Jews and Christians differ on every single fundamental principle—
even on the meaning of core Scriptural texts. More crucially,
Christians rely on the Old Testament for legal delineation;
whereas Jews rely solely upon our rabbinic tradition. We never,
ever turn to our Bible for legal guidance, only to our rabbinic
literature. To suggest that our Sages had anything at all in
common with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Carter or
Pat Robertson is a slap in the face of 2500 years of scholarship.
“Judeo-Christian” is as valid a concept as happy-joylessness,
or tall dwarves.
Klinghoffer’s yearnings for this repugnant “ideal” is
a deviant phenomenon without a trace of commonality
in traditional Jewish thought, ancient or modern.
JERUSALEM — In a politically fractious country troubled by
monumental security challenges, Israel’s military has long
served as an equalizer and unifier, a “people’s army” that,
at least in the eyes of the Jewish majority, reflected the general
interest.
But the Israeli people, and with them the government, have
shifted to the right amid an upsurge of Palestinian stabbings
and other attacks. Now the military finds itself at the
center of a tumultuous debate about its role as the nation’s
conscience and most trusted institution.
Some government ministers and an increasingly shrill
segment of the public have been pushing for tougher action i
n the face of months of Palestinian attacks that have killed
about 30 civilians and soldiers. Other Israelis want the military
to remain a moderating force and a bulwark against extremism.
The debate about the military’s role has been highlighted by a
series of clashes among its high command, the government
and an aggressive segment of the public in recent months.
The pressure on the military is also growing in light of the
appointment of Avigdor Lieberman, a hard-liner, as defense
minister. Mr. Lieberman has been among the harshest critics
of Israeli security policies and will now serve as the army’s overlord.
His immediate predecessor, Moshe Yaalon, a conservative
and former military chief of staff who was pushed out, had
staunchly backed the generals, who have spoken
out against manifestations of extremism in the ranks and
in broader society.
“Generally, the image of an army is that it wants to push
forward and it has to be restrained sometimes by the politicians,
statesmen who think in a wider context and know that they need
to make compromises,” said Shlomo Avineri, a professor
of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
“In Israel, the present situation is almost the opposite.”
The military chiefs, Mr. Avineri said, are “not wishy-washy liberals.
” The fissure is not between the traditional Israeli right and left,
he said, but between “strategic hawks,” or pragmatists who put
Israel’s security first, and “ideological hawks” who are more
concerned with historical rights and Jewish nationalism.
government plans to prepare for an attack on Iran’s
nuclear facilities, believing that it would have disastrous
consequences.
The debate over the military’s role could have a profound
impact in Israel, where most Jewish 18-year-olds are
drafted for compulsory service, and many perform reserve
duty for decades after.
During Independence Day celebrations this month,
millions looked skyward to catch a glimpse of the
traditional cross-country flyover of fighter jets, Hercules
transport planes, air-to-air refueling craft and attack
helicopters. The commanders of the air, ground and
naval forces often become household names here.
But the recent surge in violence has strained those views of the
military.
“The wave of terrorist attacks or intifada or whatever you
want to label the events of the past eight months have raised
the level of fear in Israeli society,” said Yohanan Plesner, the
president of the Israel Democracy Institute, a nonpartisan
research group.
“That puts a lot of tension on the military leadership and the
soldiers who are put in situations where they are supposed to
fight terror, protect themselves and comply with the I.D.F.’s
values,” he said, referring to the Israel Defense Forces.
Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, the chief of staff of the Israeli
military, recently caused a stir when he told an audience
of high school students that he would not want a soldier
to empty a magazine on a Palestinian girl of 13 holding
a pair of scissors. He was attacked by rightist politicians who
advocate a policy based on the Talmudic lesson “Whoever
comes to slay you, slay him first.”
The military chiefs have urged restraint and a strict adherence
to open-fire regulations, saying a soldier should shoot to
neutralize a threat, but not beyond that. At the same time, Palestinians
and human rights groups accuse the military of excessive use of
force in the West Bank, where it enforces Israel’s 49-year occupation.
The military brass also came under fire for its swift condemnation
of the actions of an Israeli sergeant, Elor Azaria, who fatally
shot a disarmed and wounded Palestinian assailant in the head as
he lay on the ground after he had stabbed and wounded another
soldier. Many Israelis, including Mr. Lieberman, said the
denunciation prejudged the case and undermined the troops
as they battled Palestinian violence. Outraged Israelis flooded
social networks and hailed Sergeant Azaria, who has been
charged with manslaughter, as a hero.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backed the military
prosecutors but, sensing the public mood, also called the
soldier’s father in a show of support.
Then Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, the deputy chief of the military,
caused an uproar in a speech for Israel’s Holocaust
Remembrance Day this month, when he said he discerned
disturbing trends in Israeli society that reminded him of processes
that led to the rise of Nazi Germany.
Mr. Netanyahu rebuked General Golan, criticizing his
remarks as outrageous, and said, “The I.D.F. is the people’s
army and must remain out of political debates.”
The military’s code of ethics, known as the Spirit of
the I.D.F., states clearly that the army’s mission is to protect
Israel and its independence while being “subordinate to the
directions of the democratic civilian authorities and the laws of the
state.”
Still, commanders are encouraged to voice their opinions freely
in what the politicians call appropriate forums.
Yaakov Amidror, a major general in the reserves and a
ormer national security adviser, said that “there is no war”
between the military and the prime minister. Instead,
he said, General Golan crossed a forbidden line between
the professionals and the decision makers.
“Because we force everybody to serve,” Mr. Amidror said,
“we have to be even more conservative in what officers can say.”
Underlying the complexity of the issue, Mordecai
Kremnitzer and Yedidia Z. Stern, both vice presidents
of the Israel Democracy Institute, penned opposing views
about General Golan’s speech in the Hebrew edition
of the Haaretz newspaper.
In an article written with Prof. Avi Sagi, one of the authors
of the “Spirit of the I.D.F.,” Mr. Stern criticized General
Golan for becoming involved in the public discourse while in
uniform. Mr. Kremnitzer countered, “Army values do not spring
up from within the military but are derived from the core values
of Israeli society.” He argued that it was General Golan’s right,
and even his duty, to warn of any damage to those values.
Military-civilian lines are further blurred in Israel by
the number of retired generals who try to capitalize on their
army prestige by entering politics.
But the army remains the one island of social
solidarity where the country’s political and economic
divides vanish.
Micah Goodman, an Israeli-American Jewish philosopher,
had just returned from a week of reserve duty with his
infantry unit in northern Israel where, he said, he slept in
the field with high-tech investors and truck drivers, all
wearing the same uniform.
“According to the ethos,” said Mr. Goodman, 42, “the people
are meant to educate the army, meaning that the values of the
army are a projection of the values of the people.”
But as in many other places in the world, he said, there
is a sense that those social values are eroding.
“The more that Israelis feel that Israel is losing its core
values and that the army is the last bastion of those
old-school Israeli values,” he said, “so the temptation
of reversing the model grows.”
OK, then, it is the Talmud for the Messias-Deniers teaching that it is morally just that for an armed adult soldier to kill a 13 y.o. girl who is holding a pair of scissors got it.
So, what Christian morality is it that teaches the same?
Well, it doesn't exist does it?
O, and there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian morality.
...eminent Talmudic scholar Jacob Neusner:
"Theologically and historically, there is no such
thing as the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a secular myth
favoured by people who are not really believers themselves."
Who is the moral monster, Avidgor Lieberman?