Views of violence in Judaism
From Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia
The love of peace and the pursuit of peace, as well as laws requiring the
eradication of "evil" using violent means, co-exist within the Jewish
tradition.[1][2][3][4] Laws
requiring the eradication of evil, sometimes using violent means, exist in the
Jewish tradition alongside doctrines rejecting violence.[1][5] This
article deals with the juxtaposition of Judaic law and theology to violence and
non-violence by groups and individuals. Attitudes and laws towards both peace
and violence exist within the Jewish tradition.[1] Throughout
history, Judaism's
religious texts or precepts have been used to promote[6][7][8] as
well as oppose violence.[9]
 |
Rejection of Violence and
Pursuit of Peace
Main article: Judaism
and peace
Judaism's religious texts endorse compassion and peace, and the Hebrew
Bible contains the well-known commandment to "love thy neighbor as
thyself".[5] In
fact, the love of peace and the pursuit of peace is one of the key principles
in Jewish law. Jewish tradition permits waging war and killing in certain
cases, however, the requirement is that one always seek a just peace before
waging war.[1]
According to the 1947 Columbus
Platform of Reform
Judaism, "Judaism, from the days of the prophets, has
proclaimed to mankind the ideal of universal peace, striving for spiritual and
physical disarmament of all nations. Judaism rejects violence and relies upon
moral education, love and sympathy."[9]
The philosophy of Nonviolence has
roots in Judaism, going back to the Jerusalem
Talmud of the middle 3rd century. While absolute nonviolence is
not a requirement of Judaism, the religion so sharply restricts the use of
violence, that nonviolence often becomes the only way to fulfilling a life of
truth, justice and peace, which Judaism considers to be the three tools for the
preservation of the world.[10]
Jewish law (past and present) does not permit any use of violence unless it
is in self-defense.[11] Any
person that even raises his hand in order to hit a nother person is called
"evil.".[12]
Guidelines from the Torah to the 'Jewish Way to Fight a War': When the time
for war has arrived, Jewish soldiers are expected to abide by specific laws and
values when fighting. Jewish war ethics attempts to balance the value of
maintaining human life with the necessity of fighting a war. Judaism is
somewhat unique in that it demands adherence to Jewish values even while
fighting a war. The Torah provides the following rules for how to fight a war.
Pursue Peace Before Waging War. Preserve the Ecological Needs of the
Environment. Maintain Sensitivity to Human Life. The Goal is Peace[13]
The ancient commands (like those) of wars for the Israelites to eradicate
idol worshipping do not apply in Judaism today. Jews are not taught to glorify
violence. The rabbis of the Talmud saw war as an avoidable evil. They taught,
'The sword comes to the world because of delay of justice and through
perversion of justice.' Jews have always hated war and Shalom expresses the
hope for peace; in Judaism war is an evil, but at times a necessary one, yet,
Judaism teaches that one has to go to great length to avoid it.[14]
Claims that Judaism is violent
Claims that monotheistic religions are inherently violent
Some critics of religion such as Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argue that all
monotheistic religions are inherently violent. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer writes
that "Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue to contribute to the
destruction of the world until and unless each challenges violence in
"sacred texts" and until each affirms nonviolent power of God".[15]
Bruce Feiler writes that "Jews and Christians who smugly console
themselves that Islam is the only violent religion are willfully ignoring their
past. Nowhere is the struggle between faith and violence described more
vividly, and with more stomach-turning details of ruthlessness, than in the
Hebrew Bible".[16] Similarly,
Burggraeve and Vervenne describe the Old Testament as full of violence and
evidence of both a violent society and a violent god. They write that,
"(i)n numerous Old Testament texts the power and glory of Israel's God is
described in the language of violence." They assert that more than one
thousand passages refer to YHWH as acting violently or supporting the violence
of humans and that more than one hundred passages involve divine commands to
kill humans.[17]
Claims that Judaism is a violent religion
Some Christian churches and theologians argue that Judaism is a violent
religion and the god of Israel as a violent god. Reuven Firestone asserts that
these assertions are usually made in the context of claims that Christianity is
a religion of peace and that the god of Christianity is one that expresses only
love.[18]
Principle of minimization of violence
Normative Judaism is not pacifist and violence is condoned in the service
of self-defense.[19] J.
Patout Burns asserts that Jewish tradition clearly posits the principle of
minimization of violence. This principle can be stated as "(wherever)
Jewish law allows violence to keep an evil from occurring, it mandates that the
minimal amount of violence be used to accomplish one's goal."[20]
Warfare
Main article: Judaism
and war
Regarding war, the commandment of Milkhemet
Mitzvah (Hebrew: מלחמת מצווה, "War by commandment")
refers to a war during the times of the Bible when a king would go to war in
order to fulfill something based on, and required by, the Torah.[21]
What is a milchemet mitzvah? It is a war to assist Israel against an enemy
that has attacked them.
-Maimonedies, Laws of Kings 5:1
Wars of this type do not need the approval of the Sanhedrin.[citation needed]
This is in contrast to a Milkhemet Reshut (a discretionary war), which
according to Jewish law require the permission of a Sanhedrin.[citation needed] These
wars (discretionary wars) tend to be for economic reasons and had exemption
clauses (Deuteronomy 20:5) while, milhemet mitzvah tended to be invoked in
defensive wars, when vital interests were at risk and had no such exemption
clauses.[22]
The Talmud insists that before going to non-defensive war, the king would
need to seek authorization from the Sanhedrin,
as well as divine approval through the High Priest. As these institutions have
not existed for 2,000 years, this virtually rules out the possibility of
non-defensive war.[23]
The permissibility of war is limited and the requirement is that one always
seek a just peace before waging war.[1][24] Modern
Jewish scholars hold that the calls to war these texts provide no longer apply,
and that Jewish theology instructs Jews to leave vengeance to God.[25] [26]
Laws of siege
According to Deuteronomy,
an offer of peace is to be made to any city which is besieged, conditional on
the acceptance of terms of tribute.[23] According
to Maimonides,
on besieging a city in order to seize it, it must not be surrounded on all four
sides but only on three sides, thus leaving a path of escape for whomever
wishes to flee to save his life.[27] Nachmanides,
writing a century later, strengthened the rule and added a reason: "We are
to learn to deal kindly with our enemy." [27]
Forbidden war tactics
Jewish law prohibits the use of outright vandalism in warfare.[28] It
forbids destruction of fruit trees as a tactic of war. It is also forbidden to
break vessels, tear clothing, wreck that which is built up, stop fountains, or
waste food in a destructive manner. Killing an animal needlessly or offering poisoned
water to livestock are also forbidden.[28] According
to Rabbi Judah
Loew of Prague, Jewish law forbids the killing of innocent
people, even in the course of a legitimate military engagement.[27]
Wars of extermination in the Tanakh
See also: Herem
(war or property)
The Tanakh (Jewish
Bible) contains commandments that
require the Israelites to exterminate seven Canaanite nations, and describes
several wars of extermination that annihilated entire cities or groups of
peoples.
Wars of extermination are of historical interest only, and do not serve as
a model within Judaism.[23] A
formal declaration that the “seven nations” are no longer identifiable was made
by Joshua
ben Hananiah, around the year 100 CE.[23]
Extermination is described in several of Judaism's biblical commandments,
known as the 613
Mitzvot:[29]
- Not to keep alive any individual of the seven
Canaanite nations (Deut. 20:16)
- To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the
land of Israel (Deut. 20:17)
- Always to remember what Amalek did (Deut. 25:17)
- That the evil done to us by Amalek shall not be forgotten
(Deut. 25:19)
- To destroy the seed of Amalek (Deut. 25:19)
The extent of extermination is described in the commandment Deut 20:16-18 which
orders the Israelites to "not leave alive anything that breathes…
completely destroy them …".[30] Several
scholars have characterized the exterminations as genocide.[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
Victims
The targets of the extermination commandments were the seven Canaanite
nations explicitly identified by God as targets in Deut 7:1-2 and Deut 20:16-18.[41] These
seven tribes are Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites,Perizzites, Hivites,
and Jebusites.
Most of these descended from the biblical figure Canaan,
as described in Gen 10:15-18. In addition, two
others tribes were subject to wars of extermination: Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:1-20)[42] andMidianites (Numbers 31:1-18). The
extermination of the Canaanite nations is described primarily in the Book
of Joshua (especially Joshua 10:28-42) which
includes the Battle
of Jericho described in Joshua 6:15-21.
The instruction God gives in Deut 20:16-18 is for
Israelites to exterminate "everything that breathes", but the precise
extent of the killing varied:[43] The
instruction was made with respect to the Amalekites 1 Samuel 15:1-20,
Canaanites (Battle
of Jericho) Joshua 6:15-21, Canaanite
nations Joshua 10:28-42, and
Midianites Numbers 31:1-18.[41]
Some scholars such as Van Wees conclude that the biblical accounts of
extermination are exaggerated, fictional, or metaphorical.[44] In
the archaeological community, the Battle
of Jericho is very thoroughly studied, and the consensus of
modern scholars is that the story of battle and the associated extermination
are a pious
fiction and did not happen as described in the Book of Joshua.[45] For
example, the Book
of Joshua describes the extermination of the Canaanite tribes,
yet at a later time, Judges 1:1-2:5 suggests
that the extermination was not complete.[46]
Likewise, it is not clear if the historical Amalekites were exterminated or
not. 1 Samuel 15:7-8 implies ("He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive,
and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.") that - after
Agag was also killed - the Amalekites were extinct, but in a later story in the
time of Hezekiah, the Simeonites annihilated some Amalekites on Mount Seir, and
settled in their place: "And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by
Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill
country of Seir. They killed the remaining Amalekites who had escaped, and they
have lived there to this day." (1 Chr 4:42-43).[citation needed]
As genocide
See also: Genocides
in history
The wars of extermination have been characterized as genocide by
a number of scholars and commentators.[41][47][48] Shaul
Magid characterizes the commandment to exterminate the Midianites as a
"genocidal edict", and asserts that rabbinical tradition continues to
defend the edict into the 20th century.[49] L.
Daniel Hawk describes the extermination of Canaanites as "ethnic
cleansing", but notes that the narrative includes contradictory indications
that Canaanites were absorbed into Israeli society.[50][51] Ra'anan
Boustan, Alex Jassen, and Calvin Roetzel assert that - in the modern era - the
violence directed towards the Canaanites would be characterized as genocide.[52] Zev
Garber characterizes the commandment to wage war on the Amalekites as genocide.[53] Pekka
Pitkanen asserts that Deuteronomy involves "demonization of the opponent"
which is typical of genocide, and he asserts that the genocide of the
Canaanites was due to unique circumstances, and that "the biblical
material should not be read as giving license for repeating it."[54]
Explanations
Several explanations for the extreme violence associated with the wars of
extermination have been offered, some found in the Jewish
Bible, others provided by Rabbinic commentators, and others
hypothesized by scholars.
In Deut 20:16-18 God tells
the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanite nations, "otherwise, they will
teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods,
and you will sin against the lord your God". Another reason was revenge
for Midian's role in Israel's apostate behavior during the Heresy
of Peor (Numbers 25:1-18).[55]
Another justification is that the Canaanites were sinful, depraved people,
and their deaths were punishments (Deut 9:5). Another
justification for the exterminations is to make room for the returning
Israelites, who are entitled to exclusive occupation of the land of Canaan: the
Canaanite nations were living in the land of Israel, but when the Israelites
returned, the Canaanites were expected to leave the land.[56]
In Talmudic commentary, the Canaanite nations were given the opportunity to
leave, and their refusal to leave "lay the onus of blame for the conquest
and Joshua's extirpation of the Canaanites at the feet of the victims."[57] Another
explanation of the exterminations is that God gave the land to the Canaanites
only temporarily, until the Israelites would arrive, and the Canaanites
extermination was punishment for their refusal to obey God's desire that they
leave.[58] Another
Talmudic explanation - for the wars in the Book
of Joshua - was that God initiated the wars as a diversionary
tactic so Israelites would not kill Joshua after discovering that Joshua had
forgotten certain laws.[59]
Some scholars trace the extermination of the Midianites to revenge for the
fact that Midianites were responsible for selling Joseph into
slavery in Egypt (Genesis 37:28-36).[60]
Association with violent attitudes in the modern era
Some analysts have associated the biblical commandments of extermination
with violent attitudes in modern era.
According to Ian
Lustick, leaders of the now defunct[61] Jewish
fundamentalist movement Gush
Emunim, such as Hanan
Porat, consider the Palestinians to be like Canaanites or
Amalekites, and suggest that infers a duty to make merciless war against Arabs
who reject Jewish sovereignty.[62] Atheist
commentator Christopher
Hitchens discusses the association of the
"obliterated" tribes with modern troubles in Palestine.[63]
Niels
Peter Lemche asserts that European colonialism in the 19th
century was ideologically based on the biblical narratives of conquest and
extermination. He also states that European Jews who migrated to Palestine
relied on the biblical ideology of conquest and extermination, and considered
the Arabs to be Canaanites.[64] Scholar
Arthur Grenke claims that the view of war expressed in Deuteronomy contributed
to the destruction of Native Americans and to the destruction of European Jewry.[65]
Nur
Masalha writes that the "genocide" of the
extermination commandments has been "kept before subsequent generations"
and served as inspirational examples of divine support for slaughtering enemies.[66] Ra'anan
Boustan, Alex Jassen, and Calvin Roetzel assert that, like other groups have
done to their enemies, militant Zionists have identified modern Palestinians
with Canaanites, and hence as targets of violence mandated in Deut 20:15-18.[67] Scholar
Leonard B. Glick states that Jewish fundamentalists in Israel, such as Shlomo
Aviner, consider the Palestinians to be like biblical Canaanites,
and that some fundamentalist leaders suggest that they "must be prepared
to destroy" the Palestinians if the Palestinians do not leave the land.[68] Scholar
Keith Whitelam asserts that the Zionist movement has drawn inspiration from the
biblical conquest tradition, and Whitelam draws parallels between the
"genocidal Israelites" of Joshua and modern Zionists.[69]
Commandment to exterminate the Amalekites
See also: Amalekites
The Jewish Bible contains a mitzvah (commandment)
to exterminate the Amalekites, based on the verse 1 Samuel 15 "Now, go and
crush Amalek; put him under the curse of destruction with all that he
possesses. Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and
sheep, camel and donkey." Some commentators, including Maimonides,
have discussed the ethics of the commandment to exterminate all the Amalekites,
including the command to kill all the women and children, and the notion of
collective punishment.[70] Maimonides
explains that the commandment of killing out the nation of Amalek requires the
Jewish people to peacefully request of them to accept upon themselves the Noachide
laws and pay a tax to the Jewish kingdom. Only if they refuse
is the commandment applicable. Some commentators, such as Rabbi Hayim
Palaggi (1788–1869) argued that Jews had lost the tradition of
distinguishing Amalekites from other people, and therefore the commandment of
killing them could not practically be applied.[71] Rabbis
nullified the Torah’s commands to kill idolatrous people, by ruling that the
Canaanite peoples no longer existed, that the Assyrians, not Israelites, had
wiped them out – and therefore the command was a dead letter.[72] In
addition, the Talmud asserts
that today "since Sancheriv mixed up the nations, there is no nation that
is identified as Amalek."[73]
In later Jewish tradition,
the Amalekites came to represent the metaphorical enemy of the Jews. Nur
Masalha, Elliot Horowitz and Josef Stern suggest that Amalekites
have come to represent an "eternally irreconcilable enemy" that wants
to murder Jews, and that Jews In post-biblical times sometimes associate
contemporary enemies with Haman or Amalekites, and that some Jews believe that
pre-emptive violence is acceptable against such enemies.[74] Nur
Masalha and other scholars describe several associations of
modern Palestinians with
Amalekites, including recommendations by rabbi Israel
Hess to kill Palestinians, which are based on biblical verses
such as 1 Samuel 15.[75]
Modern warfare
The permissibility to wage war is limited and the requirement is that one
always seek a just peace before waging war.[1]
Some commentators claim that religious leaders have interpreted Jewish
religious laws to support killing of innocent civilians during wartime in some
circumstances, and that this interpretation was asserted several times: in 1974
following the Yom
Kippur war, [76] in
2004, during conflicts in West
Bank and Gaza,[77] and
in the 2006
Lebanon War.[78] However,
major and mainstream religious leaders have condemned this interpretation, and
the Israeli military subscribes to the Purity
of arms doctrine, which seeks to minimize injuries to
non-combatants; furthermore, the advice was only applicable to combat
operations in wartime.
Activist Noam
Chomsky claims that leaders of Judaism in Israel play a role in
sanctioning military operations: "[Israel's Supreme Rabbinical Council]
gave their endorsement to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, declaring that it
conformed to the Halachi (religious) law and that participation in the war 'in
all its aspects' is a religious duty. The military Rabbinate meanwhile
distributed a document to soldiers containing a map of Lebanon with the names
of cities replaced by alleged Hebrew names taken from the Bible.... A military
Rabbi in Lebanon explained the biblical sources that justify 'our being here
and our opening the war; we do our Jewish religious duty by being here.'"[79]
In 2007, Mordechai
Eliyahu, the former Sephardi Chief
Rabbi of Israel wrote that "there was absolutely no moral
prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential
massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket
launchings".[80] His
son, Shmuel
Eliyahu chief rabbi of Safed,
called for the "carpet bombing" of the general area from which the
Kassams were launched, to stop rocket attacks on Israel, saying "This is a
message to all leaders of the Jewish people not to be compassionate with those
who shoot [rockets] at civilians in their houses." he continued, "If
they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they don't
stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must
kill 100,000. Even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."[80] In
March 2009, he called for "state-sponsored revenge" to restore
"Israel's deterrence... It's time to call the child by its name: revenge,
revenge, revenge. We mustn't forget. We have to take horrible revenge for the terrorist
attack at Mercaz Harav yeshiva," referring to an earlier
incident in which eight students were brutally gunned down in cold blood.
"I am not talking about individual people in particular. I'm talking about
the state. (It) has to pain them where they scream 'Enough,' to the point where
they fall flat on their face and scream 'help!' "[81]
An influential Chabad Lubavitch Hassid rabbi Manis
Friedman in 2009 was quoted as saying: "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".[82] Later,
Friedman explained: "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."[83]
Retribution and punishment
Eye for an eye
Main article: Eye
for an eye
George Robinson characterizes the passage of Exodus that contains the
principle of lex talionis ("an
eye for an eye") as one of the "most controversial in the
Bible." According to Robinson, some have pointed to this passage as
evidence of the vengeful nature of justice in the Hebrew Bible.[84] Similarly,
Abraham Bloch asserts that the "lex talionis has been singled out as a
classical example of biblical harshness."[85]
Harry S. Lewis points to Lamech, Gideon and Samson as Biblical heroes who
were renowned for "their prowess in executing blood revenge upon their
public and private enemies. Lewis asserts that this "right of 'wild'
justice was gradually limited."[86] Isaac
Kalimi explains that the “lex talionis was humanized by the Rabbis who
interpreted it to mean pecuniary compensation. As in the case of the lex
talionis, humanization of the law replaces the peshat of
the written Torah law.[87] Pasachoff
and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of
the ability of Pharisaic Judaism to "adapt to changing social and
intellectual ideas."[88] Stephen
Wylen asserts that the lex talionis is "proof of the unique value of each
individual" and that it teaches "equality of all human beings for
law."[89]
Capital and corporal punishment
Main article: Capital
and corporal punishment (Judaism)
The Jewish
Bible specifies several violent punishments, including death by
stoning, decapitation, and burning. Judaism's oral law, the Talmud,
additionally includes the punishment of death by strangulation for some crimes.[90] Violent
punishments by death are referred to in several of Judaism's 613
mitzvot.[91] The
transgressions that call for violent punishment by death in Judaism include the
following: cursing one's parents,[92] fornication
(sex outside of marriage),[93]bestiality,[94] sorcery,[95] taking
advantage of widows or orphans,[96] blasphemy,[97] stubborn
and rebellious son,[98] incest,[99] adultery,[100] and
homosexuality.[101] Whipping
is specified as punishment for lesser transgressions.[102]
The punishments established in the biblical era were substantially modified
during the rabbinic era, primarily by adding additional requirements for
conviction. As a consequence, the death penalty was very rarely applied, and it
became more of a principle than a practice. The Talmud states that a court that
executes one person in seven years is considered bloodthirsty (Makkot 1:10).
The 12th-century Jewish legal scholar Maimonides stated
that "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty
persons than to put a single innocent one to death."[103]
Purim and the Book of Esther
The Book
of Esther, one of the books of the Jewish Bible, is a story of
palace intrigue centered on a plot to kill all Jews which was thwarted by Esther,
a Jewish queen of Persia. Instead of being victims, the Jews killed "all
the people who wanted to kill them."[104] The
king gave the Jews the ability to defend themselves against their enemies who
tried to kill them.[105] numbering
75,000 (Esther 9:16) including Haman,
an Amalekite that
led the plot to kill the Jews. The annual Purim festival
celebrates this event, and includes the recitation of the biblical instruction
to "blot out the remembrance [or name] of Amalek". Scholars -
including Ian
Lustick, Marc
Gopin, and Steven
Bayme - state that the violence described in the Book
of Esther has inspired and incited violent acts and violent
attitudes in the post-biblical era, continuing into modern times, often
centered on the festival of Purim.[106]
Other scholars, including Jerome Auerbach, state that evidence for Jewish
violence on Purim through the centuries is "exceedingly meager",
including occasional episodes of stone throwing, the spilling of rancid oil on
a Jewish convert, and a total of three recorded Purim deaths inflicted by Jews
in a span of more than 1,000 years.[107] In
a review of historian Elliot Horowitz's book Reckless rites: Purim and
the legacy of Jewish violence , Hillel
Halkin pointed out that the incidences of Jewish violence
against non-Jews through the centuries are extraordinarily few in number and
that the connection between them and Purim is tenuous.[108]
Rabbi Arthur
Waskow and historian Elliot Horowitz state that Baruch
Goldstein, perpetrator of the Cave
of the Patriarchs massacre, may have been motivated by the Book of
Esther, because the massacre was carried out on the day of Purim[109] but
other scholars point out that the association with Purim is circumstantial
because Goldstein never explicitly made such a connection.[110]
The festival has been used by non-Jews as an opportunity to direct violence
against Jews. Nazi
attacks against Jews often coincided with Jewish festivals and
on Purim 1942, ten Jews were hanged in Zduńska
Wola to avenge the hanging of Haman's ten sons.[111] In
a similar incident in 1943, the Nazis shot 10 Jews from the Piotrków ghetto.[112] On
Purim eve that same year, over 100 Jewish doctors and their families were shot
by the Nazis in Czestochowa.
The following day, Jewish doctors were taken from Radom and
shot nearby in Szydlowiec.[112]
Modern
violence
Radical Zionists
The motives for violence by extremist Jewish settlers in the West
Bank directed at Palestinians are complex and varied. Religious
motivations have also been documented.[113][114][115] Some
Jewish religious figures living in the occupied territories have condemned such
behaviour.[116] After Baruch
Goldstein carried out the Cave
of the Patriarchs massacre in 1994, some claimed[who?] that
his actions were influenced by Jewish religious doctrine, based on the ideology
of the Kach movement.[117] The
act was denounced by mainstream Orthodox Judaism.[118]
Ian
Lustick, Benny
Morris, and Nur
Masalha assert that Zionist leaders relied on religious
doctrines for justification for the violent treatment of Arabs in Palestine,
citing examples where pre-state Jewish militia used verses from the Bible to
justify their violent acts, which included expulsions and massacres such as the
one at Deir
Yassin.[119] Jewish
religious leaders at the time condemned such acts.[120]
Abraham
Isaac Kook (1865–1935), the Ashkenazi Chief
Rabbi of Mandate
Palestine, urged that Jewish settlement of the land should proceed
by peaceful means only.[23] Contemporary
settler movements, follow Kook’s son Tzvi
Yehuda Kook (1891–1982), who also did not advocate aggressive
conquest.[23] Critics
claim that Gush
Emunim and followers of Tzvi Yehuda Kook advocate violence
based on Judaism's religious precepts.[121]
Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin
The assassination
of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin by Yigal
Amir was motivated by Amir’s personal political views and his
understanding of Judaism's religious law of moiser (the duty
to eliminate a Jew who intends to turn another Jew in to non-Jewish
authorities, thus putting a Jew's life in danger[122])
and rodef (a
bystander can kill a one who is pursuing another to murder him or her if he
cannot otherwise be stopped).[123] Amir’s
interpretation has been described as "a gross distortion of Jewish law and
tradition"[124] and
the mainstream Jewish view is that Rabin's assassin had no Halachic basis to
shoot Prime Minister Rabin.[11]
Extremist organizations
See also: Jewish
religious terrorism
In the course of history there have been some organizations and individuals
that endorsed or advocated violence based on their interpretation to Jewish
religious principles. Such instances of violence are considered by mainstream
Judaism to be extremist aberrations, and not representative of the tenets of
Judaism.[25][26]
- Kach (defunct)
and Kahane
Chai [125][126][127]
- Gush
Emunim Underground (defunct): formed by members of Gush
Emunim.[128]
- Brit
HaKanaim (defunct): an organisation operating in Israel from 1950
to 1953 with the objective of imposing Jewish religious law in the country
and establishing a Halakhic
state.[129]
- The Jewish
Defense League (JDL): founded in 1969 by Rabbi Meir
Kahane in New
York City, with the declared purpose of protecting Jews from
harassment and antisemitism.[130] FBI statistics
show that, from 1980 to 1985, 15 terrorist attacks were attempted in the
U.S. by members of the JDL.[131] The
FBI’s Mary Doran described the JDL in 2004 Congressional testimony as
"a proscribed terrorist group".[132] The National
Consortium for the Study of Terror and Responses to Terrorism states
that, during the JDL's first two decades of activity, it was an
"active terrorist organization.".[130][133] Kahanist groups
are banned in Israel.[134][135][136]
Endorsement of violence by extremist settler rabbis
Some settler rabbis, in the unique conditions of West Bank settlements,[citation needed] issued
statements that diverge from normative Jewish practice.[137]
Dov
Lior, Chief
Rabbi of Hebron and Kiryat
Arba in the southern West
Bank and head of the "Council of Rabbis of Judea
and Samaria" has made speeches legitimizing the killing of
non-Jews and praising Baruch
Goldstein, a Jewish settler who in a deadly
terrorist attack killed 29 Muslim worshippers
while they were praying in mosque in Hebron,
as a saint and martyr. Lior also said "a thousand non-Jewish lives are not
worth a Jew's fingernail".[138][139][140] Lior
publicly gave permission to spill blood of Arab persons and has publicly
supported extreme right-wing Jewish
terrorists.[141]
In July 2010, Yitzhak
Shapira who heads Dorshei Yihudcha yeshiva in
the West
Bank settlement of Yitzhar,
was arrested by Israeli police for writing a book that allegedly encourages the
killing of non-Jews.
In his book "The King's Torah" (Torat Hamelech) he wrote that
under Torah and Jewish
Law it is legal to kill Gentiles.[142] The
section entitled "Conclusions – Chapter Five: The Killing of Gentiles in
War" reads that in some cases it is permitted to kill the babies of enemy
forces "because of the future danger they may present since they will grow
up to be evil like their parents."[143] Later
in August 2010 police arrested rabbi Yosef Elitzur-Hershkowitz - co-author of
Shapira's book - on the grounds of incitement to racial violence, possession of
a racist text, and possession of material that incites to violence. The
controversial book was endorsed by Rabbi Dov
Lior of Kiryat
Arba, a respected figure among many mainstream religious Zionists[137] and Yaakov
Yosef, son of Shas spiritual
leader Ovadia Yosef.[144]
According to Avinoam
Rosenak, "The King's Torah" reflects a fringe viewpoint
held by a minority of rabbis in the West
Bank. The book's wide dissemination and the enthusiastic
endorsements of prominent rabbis have spotlighted what might have otherwise
remained an "isolated commentary". A coalition of religious Zionist
groups, has asked Israel's Supreme Court to order confiscation of books
inciting to violence and to arrest the authors.[137]
Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg who initially endorsed the book, rescinded
his approval a month after its release, saying that the book includes
statements that "have no place in human intelligence."[137]
The book has also been denounced by Shlomo
Aviner, chief rabbi of Beit
El and head of Yeshivat Ateret Yerushalayim.[137]
Notable incidents
On 3 October 2010, a mosque in Yasuf village was arsoned, suspected to be
by Jewish extremist settlers.[145][146][147] Chief
Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona
Metzger condemned the attack and equating the arson to Kristallnacht,
he said: "This is how the Holocaust began, the tragedy of the Jewish
people of Europe."[148] Rabbi Menachem
Froman, a well-known peace activist, visited the mosque and replaced
the burnt Koran with new copies.[149] The
rabbi stated: "This visit is to say that although there are people who
oppose peace, he who opposes peace is opposed to God" and "Jewish law
also prohibits damaging a holy place." He also remarked that arson in a
mosque is an attempt to sow hatred between Jews and Arabs.[148][150]
See
also
- Religious
violence
- Christianity
and violence
- Islam
and violence
- Buddhism
and violence
- Mormonism
and violence
- Jewish
religious terrorism
- Jewish
ethics
- Zionist
political violence
- Judaism
and peace
- Persecution of Jews
***
This
Wikipedia entry, "Views of Violence in Judaism," is accompanied by 150 footnotes comprising more than half the
article's overall length. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_violence_in_Judaism
***
A few years ago I heard Dom Crossan speak at Chautauqua Institution. He did me
the great favor of clarifying a biblical conundrum that most cradle Christians ignore: The Bible presents us with both a
peaceful God and a violent God. The task of believers is to decide which
one to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment