Rabbi Manis Friedman is certainly one hell of a lovely nut. To all you American Islamophobic super right-wing nuts reading this right now, let this be a reminder that the cherry picking of verses from sacred texts happens on all sides.
Here’s a wonderful example from the American Jewish magazine, Moment, highlighted nicely by Avveroes Press.
Moment is an American Jewish magazine “dedicated to serious, highly-literate, intellectual journalism.” Unfortunately, its current issue carries a contribution that seriously tarnishes the magazine’s claim to an intellectual discourse.
The magazine posed a question to several Rabbis ranging from Humanist to Conservative and Reform to Reconstructionist.
The question was “How Should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbours?” and the answers ranged from deep empathy towards Palestinians to philosophical and theological.
Rabbi Fred Schindler Dodd wrote:
“…what about “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18)? Arabs and Jews are by necessity neighbors and will be in any ethical scenario. By tradition (Torah and Quran alike) we’re more than neighbors, we’re kin?and though cousins fight, they’re still family.”
Nice, high five Rabbi Fred. I can respect the values and morals of your interpretation. Okay, now we come to the not so nice part.
Rabbi Manis Friedman of the Bais Chana Institute of Jewish Studies answered:
I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral.
The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).
… Zero tolerance for stone throwing, for rockets, for kidnapping will mean that the state has achieved sovereignty. Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.
Yikes!
I’d love to see Rabbi Manis thrown together with some fanatic Talibani nut for a special episode of… The Holy Room. They’d make really good friends.
Asshole.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Idiot.
That would make an excellent episode of The Holy Room. There would be much love up in there
http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2009/06/03/1005589/rabbi-manis-friedmans-response
I’d say his words, while harsh, are his personal opinion alone and also, taken out of context.
I think I agree with him.
If the enemy has decided to shoot at Jewish (or any) civilians and hides between his own children or holy sites, one should shoot back anyway. There is no way Jewish lives are worth less or should be risked for the same of human shields.
And any non-Jew would have the right to do so according to international law, which PROHIBITS the use of human shields or holy sites as bases but removes the protected status of civilians used as human shields.
I guess rabbi Friedman’s mistake was thinking that this same law would also apply to Jews. It obviously does not. So while non-Jews are free to ignore human shields used by terrorists, Jews will obviously be murderers if the human shields are hit.
What a rookie mistake! It’s almost embarrassing. How can any Jew in the 21st century not know that international law doesn’t apply to Jews? It’s beyond me.
Roman,
Whether or not his clarification is genuine, is unknowable. He may mean it, or he may have just said it because of the pressure he came under from Jews who criticized him for his original reprehensible comment.
Regardless of that, it’s still good to see him admit the following:
“Furthermore, some of the words I used in my brief comment were irresponsible, and I look forward to further clarifying them in a future issue.
I apologize for any misunderstanding my words created.”
Andrew,
Nice attempt at the rhetorical gymnastics, but no amount of “ifs” and twisting is gonna cut it.
“The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).”
That’s a reprehensible statement. Period. So really, let’s just recognize that for once.
Drima,
I understand he said it in the context of attackers using human shields and holy sites as cover. That’s not rhetorical gymnastics. He was simply quoted out of context.
But if he was not, I am willing to call him a “moderate” as that is the term for Arab leaders who were known for calling for similar brutality.
“The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East. First, the Arabs will stop using children as shields. Second, they will stop taking hostages knowing that we will not be intimidated. Third, with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.”
It is clear to me that he advocates an eye for an eye.
That is not very Christian, but it is Jewish and Islamic.
http://momentmagazine.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/a-statement-from-rabbi-friedman/
This is the original statement from Rabbi Friedman, as posted on the MomentMag blog. He revised it to make sure that it wouldn’t look like he was blaming the magazine.
Rabbi Friedman’s mistake is that he took the question and applied it to an existing, small-scale political matter - rather than taking it as a more general question. As he said, he didn’t answer the actual question he was asked, rather a sub-question (as he saw it).
Why did he do that? I can assume that the matter is very important to him, and that when asked to comment (Rabbi Friedman appears to be a frequent contributor to the magazine), he chose what I see to be the worst possible course - he took a larger commentary he wanted to make, and shoved it into a short, length-limited opinion box. He shouldn’t have done that, and the end result looked like a hate rant.
I don’t think it was that, I think he was quite honest in his clarification and apology, because I can see the jagged edges in his part of the article. I’m familiar with what he said of the Torah’s views on neighbors, Jewish or otherwise - Rabbi Friedman assumed that the readers, much like himself and others of his community, would be familiar with that, so he limited his reply.
That was a terrible mistake, especially for a member of Chabad. If anyone in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities can see the sheer ignorance people, many *Jewish* people at that, hold of basic Jewish teachings, then it’s Chabad. Instead of talking to people outside of his community, which means *most of the readers*, he talked to people inside of it.
And there he could assume - there he could say *just* what was beyond “what everyone already knows”. Except he wasn’t talking to learned sages on a shared Gemara lesson. He was instead making an assumption that I, myself, have erroneously made more times than I could count… he assumed that the basics were known to everyone, and so he didn’t need to say them. He didn’t need to say what was obvious to him because it was, well… obvious. And why would someone need to state the obvious?
Which is why, when *I* debate nowadays, I tend to speak at incredible length and try to explain every dash and comma, just to make sure that I’m not understood the wrong way. My own mistakes in what I said were sometimes horrible, and not that far from how Rabbi Friedman’s words turned against him.
It’s all about perception. It may sound very clear in one’s head, but when one utters it only bullshit comes out - because one didn’t bother saying the 99% of the thoughts, arguments, and explanations that led to it.
Because what’s obvious in one’s head isn’t even an echo in the heads of everyone else.
It is clear to me that he advocates an eye for an eye.
That is not very Christian, but it is Jewish and Islamic.
It hasn’t been Jewish for at least 1800 years: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_mishpatim.html
“It hasn’t been Jewish for at least 1800 years”
I was speaking about a battle, not punishment.
Christianity dictates that one must love one’s enemy. Both Judaism and Islam, as far as I can tell, do not insist on pacifism.
Both Judaism and Islam, as far as I can tell, do not insist on pacifism.
That’s accurate, though it doesn’t really have much to do with “an eye for an eye”.
“That is not very Christian, but it is Jewish and Islamic.”
But in practice, Christians can behave just as badly when they are worked up.
I chose my words badly.
It’s ironic how much the radicals on both sides have in common.
If radicals on both sides really did have this in common, there would be no war.
I think what the radicals of both sides don’t have in common is a problem. That rabbi did not advocate using human shields or attacking people, merely shooting human shields when they are used and escalating violence to stop future violence.
If both sides did that, there would be no war.
This is just crazy and disgusting… calling for a total destruction of Palestinians of genocidal proportions… yet hardly anyone in America and the West notices this.
yet hardly anyone in America and the West notices this.
Quite the contrary, I’d say quite a lot of people noticed - particularly in the American Jewish community (the main readers), who were quick to condemn it. The ADL even issued a statement about it.
Savo,
Who called for “a total destruction of Palestinians of genocidal proportions”?
And who doesn’t notice? If you type “Palestinian” and “genocide” into Google, you will find that hundreds of thousands of people noticed a genocide (despite the fact that it never happened).
I do wonder why you are so upset when a single rabbi says something harsh yet more peaceful than the typical Arab leader…
…let this be a reminder that the cherry picking of verses from sacred texts happens on all sides.
Is the end result the same, Drima? I don’t know much about the beliefs of Jews, but it seems from what I can see that they *do not* embrace interpretations of their scripture that could be used to justify waging total war/no quarter on Arab Muslims. I know for a fact that the percentage of Christians who believe wars should be waged for religious reasons is negligible… so small as to be statistically insignificant.
It seems to be you are comparing a few fanatics who are generally disregarded as being fringe elements in other religions, to what is a widespread and commonly accepted interpretation of scripture in Islam and saying: “See? It isn’t only Muslims who commit atrocities for religious reasons!”. In fact, that’s a pretty sketchy proposition to make. Hundreds of thousands of incidents of religiously motivated violence on the one hand, a few crazy statements and a couple isolated incidents on the other? Bleh.
Savo…
PLEASE…whatever side you are on…there is no genocide of the Palestinian people nor anything remotely approximating genocide. One of Israel’s fears of taking over the territories is they knows the Palestinians are mutliplying like little rabbits and there population is overtaking that of the Jews…that is ONE issue…not the only.
And why are people always talking about squalid overcrowded refugee camps and Palestinians “packed into” Gaza? Savo…there are better complaints against Israel…at LEAST find something valid and stop repeating that absolute, utter nonsense.
Andrew, you ask who called for “a total destruction of Palestinians of genocidal proportions”?
“The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their [Palestinian] holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).”
Meaning - destroy the Palestinians, wipe them out, so the Jews can live in peace.
Can you read?
But can also read, Savo Heleta?
The sub-question I chose to address instead is: how should we act in time of war, when our neighbors attack us, using their women, children and religious holy places as shields. I attempted to briefly address some of the ethical issues related to forcing the military to withhold fire from certain people and places, at the unbearable cost of widespread bloodshed (on both sides!) — when one’s own family and nation is mercilessly targeted from those very people and places.
He was talking about not holding fire when you’re being fired at out of holy sites, from among the civilian populace… Rabbi Manis Friedman’s opinion seems to be that an army should not hold fire even when civilian casualties are certain, rather than a call for widespread genocide.
And either way, his original opinion was attacked from every direction, and he issued both clarification and apology.
“Can you read?”
I can. Hence my question.
Can you? Apparently not:
“Meaning - destroy the Palestinians, wipe them out, so the Jews can live in peace.”
In the context it was clear that it means - shoot back at them, even if they use human shields or hide in holy sites.
I ask you, is a site still holy when terrorists fire from it?
And are Jews really expected to die when an attacker chooses to shoot from behind children?
Leave a Comment