Goyim and Israeli Politics
Sam Saal,1A-110,6956,Cap Gemini
Two comments about the article Yigal posted:
These alleged comments of the religious far right and the alleged
difference between in-house and public pronounciations reminds me
of the differences between Arafat's comments to western (and
especially English language) media and his statements to Arab and
Arabic media.
Second, even if these comments are true, this does show a
democracy in action. Israel supports the rights of _anyone_ to
state their political desires. Hey! There are leftists like
Yigal Arens that would have no religion in Israel, would give
back all of the land, and want a "secular democratic state in
Palestine." They, too, are allowed to have, hold, and speak
their opinions. Why shouldn't the same be given the far right?
and if you say one is dangerous and the other isn't, I'll ask
"which is which?"
--
Sam Saal ...!{att}!floyd!saal
Vayiphtach HaShem et Peah HaAtone
Yigal Arens
THE STATUS OF THE GOY IN HALACHA AND IN ISRAELI POLITICS
By Israeli Shahak (an opinion piece in the paper's "Open Stage" column)
The primary reason for the numerous surprises encountered not only by
politicians but also by the majority of secular Israelis, when the
true positions of Ultra Orthodox [Haredi] or plain Orthodox [Dati]
Rabbis on various political issues become known, is that the secular
and religious communities actually speak two different languages. In
these two languages, the meaning of most concepts, from the simplest
ones to the fundamental concepts influencing politics, differ.
Unlike under similar circumstances in other cultures, there does not
exist a "dictionary" that can be used to translate Halacha terminology
into the language of the secular public. In principle, the
responsibility for this situation lies with what is called --
erroneously, in my opinion -- "Judaic Studies". This field deals
primarily with "ideological propaganda". It does not provide (with
the exception of a few essays written recently on specific problems)
the true history of Halacha Judaism, from which some of us have
managed to free ourselves, nor does it explain its basic concepts.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that Halacha Judaism
was the Judaism of my parents and of many generations that preceded
them. One of the reasons behind the organized confusion of "Judaic
Studies" is the ideological desire to refrain from shocking the public
and deepening the gap between the generations, a consequence of the
younger generation discovering the truth. The truth not only about
the leaders of todays Ultra Orthodox, but -- what is more important --
about its parents and forefathers.
The Great Enemy
It is not only common sense, history, and what is taking place now in
Eastern Europe, that prove that concealing basic facts is the greatest
enemy of every regime; Present political reality in Israel as well
demands that the truth concerning Jewish Halachic principles be
explained to the secular Israeli public in a language that it can
understand.
In Halachic terminology the word "soul" [nefesh] always means "Jew" or
"Jew with some special characteristics". When Halacha refers to
non-Jews, that is explicitly noted and is expressed by the use of
words like "Goy", or "Nations of the World" [umot ha'olam]. Thus, the
use of the word "soul" in the Halachic term "preservation of a soul"
[piku'ach nefesh], indicates that it speaks of Jews only (and not even
of Druze or other non-Jews who serve in the IDF, say). This can be
demonstrated with examining other uses of the word "soul". In Halacha
there exists the concept of "soul-food" [ochel-nefesh], which refers
to food in preparation of which a Jew is permitted to work, e.g., by
cooking, on a holiday.
A well known and explicit Halachic ruling, observed to this very day,
asserts that a Jew may not work in preparation of such "soul-food" if
it is meant for non-Jews or dogs (thus precisely states the Talmud),
despite the use of the term "soul" to describe the food. Needless to
say, in the context of the diaspora various allowances were made for
situations in which it was nevertheless permitted to feed a goy with
food prepared on a holiday only for Jews. For example, if the goy
would be offended and is capable of causing harm. But the principle
that the Jew cooking on a holiday not increase the amount for goyim or
for dogs has been strictly kept by our forefathers and by religious
Jews to this very day.
Even the term "preservation of a soul" [piku'ach nefesh, eliminating
the threat of death] itself, as everyone with even minimal familiarity
with Talmudic literature is well aware, does not apply to a goy. Not
only so, but in principle a Jew, including a Jewish doctor, is
forbidden to save the life of a goy for reasons that we, but not the
Orthodox, would call "humanitarian". A Jew is strictly forbidden to
save a goy if this involves desecration of the Sabbath ["lechalel alav
et hashabat"]. In a case of "preservation of a soul" of a Jew,
desecration of the Sabbath is a duty and a commandment.
All these rulings refer, of course, to every goy, of every age. In
the case of "preservation of a soul" -- which applies only of the
"soul" of a Jew -- there are records of lengthy Halachic arguments,
which continue to this day, particularly on the question of what
influence should be given to the fear of the goyim, or of their
hatred, in deciding whether a Jewish doctor should save a goy. For
example, there are discussions of what the goyim might do if they find
out that Jewish doctors are unwilling to treat them, or to desecrate
the Sabbath in the course of the treatment.
In seventeenth century Poland, one of the greatest rabbis ruled that a
Jewish doctor is permitted to desecrate the Sabbath for a goy who is
the mayor, but not for a goy with no influence. A few years ago, in
the state of Israel itself, the Ultra Orthodox experts on such matters
ruled that a Jewish doctor who fears that his license might be revoked
by state authorities if he refuses to desecrate the Sabbath to treat a
goy, is permitted to do so, provided that during the treatment his
thoughts are about his license and not the treatment itself.
Exemplified by these two cases is the attitude that dominates in
Jewish Halacha towards all goyim in nearly all circumstances. It is
expressed in the most minor matters, such as a strict prohibition
against giving a gift to a goy, or even speaking well of him. Here
too, exceptions were invented over the years for cases where there is
reason to fear the goyim or a desire to profit from them. It is
obvious, even with the various exceptions, that the attitude towards
non-Jews found in these rulings in totally inhuman. It should be
noted that the number of such rulings is very large and that all
Orthodox Jews study them. This surely impacts them even if they do
not have the opportunity to follow the law -- no less than the mere
existence of anti-Semitic laws would influence a society.
Fraud
Considering all this, the heaps of praise bestowed on the Halachic
rulings of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who stated that withdrawal from the
occupied territories might be permitted due to the principle of
"preservation of the soul", is a prime example of fraud being
perpetrated on the public. This is not to criticize Rabbi Yosef
himself -- He fully explained the true reasoning behind his rulings
more than once, and in perfect detail. According to Rabbi Yosef (in
"Yated Ne'eman", September 18, 1989), we may indeed find ourselves in
a position where we will have to return territories in order to
prevent an imminent war that will cause the death of Jews. And
"preservation of the soul", as he accurately remarks there, applies to
the case of a Jew who is ailing at that very moment -- not one who
might become ill in the future. And it all has to do with the fact
that we are weak.
How does Rabbi Yosef know, and how does he demonstrate to his readers,
that we are weak? By the fact that we are not capable of expelling
all goyim, especially all Christians, from the Land of Israel, as we
would have been obliged to do if we were not weak!
Rabbi Yosef continues and provides an additional argument: we know we
are weak because we have been unable to halt the intifada and there is
fear for the life of Jews in the occupied territories. We therefore
cannot state that in the territories we "act as in our own home" [osim
bahem ke'adam ha'oseh betoch shelo]. If we could act so, that would
prove that we were strong, and we would not have to withdraw from the
territories. Using similar reasoning in his most recent TV
appearance, Rabbi Yosef raises the danger of Arab chemical weapons and
the strength of Arab armies as further arguments for withdrawal from
the territories. Similarly, Rabbi Shach claimed in the same issue of
"Yated Ne'eman" that we are weak because we rely on US aid, and for
that reason we must negotiate withdrawal from the territories.
No right of the goyim who reside in these territories to participate
in the decisions concerning their future -- a right that was
acknowledged by Begin, and at least formally by Shamir and Sharon --
was ever mentioned by these rabbis, nor will it ever be. Because in
no case does the goy have inherent rights in the Halacha when
confronting a Jew. He obtains rights only by his power, particularly
his threats. The greater the threat of the goy to the lives of Jews,
the more recognition of his rights by the Halacha.
If our situation grows worse and the threat of war is imminent, only
then will the Ultra Orthodox agree to withdraw from the territories.
If whoever becomes Prime Minister of Israel with the blessing of the
Ultra Orthodox wishes to return any territory in exchange for peace
with Hussein, he will have to make certain that Israel is as weak as
possible. If he assures Israel's strength, the Ultra Orthodox will
prevent the return of the territories to any goy. They will even
begin to demand a transfer of the non-Jewish population, at least that
of Christians.
If the Arabs will not have chemical weapons, if their armies weaken
and the intifada ends -- not only will it be Halachically forbidden to
withdraw, it may be possible to begin expelling the goyim,
particularly the Christians, whose churches must also be destroyed.
If a miracle occurs and all the Palestinians and the Arab countries
accept Mubarak Awad's non-violent approach, and if our power in the US
grows a thousandfold -- it will be permitted according to Halacha to
expel the goyim not only from the Land of Israel, but from "any place
we conquer", according to Rabbi Yosef.
These views are also accepted by those who are called -- erroneously,
in my opinion -- "the religious peace movement", i.e., the groups "Oz
Veshalom" and "Netivot Shalom". These organizations disseminate in
the religious community an earlier Halachic ruling by Rabbi Yosef,
which also discusses the expulsion of the Christians and the
destruction of their churches when we gain sufficient strength, as
proof that we currently lack such strength.
Our Ultra Orthodox rabbis must be treated as we would expect others to
treat anti-Semites of this kind, and we must finally understand: No
peace negotiations and no other positive or humanistic process can be
built upon an alliance with the Orthodox [dati] forces in general and
with the Ultra Orthodox [haredi] in particular.
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI
ar...@isi.edu
Yigal Arens
> Two comments about the article Yigal posted:
> ...
> Second, even if these comments are true, this does show a
> democracy in action. Israel supports the rights of _anyone_ to
> state their political desires. Hey! There are leftists like
> Yigal Arens that would have no religion in Israel, would give
> back all of the land, and want a "secular democratic state in
> Palestine." They, too, are allowed to have, hold, and speak
> their opinions. Why shouldn't the same be given the far right?
> and if you say one is dangerous and the other isn't, I'll ask
> "which is which?"
Not a completely unreasonable position to hold to.
But, I wonder, is this point of view of yours restricted to the
assessment of religious parties in Israel, or is it universal? For
example, does contemplating the Pamyat group in the Soviet Union also
put you in a celebratory mood? Their existence would seem to "show
democracy in action", albeit in the USSR. "And if you say one is
dangerous and the other isn't, I'll ask 'which is which?'"...
Sam Saal,1A-110,6956,Cap Gemini
-> In article <52...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sa...@floyd.ATT.COM (Sam Saal,1A-110,6956,Cap Gemini) writes:
-> > Two comments about the article Yigal posted:
-> > ...
-> > Second, even if these comments are true, this does show a
-> > democracy in action. Israel supports the rights of _anyone_ to
-> > state their political desires. Hey! There are leftists like
-> > Yigal Arens that would have no religion in Israel, would give
-> > back all of the land, and want a "secular democratic state in
-> > Palestine." They, too, are allowed to have, hold, and speak
-> > their opinions. Why shouldn't the same be given the far right?
-> > and if you say one is dangerous and the other isn't, I'll ask
-> > "which is which?"
-> Not a completely unreasonable position to hold to.
-> But, I wonder, is this point of view of yours restricted to the
-> assessment of religious parties in Israel, or is it universal? For
-> example, does contemplating the Pamyat group in the Soviet Union also
-> put you in a celebratory mood? Their existence would seem to "show
-> democracy in action", albeit in the USSR. "And if you say one is
-> dangerous and the other isn't, I'll ask 'which is which?'"...
-> --
-> Yigal Arens
Sorry to quote so much of the past article.
Please ask me again when the USSR is _really_ a democracy. The
interesting vote for president shows quite clearly that the
democracy in Russia has a ways to go before coming close even to
Israel's.
Until then, let's both think about the differences. Yigal should
also spend a little of that time learning about Pamyat.
Joe Angel
Yigal Arens has posted an excellent article on this subject. He
alludes in the article to the notion that Halacha would require expulsion
of non-Jews from Israel, especially Christians. I understand that Halacha
regards Christians as idolators (though I am told this is not a unanimous
view).
For those interested in a political analysis of the implications
of this there is an excellent commentry by Y. Harakabi in "Israel's
Fateful Hour". See especially comments about "resident aliens", i.e.,
non-Jewish, but monotheistic goyim.
Joe