Brutus, putting aside the political/societal issues of whether/when/if vigilantism is necessary or appropriate, let’s look at this from a cost/benefit analysis:
The purpose of the patrols is to protect against a terrorist attack on the neighborhoods in question. Are those patrols likely to to decrease the chance of a successful terrorist attack, and do those potential gains in safety outweigh the potential dangers of having a group of persons untrained in terrorist detection, law enforcement, or (possibly) even firearms safety wandering the streets looking for trouble?
I would say emphatically “no.” New York City isn’t Tel Aviv.
Even a crude form of racial profiling wouldn’t work in my fair city. The massive amount of ethnic and racial diversity, as well as the proximity in which various groups live, bar any effective discrimination as to who is possibly a terrorist on the basis of ethnicity.
The intermingling and anonomynity of the city prevents identification of possible terrorists on the basis of “he’s not usually in this neighborhood.” Even in majority Orthodox neighborhoods, there are an appreciable number of transient (or even long-term) residents who do not interact with their neighbors. Hell, I’ve lived in my neighborhood for two years, and I can recognize maybe 30 people in my building, 5 people on my block, and the brothers who run the local bodega.
So these guys aren’t going to stumble across a terrorist except by blind luck. The only benefit of the patrols is that, if they fortuitously stumble upon a terrorist, they don’t have to run home to get their gun to shoot the guy. Not that that will necessarily help - you aren’t even going to stumble onto a terrorist until he/she does something - like pull out the on-off switch for the explosives trapped to his/her body. And by then it’s probably too late.
OTOH, you have a bunch of people walking down the street with weapons looking for trouble. Add to that that these guys adhere to Rabbi Kahane’s principles - and Kahane was one of the most racist, violent misanthropes ever to walk the streets.
The groups founded by Kahane and his followers - Kach and Kahane Chai - have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the The U.S. Department of State, as well as (domestic) terrorist organizations by the Government of Israel.
It’s the equivalent of having a group of KKK out on the lookout for black terrorists.
This is a bad rationale, IMHO. As you mention, there was a guy who came very close to blowing up the subway a few years ago. And (note to Sua as well) a Muslim shot up a van full of yeshiva kids a few years back, killing at least one and wounding a bunch. The notion that because it hasn’t happened until now it is not a threat is ridiculous. Especially in these times, when Jews all over the world are being attacked, and when local law enforcement people say it is “inevitable” that suicide bombing will be coming to the US.
Which is not to say that I am in favor of armed patrols – frankly I doubt if they’ll accomplish much, if anything. But that is not to minimize the very real danger.
One might debate whether Kahane was a racist – I would be inclined to think he was not – but the above statement is extremely hyperbolic if not downright ludicrous.
Yes, I see the problem. But what a problem! I would never want to take away a peoples right to defend themselves, but by the same token, I realize that putting armed hot-heads on the streets is not the best of ideas. Part of the problem, I believe, stems from NYC’s simplistic gun-control laws. Part of the problem is that terrorism is virtually impossible to stop at the point of terrorism (if that makes any sense). Part of the problem is, as you stated, having untrained people attempt to make profiling decisions.
Not a cut and dry problem, with no simple solution, it seems.
But are the neighborhood patrols in the West Bank made up of observant Orthodox Jews?
IANA Orthodox (or any other kind of) Jew, but it seems to me that there is nothing particularly surprising about this inconsistency. After all, throughout history there have been Jews who have chosen to die rather than violate Shabbos (or kashrut, or other laws) while others have found justification for putting the value of life ahead of all else.
Also, it seems to me that there may be a qualitative difference between Brooklyn neighborhood patrols and, say, the Hasidic ambulance corps that uses beepers and answers calls on the sabbath. In the first instance, the sabbath would be broken (rather severely, I would think) PROSPECTVELY, in order to respond to a threat which might or might not materialize on any given day. In the second instance, there is an actual, concrete threat to the life and health of a specific individual which prompts the calling of the EMTs and their response of breaking the sabbath to give aid.
In other words, the neighborhood patrol would be out actively looking for trouble, while the EMTs would be passively waiting to respond to any need which might present itself. Seems different to me, anyway. (Hope I’m not digging a hole for myself, here.)
IzzyR, yes my statement about Kahane certainly was hyperbolic, but it certainly wasn’t ludicrous. I’m just reflecting the Israeli government’s assessment of Kahane and the organization he founded.
Kach and Kahane were prohibited from running for the Knesset after the Knesset barred racist organizations from election. The Israeli high court approved the law and the barring of Kahane and Kach.
In 1994, the Israeli government declared Kach a terrorist organization.
I’m afraid you’ll have to point out who those Jews are, who gave their lives rather than violate Shabbos or kashrus laws. One is required, under Jewish law, to violate Shabbos and kashrus to save a life (even one’s own). It is simply wrong to allow oneself (or someone else) to die to prevent a violation of the Shabbos.
Well, I can tell you that the members of Hatzoloh (the above mentioned ambulance service) do “violate” Shabbos by carrying their radios and ambulance keys in public on Shabbos. They do this even if no call may come in.
As an Israeli, I agree with what Sua said about Kahane. KACH are the scum of the earth.
I served in the IDF with any number of Orthodox Jews; some of the best soldiers I’ve known were Yeshiva boys. All of them did their jobs - patrols, guard duty, operational activity - 7 days a week. No exceptions, and no complaints.
Is it still vigilantism if they apprehend but do not punish?
**
How can it be the exclusive province of the government? The state laws in Texas are pretty clear about when force and deadly force can or cannot be used. The Texas penal code doesn’t say anything about force or deadly force being the exclusive province of agents of the state. I have a right to use violence to protect threats to life, limb, and property. Of course I suppose those rights only apply to immediate threats.
Marc to split hairs (but hey, we’re lawyers :D) self-defense and the like are defenses - you’ve violated the prohibition on the use of force, but were justified in doing so.
Yes, it’s po-tay-to, po-tah-to, but it’s consistent with theory.
Hmm…those seven brothers and their mother in the second book of Macabees. Antiochus tries to get them to eat pork, and they won’t, so he cuts them up and fries them.
Indeed it does. I don’t think the Israeli government is a good indicator at all. Kahane presented them with an enormous PR nightmare. There is a tendency for people (especially those with an ax to grind) to draw moral equivalents that ignore scale and degree. Kahane was very useful for this purpose, which he (or his movement) still serves today. So the Palestinians and the Arabs want to throw all Jews out of Israel? Well, the Kach party wants to throw the Arabs out of Israel. So hundred (and thousands ?) of Jews have been killed by Arab terrorists? Well, a couple of Kach guys once killed an Arab in the West Bank. For the Israeli government, to which world opinion is very important, Kahane had to be suppressed by any means.
Kahane was unabashed in his position that all the Arabs should be expelled from Israel. Not your most progressive liberal thinker, to be sure. But he expressed his position not in the context of animosity to Arabs, or even a negative view of them, but simply an assessment that Jews and Arabs would never be able to live in peace in the country - that either one or the other would be expelled, or the fighting and killing would go on forever. Naturally, being Jewish himself, he preferred expelling the Arabs over the other alternatives. I don’t know if that makes someone a racist - but he was less so than your average garden-variety racist, and he was certainly not a violent misanthrope.
(Alessan, I couldn’t say anything about Kach members - I would imagine there are different types, and you would have more experience than I would in this regard. I was commenting more on Kahane himself - I don’t know if you can tie in the JDL to Kach in any event).
I would say that that better describes the views of late Rehavam Ze’evi - the Israeli minister who was killed last fall - than those of Meir Kahane. While I’ve never read his writings, I’ve followed his career a bit, and everything I’ve learned about him leads me to believe that he was a racist, an Israeli David Duke without the polish. What’s more, I’ve seen his followers, and they’re not much better that a Jewsih Klan. They’ve been linked to Baruch Goldstein, Yigal Amir and several other criminal elements.
As for your “PR” theory - Kahahne was (and still is) one of the most reviled men in Israel, hated by the vast majority of the population, and not because he made us look bad. He was hated because Jews are very sensitive about anyone propogating theories about racial superiority and inferiority.
I was in high school when he died, and despite the fact that all of us agreed that nobody had a right to go around killing Israelis, word of his death brought relief, satisfaction and scattered applause.
Well, unlike you, I have read his writings (he had a regular column in a NYC weekly when I was growing up) and on that basis I assert that you are wrong. (It is quite likely, if I might speculate a bit, that your sources were not friendly to his positions).
And FWIW, you are also wrong about the “polish”. Kahane was an excellent writer, extremely talented debater, and an engaging personality.
Don’t know what this means. If you are basing it on personal knowledge of these people I can’t argue with you, but the fact that some of his followers have been linked to extremists does not carry much weight.
Are you sure? Admittedly, I’ve never read the original in Maccabees. But the story of Hannah and her sons, from my recollection, involved the prohibition of idolatry (for which one IS required to sacrifice his life rather than violate), not the prohibition of eating non-kosher food.
Met them, heard their leaders and spokesmen, followed their actions. I stand by what I’ve said: KACH is a racist organization with fascist overtones. They’re aren’t linked to extremists, they are extremists, and more extreme than most.
Disagree with what? That most Israelis wanted absolutely nothing to do with Kahane? That Jews and racism don’t mix?
You probably mean that his expulsion from the Knesset wasn’t because of a popular groundswell, but rather because of PR. Well, to that I say: if Israelis really cared about world opinion, they wouldn’t have elected Arik Sharon.
It’s iffy, and I’d say you’re probably right, even though it’s not mentioned itself in the text. All the text says is
But, that story comes right after the story of Eliezar, who’s also tortured and killed because they want him to eat pork, but in the story of Eliezar, it’s made clear that the animal is a sacrificed one. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that the story of Hannah and her sons involved eating a sacrifice too.
Of course, right before the story of Eliezar in the book of Maccabees, it says
I haven’t followed them closely. But again, I don’t think they have much connection to the American JDL being discussed here.
Well I’m responding to your statement about links.
That Kahane was hated by the vast majority of the population because of his “racism”. Or for any other reason. He was certainly hated by many people - he was a polarizing figure. (Newt Gingrich was hated by many people). His party had only a few seats in the Knesset at the time it was banned (though I think his support may have been rising at the time). But there were certainly many people who did not support him without hating him.
Nonsense. Arik Sharon is a less extreme figure than Kahane, and even he would not have been elected were it not for the crisis situation that prevails. (He has been hanging around Likud politics for many years now, and never had a serious chance until enough people were killed to make people want to try a tougher approach). If Kahane was alive today and his party legalized I’m sure he would get a lot more seats as well.
As a country, Israel is far more sensitive to world opinion (particularly US opinion) than most.
Actually, Captain, we don’t even have to assume that the pork was from an idolatrous sacrifice. The rules of Kiddush Hashem (martyrdom for the sake of Judaism) state that at a time of government-sanctioned religious persecution - which Antiochus’ decrees certainly constituted - a Jew must give up his or her life even for commandments other than the Big Three (idolatry, murder, or sexual offenses).
Furthermore, even when there’s no generalized persecution - just an individual non-Jew acting on his own, attempting to force a Jew to transgress some prohibition - then it may still happen that the Jew is required to choose martyrdom over transgression. This is true when: (a) the non-Jew doesn’t stand to gain any benefit from the Jew’s action, but simply wants to force the Jew to violate Torah law; and (b) there are at least ten adult Jews present. [There is also a disagreement among the halachic authorities as to what to do when (a) is true but (b) is not; the Code of Jewish Law (Yoreh De’ah 157:1) rules that one may choose martyrdom in such a case.]
In the case of Hannah and her sons, then, (a) was certainly the case; as for (b), we don’t know. In the case of Eleazar, both factors were evidently present (quite aside from the “government-sanctioned religious persecution” angle), since it took place in the public square.
Needless to say, none of the above factors are true of the present situation (thank G-d), which is what Zev meant when he said that
In the case of the refugees in the caves, BTW, a different issue came into play. The reason they didn’t defend themselves was evidently that they realized that they were outnumbered and outarmed, so that they could not have saved their lives even if they had violated the Shabbat to defend themselves. (Had it been a weekday, they would likely have made the effort anyway, if only in order to knock off a few of the enemy soldiers.)
I admit, I really don’t know the rules of Kiddush Hashem. In the case of government-sanctioned religious persecution, what commandments is a Jew required to give up his or her life for? All of them? Or only specific ones?