the West Bank?
I do.
Theoretically, will there not be a Gog U'Magog war? Or are you saying we have to wait until Moshiach comes to wage it?
I suggest that you read the final chapter of the Mishne Torah. Whatever that war may or may not be, it is defintely not our job to instigate it.
I would add that International Human Rights Law is in large part a response to the use of chemical weapons in WW1, the massive civilian death tolls of WW2 and the Holocaust. Unfortunately, Israel has repeatedly chosen to violate that law and most Israeli citizens seem to think Israel isn’t obligated to follow it, as if the Holocaust somehow gives Israel a free pass to inflict ‘lesser’ crimes on others. It doesn’t. Israelis believe in and use the very things that were used to incite and facilitate genocide against our ancestors: supposed moral superiority, dehumanization of the other, and collective guilt and punishment. Instead of welcoming international efforts to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, Israel ridicules them and not infrequently tries to evade them. We should all object to this and do what we can to make Israel the moral beacon it should be.
Whatever makes you happy about not living here.
Exactly.
If we are not a nation of laws we are a mob.
Well I have some bad news for you...
Yeah, but you still have to fight the good fight
One major theme in Jewish history (at least it seems to me) is that appeals to populism, vigilante justice, political parties / non-state-actors "going rogue", etc. -- whether those involved are Jews or not -- is very rarely "good for the Jews".
Worshipping the army and believing it could never be questioned was also the reason why it took so long to finally prove captain Dreyfus' innocence. Given that this story is an important part of the zionist narrative, it's baffling how quickly some right-wing israelis are prompt to fall in the same pit.
A major concern should now surely be the extent to which a minority of heavily armed sicarii can - and will - initiate and escalate violence to tip the country into civil conflict. This will of course be pooh-poohed with the usual hubris, but the last few years and especially under this 'government' of zealots, a deliberate state of anarchy has been allowed to proliferate. These people are being armed and prepared for a deadly confrontation - and this example they are seeing how far they can push the boundaries - and to what extent the MKs and other 'leaders' will be dealt with. I suspect nothing will happen (because the PM will never relinquish his power) and we will see more and more of such actions.
"Wokeipedia"...brilliant!