Hassagot השגות

A profound debate about the identity of Israel

On a recent trip to Israel I saw many signs of the political conflict roiling the country: "Netanyahu is leading [the country] to civil war," "Democracy or revolt," "Don't throw democracy into the garbage," "Where were you when democracy died?", "We mustn't destroy everything we've built.  We have to solve this together!", as well as signs that read "An end to the tyranny of the supreme court" and "A new generation is not afraid.  Reform now!"

Ostensibly, the governing coalition's series of judicial reforms are technical--a few changes to the functioning of the supreme court, that's all.  Large swathes of Israel's population understand that they are in the midst of a deeper debate about the nature and future of the state of Israel.

The coalition's program of overhaul or 'reform' of the composition, functioning, and authority of the supreme court are part of a proposed transformation of the country as a whole.

.  

 

Predicating the Jews’ Security on One American President

I.    The degree to which many Orthodox Jews have predicated the security of the Jewish people on President Donald Trump is noticeable.  The degree to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has predicated Israel’s security on Trump is also noticeable.  

"Yes, but" on Israel: Michael Walzer in The New Republic

    Michael Walzer, the prominent political theorist and public intellectual, author of Just and Unjust Wars (first edition 1977), has written a reflection on the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas:  Israel Must Defeat Hamas, But Also Must Do More to Limit Civilian Deaths (The New Republic, July 30, 2014 issue).  

    I found the piece thoughtful and confusing.  At the end, I understood that Walzer generally supports Israel's write of self-defense and would like to see Hamas damaged.  However, I did not understand what Israel would have to do that it was not already doing to satisfy Walzer.

    Here is my summary of the article:

• Yes, Hamas deserves its trouble
• But Israel is responsible for Hamas' resistance
• Yes, Hamas and the present Israeli government are alike in some respects
• But one is worse than the other
• Yes, we should choose Israel
• But so many Palestinians have died or have been wounded!
• In asymmetric wars, the weaker party (Hamas) benefits from civilian losses
• But insurgents (Hamas) cannot make it impossible for the other side (Israel) to fight.
• Solution: We have the doctrine of double effect and the rule of proportionality
• But we cannot agree on the definition of proportionality
• Suggestion:  An additional rule--Attackers must minimize civilian casualties by requiring their soldiers to take risks 
• [But] we cannot quantify how much risk
• But some risk is necessary
• Yes, Israel is warning civilians
• But warnings are not enough
• Houses where people live are not legitimate targets
• Yes, it is difficult to judge 'who is there' (in a building, for example) from a distance [which puts Israel's army at a disadvantage]
• But [Hamas] is primarily responsible for putting civilians at risk
• We should do what we can to ensure that the death of civilians will not advance [Hamas'] cause

    This piece does not help.  How does one know when one is doing enough to limit civilian death?  How does one know when an Israeli soldier is sufficiently exposing himself to risk?  I cannot see Walzer, or anyone else, saying:  I'd be satisfied if only 1,000, or 750, or 500 people had died.  The most just of wars involve all kinds of suffering.  

    So Walzer establishes jus ad bellum, Israel's right to war, but cannot establish how one can act in such a way as to satisfy jus in bello (law of war) in this conflict.  In theory, Israel's warfare is legitimate, but I don't know how Walzer views it in practice.   

    Another question:  What, in Walzer's view, is it that we can do to ensure that the death of civilians will not advance Hamas' cause?

-- David M. Rosenberg

Jan 20, 2013

Philosophical truths are timeless. They belong to a heavenly realm in which nothing ever changes. Philosophy is about truth as a system. The Bible is about truth as story. -- Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, "The Great Partnership," p. 140

What does Free Speech mean to Europe?

    In today's Chicago Tribune, Frida Ghitis offers an opinion piece, "Free to Express, but not to Offend" (June 29, 2008).  She describes the dramatic arrest of Gregorius Nekschot, a cartoonist:

    An armed government team, including a half-dozen police officers and several prosecutors, raids the home of a mysterious artist who goes by a pseudonym, inspires zeal and tackles political themes. They arrest the man and confiscate his computer, telephone, various DVDs and other materials.   

             A terrorism suspect?   

 

   No, the man arrested May 13 in the Dutch city of Amsterdam was Gregorius Nekschot, a cartoonist. And his alleged crime was making drawings that some people found offensive.

    Ghitis' piece explores how the Netherlands, Europe, and the UN Human Rights Commission have been reacting to public express that offends the sentiments of some or many Muslims.

    It strikes me that Europe protects speech (to the extent that it does) not because it finds speech meaningful but because it finds it meaningless.  Once speech is perceived as meaningful (for example, as offensive) it is no longer protected. 

    Or, to put it more broadly--and as a challenge--has the idea of Europe come to mean the denial of meaning?  And can such an idea survive the challenge of those (including Muslims) who insist on the reality of meaning?

-- H. A. Massig

Europe is upset with a Chrisitian God

In its 9/14/06 issue, the Economist magazine includes an article in its Foreign Policy section entitled "God and American foreign policy" [in the online version.  in the print version: "In the world of good and evil."]  The article makes the point that a majority of Europeans consider American foreign policy to be motivated by faith and, hence, dangerous or disturbing. 

Europeans worry that American foreign policy under George Bush is too influenced by religion.  The "holy warriors" who hijacked the planes on September 11th reintroduced God into international affairs in the most dramatic of ways.  It seems that George Bush is replying in kind, encouraging a clash of religions that could spell global catastrophe.

One European notes that, since World War II, Europeans have been upset with G-d. 

Dominique Moisi, a special adviser at the French Institute for International Relations, argues that "the combination of religion and nationalism in America is frightening.  We feel betrayed by God and by nationalism, which is why we are building the European Union as a barrier to religious warfare."

So, an American president who speaks about G-d is an emotional and ideological problem. 

Woe unto Europe!  Your antagonism to the religion of your forebears renders you culturally powerless in the face of a religion you cannot see when it stares you in the face.  Your European Union is not a barrier to religious warfare.  It is indeed a battleground.  Woe unto you that you fear and despise the American hand that, by the grace of G-d, protects you. 

--H. A. Massig  המשיג

This post was revised on Sept. 27, 2006

Attacking the Enemy Emboldens Him

Iraq War Fuels Terrorism Threat, U. S. Report Says (at NPR, click here).  I have not heard the report.  However, I have some general comments on this matter of current interest and discussion:

Attacking the enemy emboldens him.  What I mean is this:  It is no surprise that America's responses to the Islamist salvo (i.e., 9/11) has fueled the terrorism threat.  However, do not make the mistake of concluding that it would be better not to have responded.  For,

Not attacking the enemy emboldens him.  The enemy brings his own energy.  It is for this reason that he becomes bolder.  He will not cease till he wins (G-d forbid) or is defeated (please G-d).  Thus, it is necessary to attack, for defeat cannot be achieved by appeasement.

-- H. A. Massig

Notes:  1. Attacking the enemy may increase his wrath, but also his fear.   Not attacking increases his loathing.  Think back to efforts to appease Hitler.  2. This argument does not presuppose that the war in Iraq has been successful, or even that the war in Iraq made sense from the beginning.

Psalm 83 in an Irish Bog

This week, a discovery in Ireland briefly dispelled the gloom I felt on account of Israel's war with Hizbollah: "1,200-year-old Book of Psalms unearthed in Irish Bog."   Alan Cowell covered the story for the New York Times.  I include a link to the story as it appeared in the International Herald Tribune on Wednesday, July 26.  The following appears in that article:

While part of Psalm 83 is legible," the news release said, "the extent to which other psalms or additional texts are preserved will only be determined by painstaking work by a team of invited experts probably operating over a long time in the museum laboratory."

In later English-language versions, Psalm 83 exhorts God to act against conspirators plotting to ensure "that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance."

The probable age of the manuscript would place it in the same early medieval period as the Book of Kells, an illuminated manuscript of the Christian gospels that has been on view in the Old Library at Trinity College since the 19th century, according to the college's Web site, www.tcd.ie/Library/heritage/ kells.php.

It seems most timely that a passage from תהלים/ Tehillim/Psalms, chapter 83, should appear this week (the following is from the Jewish Publication Society of 1917, as it appears at Mechon Mamre):

1 A Song, a Psalm of Asaph.
2 O God, keep not Thou silence; hold not Thy peace, and be not still, O God.
3 For, lo, Thine enemies are in an uproar; and they that hate Thee have lifted up the head.
4 They hold crafty converse against Thy people, and take counsel against Thy treasured ones.
5 They have said: 'Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.'
6 For they have consulted together with one consent; against Thee do they make a covenant;
7 The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites; Moab, and the Hagrites;
8 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre;
9 Assyria also is joined with them; they have been an arm to the children of Lot. Selah

Psalm 83 is sometimes recited in shul these years.  How remarkable that it should speak to us so indomitably out of the earth at this time. 

-- H. A. Massig המשיג

Thinking about Mars, Gilad Shalit, Israel, Hizbollah

One of the most powerful images that I have seen recently is a photograph of Gilad Shalit in his army uniform. He is 19 years old but looks younger. My guess is that many of us have been moved by this photo. May he be speedily reunited with his family, and may his comrades held captive by Hizbollah likewise return home soon.

Another powerful image sticks in my mind: a photograph of Planet Mars. The photo was part of an email my mother forwarded to me: The email said: "This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter that will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs on Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth in the Last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as 60,000 years before it happens again.... By the end of August when the two planets are closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at 12:30a.m." In fact, this email was mistaken: Mars' close encounter with the Earth came in October, 2005 (science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/27may_approachingmars.htm). Nevertheless, the image got me thinking...

Who cares about Mars? Nowadays, among our acquaintances, mostly astronomers. But for most of human history, Mars was of interest to human beings because of its astrological significance. People believed that Mars, like the other planets, wielded a decided influence over the lives of peoples and of individuals. When I say, ‘people,’ I include most Jews, at least those who lived in Babylonia during the time of the Talmud and in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East thereafter. I certainly do not include the Rambam, Maimonides, who was persistent and unbending in his opposition to astrology. He was an anomaly till modern times in this regard.

I think it is useful to think about these things as Earth and Mars have recently drawn close. I am not suggesting that any of us should start reading the horoscope. But I do think it is important to think about the astrological aspect of our Jewish heritage, for two reasons: First, this astrological aspect connects us strongly with the imagination. We Jews in the west have suffered, and still suffer, from a deficit of imagination since the Enlightenment. Second, and more urgent at the current juncture, thinking about Mars helps us to take seriously the situation which Israel, and the Jewish people as a whole, faces right now.

What is the place of Mars in the Jewish tradition? First, it has a name, mentioned in the Talmud and Midrashim though not in the Bible: מאדים. Ma’adim means "the red one," as in the expression, "Red Planet." Ma'adim/Mars was one of the seven planets along with Saturn, Jupiter, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon. Saturn is "Shabtai," Jupiter is "Tzedek," the Sun is "Chamah," Venus is often called "Nogah," Mercury is "Kochav," and the Moon is "Levanah." Granted, we don’t think of the Moon and Sun as planets, but our ancestors did. In the Siddur, we refer to these planets weekly. They are referred to in the prayer "Ei-l Adon" that we sing before the Shma on Shabbat:

שבח נותנים לו כל צבא מרום.

These words allude to the names שבתי נוגה לבנה כוכב צדק מאדים. The sun is referred to in the previous stanza:

קרא לשמש ויזרח אור...

He summoned the Sun and it broke forth with light.

For Babylonians, Mars was associated with Nergal, their deity of fire, war, and destruction. The Greeks associated the planet with Ares, god of war. The Romans used the name of their god of war, Mars. The Sanskrit name also reflects the name of a war god.

What does our tradition say about Ma’adim?

Rabbi Hanina said to his disciples...He who is born under Mars will be a shedder of blood. R. Ashi observed: Either a surgeon, a thief, a slaughterer, or a circumciser. (bShabbat 156a, Soncino).

How seriously were the rabbis in making this kind of assertion? They were not of one mind:

Rabbah said: I was born under Mars [H.A.Massig: yet am not violent]. Abaye retorted: You too inflict punishment and kill. (bShabbat 156a, Soncino)

The prominent sages Rabbi Akiva, Rav, Shmuel, Rabbi Yochanan are all quoted as saying

אין מזל לישרשל

that Israel (the Jewish people) is immune from planetary influence. Yet they believe there is such a thing as planetary influence!

For example, there is a practical lesson on appropriate time for bloodletting in Masechet Shabbat:

Samuel also said: The correct time for bloodletting is on a Sunday Wednesday and Friday, but not on Monday or Thursday, because a Master said: He who possesses ancestral merit may let blood on Monday and Thursday, because the Heavenly Court and the human court are alike then. Why not on Tuesday? Because the planet Mars rules at even-numbered hours of the day. (bShabbat129b).

To which Rashi comments: ומזל מאדים ממונה על החרב ועל הדבר ועל הפורעניות

"The planet Mars controls war, sickness, and other calamities."

Today in our enlightened West, we continue to associate Mars with war. One of the best known works of classical music in the 20th century is the first movement of Gustav Holst’s orchestral suite, The Planets. That movement, written shortly before World War I, is called "Mars, Bringer of War." When we think of aliens, we often refer to them as Martians. H. G. Wells wrote his "War of the Worlds" about an invasion of Martians.

We’re not talking about Science Fiction or Astrology. Taking Mars seriously means taking war seriously, taking calamity seriously. This is appropriate at the time of year we are marking now: the three weeks leading up to the anniversary of the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן תקנא

משנכנס אב )א( א ממעטין בשמחה; ובר ישראל דאית ליה דינא בהדי כותי, )ב( ב לישתמיט מיניה דריע

מזליה

[Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 551: "Once the month of Av begins, we limit joy.... Its mazal/constellation/planet is bad."] Taking Mars seriously is also appropriate this particular year, as Israel is battling an army (in Lebanon) and militias (in Gaza) that are candid in their stated desire to obliterate the Jewish state.

We could at another time talk about war and peace in the Jewish tradition. There is a dynamic tension between the experience of war and the experience of peace: "a time for peace, a time for war." Between the experience of war in the present of the hope of a war-free era of perfection: "לא ישא גוי אל גוי חרב לא ילמדו עוד מלחמה." Isaiah 2:4: May nation not lift sword against nation; may they wage war no more.

We are not there yet, we are in another, more complicated and messy place. We experience the distance of Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser, and Eldad Regev, we can only imagine the pain of that distance for themselves and their families; and we may have experienced the relative closeness of Mars. Mars, and all that it has represented for us, is too close for comfort. We hope for a more peaceful future. In the meantime, I believe it is essential for us not to confuse our modern world with the messianic era: we cannot wish away pain, hatred, and violence. We have to come to grips with it, and that sometimes means we must meet fire with fire.

May a more peaceful day come soon. (Posted and edited twice on 7/20/06)

-- H. A. Massig המשיג

Israel, Hamas, Hizbollah

Hamas' military wing  and two other Palestinian militant groups have recently kidnaped an Israeli soldier on sovereign Israeli territory.  Hizbollah has kidnaped two in a similar fashion.  Israel has responded with an iron fist and a refusal (not always persistent) to trade prisoners for the captives.

First and foremost, my concern is for the welfare of the captive soldiers and for the people of Israel.  May the captives be returned with G-d's help, may the people of Israel be relieved of kidnaping and Katyushas in the future, and may the area return to a peaceful state soon.

I make several observations here:

1. Hamas is practicing non-sovereignty by allowing this to have happened and by tolerating the continued holding of Gilad Shalit.  The State of Lebanon has been practicing non-sovereignty for years by refusing to impose its own authority--i.e., a monopoly of violence--on southern Lebanon.
2. Israel is in its rights to hold the Hamas government accountable for an action taken in part by its military arm.  Israel is also in its rights to hold the government of Lebanon accountable for allowing Hizbollah to maintain a state within a state in its sovereign territory.
3. Israel's iron fist comes as a surprise, perhaps more for Hizbollah than for Hamas. 
4. I applaud Ehud Olmert's refusal to trade prisoners, an approach Israel has used in the past.  That approach has shown compassion for the captive of the moment but little compassion for the captives to come.  Trading prisoners creates a market force that leads to further kidnaping.
5. There is no way to measure the rightness of the situation in terms of a comparison of human casualties and property damage.  A state has the right and indeed obligation to protect itself against unprovoked violence.   
6. Israel, hated by much of the Arab world for its existence in any event, is in a better position being feared than not.   When Israel unilaterally left Lebanon, it conveyed an image of weakness.   Now it is conveying an image of strength.
7. The Islamist approach of non-sovereignty presents a particular burden to Israel though, in fact, it presents a bigger burden to others: the Palestinians of Gaza in the case of Hamas and the vast majority of Lebanese who do not support the Hizbollan state within a state.

-- H. A. Massig