You have to be a subscriber to use the search function.
Zev Steinhardt
Hey, you want to buy this bridge, Zev, believe me, it’s a bargain and, yep, I do own it ?
Thanks for the tip on the search function, though.
What bridge? You stated that Alessan said that Jewish lives were worth more than non-Jewish lives. Your exact quote (bolding mine) was:
You were called to back up that statement with a cite. When you stated that you couldn’t back it up because you couldn’t use the search function, I was kind enough to try to search for it for you. I couldn’t find it either. The burden of proof is now on you to prove that Alessan stated that Jewish lives were worth more than non-Jewish lives, as you are the one making the charge.
Either find the proof yourself, or else retract your statement and make it “I believe that Alessan believes that Jewish lives…” Becuase you have no proof that he stated it on these boards.
Should you find proof to the contrary that I missed, I will be more than happy to apologize for suspecting you of putting words into Alessan’s mouth. But for now, my accusation to you stands.
You’re welcome.
Zev Steinhardt
L_C: “Guests” don’t have access to the search function.
To try and answer your original question - it is not explicitly stated in Jewish law. The implicit argument (ie Jewish life is more valuable) is based on the following (the laws regarding murder):
However:
IOW, an argument can be made that a non jewish life is less valuable based on the lesser punishment incurred. Regarding one kind of “special circumstance”:
A debatable subject, but perhaps not on this particular thread. For more info, see my cite source, where you will also find a link to “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict”, and quotes from “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky.
Hey, this is great. We guests can make outrageous claims about what other people have said and no one can ask us to prove it. London Calling, do you still do it with animals like you once admitted to me?
As regards Hamas, killing each others leaders seems like a bad idea however evil they are. In a war situation what you really want are some rules at least - rules that both sides can agree on. The Israelis and the Palestinians don’t agree with each other on many things but at least they could both agree not to kill each others leaders.
On the other hand though, I dunno if it’s worth getting too upset about. If I were the leader of Hamas I would consider the possibility of assassination as an occupational hazard. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
I would feel the same way if I was Ariel Sharon. If the Palestinians managed to kill Sharon it would be a bad move (for the exact same reasons as killing the Hamas guy) but not entirely surprising.
Looks like things are going to get worse for a while before they get better though.
Some extremists somewhere may think that Jews and their lives are worth more than non-Jews. Just as some extremists of every religion and ethnicity think that of theirs.
There is however exactly no evidence that it is somehow basic to Judaism to think that Jews’ lives are more valuable than those of non-Jews.
Indeed, the link you kindly posted contains an argument between two posters over this matter - and one says the following:
“Regardless of anyone’s political views, I believe there is an obligation to be truthful and accurate in information provided. The quotations from “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky provided by Jews for Justice in the Middle East are dishonest and misleading. Indeed, the following excerpts from the book quoted by Jews for Justice in the Middle East contain references puporting to represent Jewish religious law that are usually found on avowedly antisemitic websites such as neo-Nazi sites and Holocaust denial sites: …”
Which does not exactly inspire confidence.
The matter is complicated by the fact that Judaism is by no means a unitary religion like Catholicism. There are lots of different views out there. Certainly, none of the Jewish authorities I have ever talked to would say that Jewish lives are worth more somehow.
I didn’t see Israel twisting Judaism around and sending an impressionable teenaged suicide bomber to assassinate this monsterous old man.
It’s obvious this often-vaunted “international community” is made of many countries which still hate Jews. A lot of people still believe that Jews have a lot of secret power of world affairs, and scapegoating them serves to turn attention away from the real villians.
-k
It’s hard to predict anything in that region but If I were an Israeli I would have expected an all-out war long before this. What is odd is that they released this excuse of a religious leader from prison and he redoubled his terrorist activities. All this could have been settled at the table long ago. I fear the Israelis will eventually be pushed to a winner-take-all scenario.
The whole thing is sad.
I’m not amazingly informed on this, but it looks to me as Sharon "fighting"terrosim, almost as if we had shot a missile at Saddam and got him.
Except a wholebunch of people wouldn’t be ready to kill us all for doing that.
It was a bold statemtn by Sharon; what happens next is a mystery to me.
Though IMO only, I think Israel could do with a more peaceable leader.
That’s because they didn’t have to! Instead they used the helicopters and missiles given to them by other superpowers and sent a young soldier to launch missiles into crowded streets!
I despise it when people bring this argument up.
Israel is not so bad! Atleast their not using sucide bombings. Like I said there’s a reason for that. The Palestinians cannot engage Israel in a conventional war. So they (the extremists that is) do what they can against their enemy.
The americans were called terrorists by the british when we sought independence. We could not field an army that fought like the british and win. So we used different tactics.
If Palestine could defend itself by launching rockets into crowded israeli streets they probably would and it would be called war, or no?
Give me a break :rolleyes:
Just because one does not agree with the contemptable actions of Israel does not mean one hates jews, anymore than disagreeing with Bush’s policies makes me anti-american.
This is a weak argument.
I can’t help but feel sorry for the real victims in this whole mess: those on BOTH sides that truly want peace and not more blood.
It’s the way of the world…
If a neighbour of yours died in a car crash wouldn’t you feel it more than someone you’d never met in New Zealand dying in a car crash?
I’m not trying to put a value on peoples lives but IMHO it’s natural to value the lives of those close to you more than those that you have no ties to.
Yes. I deliberately chose that cite because it contained a rebuttal. Dr. Shahak’s views (the second poster, and co-author of the commentary in question) were/are considered controversial. I was trying to answer L_C’s question as briefly (and as balanced) as possible.
I’m not a religious scholar, so I have no idea if the interpretations of the laws cited are misleading. But I think there is no question that the perception exists, in some (ie radical) Jewish factions, and that is exploited by anti-zionists and radical Islamic fundamentalists.
I wouldn’t say that the remarks in this thread are in that category, but to ignore or deny that the perception exists doesn’t help matters.
Crowded streets? How many died? How many Israeli civilians die in an average bombing? How was an honorable religion like Judaism or Islam corrupted in order to fire that missle?
And Israel didn’t HAVE to send suicide bombers? It also bugs me when people think that terrorism is somehow justified if it’s used by a repressed people. If the Palestinian leadership wasn’t so filled with Jew-hating pride, they would expel the terrorists and then take a non-violent and media-publicized approach to “Israeli apartheid”. It seemed to have worked in India, South Africa, and the American South… I couldn’t imagine even the United States being able to support Israel for long if that happened.
But that’s not going to happen. Arafat (or whoever is really in charge) will never admit that the Israeli’s are far more powerful than the Palestinians, so a meek appeal to morality in the face of oppression is unthinkable.
-k
More tha needed to. And this is hardly the first such attack.
Basically what you’re saying is that those who are oppressed should stick to starvation protests and sign waving?
Who was the aggressor in the mess?
Kudos to Sharon for making the unpopular decision to have done what was needed and absolutely necessary.
I was grown up enough to remember the developing events of the 60’s and the defensive stance Israel was forced to make. No matter what spin anyone tries to make on this situation, my memory is clear.
There is no question in my mind that Israel is doing the right thing.
*The Arabs * were the aggressor Kinthalis.
OK, you’re conflating two things here, and admittedly I haven’t made much of a distinction, although I’ve tried. I feel sympathy for the individual families of victims. Nobody should have to lose a loved one in such a violent manner, be they Israeli or Palestinian. But for Israel to adopt a position of “Poor us, we’re being attacked by vicious bloodthirsty Arabs for no good reason” when their heavy-handed persecution and oppression of Palestinians guarantees such attacks doesn’t merit the least amount of sympathy in my book. It is entirely possible to differentiate between the people of a country and the actions of that country’s government and military.
I’m quite aware of that, thank you very much. Perhaps you’re not overly familiar with the use of analogies for illustrative purposes?
Simply put, I don’t. If that isn’t clear to you by now, it probably never will be.
OK - trying to take a look at the original question asked.
I don’t think that the assassination will have much of an effect on the level of violence in the short term - the Palestinian terrorist factions were already trying their hardest to pull off as many bombings as possible, even before the attack. Only the rationale will change now - from “confirmation of victory” in the fore-front of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza to “revenge” for the killing of Yassin.
Which I think is, in itself, good news - it means that there is now probably a more suitable political climate for Sharon actually to pull the withdrawal off, in the face of the political pressure at home and the fears of “victory parades” and their long term effect in Gaza after said pullout. I’m still not sure that it will happen, only that there’s a better chance - althoiugh I think this may have actually been part of a plan to achieve the right political climate, which may suggest that Sharon really does mean to pull out of Gaza.
And in terms of effect on the terrorist activities, it’s like telling a bunch of marathon runners at the 35 km mark that that the nature of the prize offered the winner has just changed. The effect on the race will probably be minimal - they’re all going flat-out anyway…
Dani
See I don’t see that Noone Special. I think this will have a tremendous effect, both in recruiting young “soldiers” to Hamas and in donations to Hamas which will be used to buy more explosives and guns.
It is a question of limiting reagents for bombings in Israel. It is either the Israeli defense, the number of bombers recruited, or the explosives. You think that right now it is the Israeli defense – the Palestinians are sending them as fast as they can get them and the only factor in them getting through is them evading the roadblocks and the security fence. I think that the Palestinians can send them faster, and they can do all types of other things to make all kinds of new problems because of international sympathy garnered.
More Israeli assets and citizens could be targeted around the world now that al Qaida has come out for Hamas and Yassin. More Jewish assets could be targeted, and now there is more resources to do it. It is not like either of these are unprecedented, with the kidnapping of Israelis in Europe and Beirut, the al Qaida attack on the synagogue in Tunisia, and the Iranian sponsorship of the Argentine bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994.
I still maintain this could turn very ugly. I really hope it doesn’t, but I still think it has the potential.
No-one
Once again I appreciate the workings of your mind.
I agree. There will be some progress on Gaza. It is part of the deal the neo-cons brokered; viz The US takes out Saddam. The quid pro quo by Saron is some reportable progress in the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
Well, first off, I think you have to sort out in your own mind exactly what you are expressing sympathy for, and what you are expressing distain for. It is no use blaming me for that confusion.
From this: “Poor us, we’re being attacked by vicious bloodthirsty Arabs for no good reason”, I take away the impression that you think that the terrorist attacks are justified - that is, blowing up random kids is an acceptable act, one that Israel and Israelis ought not to whine about because they brought in on themselves. I simply do not understand how you can think that the attacks are justified, and at the exact same time feel any meaningful sympathy for the victims of those attacks.
Smells like crocodile tears to me. If that is not the way you want to be seen, work on how you express yourself.