Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, today delivers an unprecedentedly strong warning to Israel, arguing that the country is adopting a stance "incompatible" with the deepest ideals of Judaism, and that the current conflict with the Palestinians is "corrupting" Israeli culture.
In a move that will send shockwaves through Israel and the world Jewish community, Professor Sacks departs from his usual policy of offering only public endorsement of Israel, and broad support for moves toward peace, by giving an explicit verdict on the effect that 35 years of military occupation and decades of conflict are having on Israel and the Jewish people.
"I regard the current situation as nothing less than tragic," he tells the Guardian in an exclusive interview. "It is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals."
He goes on to speak of being "profoundly shocked" at the recent reports of smiling Israeli servicemen posing for a photograph with the corpse of a slain Palestinian. "There is no question that this kind of prolonged conflict, together with the absence of hope, generates hatreds and insensitivities that in the long run are corrupting to a culture."
because there are quite a few forum members who do little else than thatOriginally posted by: Pooteh
funny how czar doesn't post the hundreds of counter examples of the palestinians behaving badly, most of the time much worse.
Ummm, let's not forget that the Israelis offered Arafat just about everything he asked for and he turned it down. The Israelis have been ready to make concessions for a long time already, but it is quite hard, and maybe not too smart to make deals with groups that are bent on your destruction.Originally posted by: Stifko
Finally someone talking sensibly. I get the feeling that the Israelis are sick of the violence and bloodshed. They must be more willing to make concessions by now, given how life must be there.
Right, because people dont call it "occupied land". They just rename it the name of the country that captured it.Never before in history has occupied land been permenantly settled like it has there now.
BBC is one of the most clueless news networks in this situation. They were all over the Jenin "massacare". Give me a break.Living in NYC its hard to get an objective view of the situation in the news. BBC is a lot better about that than the local network news. I am so sick of hearing reports equating the situation in Israel to what happened here almost a year ago. I read a lot of similarly biased views on these forums. This thread & link is a breath of fresh air 4 me, thank you.
far far from it, did they offer them control of their own water suplies? no, did they offer them control of their own airspace? no, was Israel going to annex Palestinian land because of illegal Israeli settlements there? yesUmmm, let's not forget that the Israelis offered Arafat just about everything he asked for and he turned it down. The Israelis have been ready to make concessions for a long time already, but it is quite hard, and maybe not too smart to make deals with groups that are bent on your destruction.
the BBC is the most respected news agency in the world and has been following this middle east deal for a long time and doing a very good job at it. What you dont seem to get is that news agencies report "stories" and at the time the reports were that there had been a massacre, should they not have reported it because it might be either true or false?? they did not say that there had been a massacre at allBBC is one of the most clueless news networks in this situation. They were all over the Jenin "massacare". Give me a break.
Never before in history has occupied land been permenantly settled like it has there now.
Of course I'm gonna chime in, I feel very strongly about this issue. I understand that the BBC is generally considered an objective, respected news source, but I've seen a very clear leaning in their middle east reporting. Of course most people will disagree with that, thats just the way I feel.Originally posted by: Stifko
ThePresence, I knew you were gonna chime in as you did. I could have put money on it. We haven't gotten into it over this topic untill now and I don't wanna change that. Our previous exchanges have been civilized and friendly, which is a very good thing. Plus for me or any other red-blooded American to defend anything Arab right now is downright stupid and so far out there, it ain't even funny. Gotta go I am at work now, just wanna also say that the BBC offers an objective view on the world news...
Originally posted by: Stifko
Finally someone talking sensibly. I get the feeling that the Israelis are sick of the violence and bloodshed. They must be more willing to make concessions by now, given how life must be there. It should be clear that they cannot have thier cake and eat it too. Give up the land and the permenant settlements already. Never before in history has occupied land been permenantly settled like it has there now.Living in NYC its hard to get an objective view of the situation in the news. BBC is a lot better about that than the local network news. I am so sick of hearing reports equating the situation in Israel to what happened here almost a year ago. I read a lot of similarly biased views on these forums. This thread & link is a breath of fresh air 4 me, thank you.
I'm just suprised you havent branded him as being anti-semiticOriginally posted by: Vespasian
At first glance I thought he was Britain's "Chef Rabbi."
As for my response to the story, the rabbi is more than entitled to his opinions. I think Czar believes that most Jews can't think for themselves or something.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Religion is the teaching of men who have conquered hate and fear and discovered something incredible that happens to the mind when those die. Naturally it is more difficult for hate and fear to surrender their grip when the environment constantly, and especially powerfully, reinforces them. The fact that the conflict has turned victims of the most horrendous injustice into perpetrators of injustice in a few generations has been recognized, written and warned about for years and years. A characteristic of hate and fear is blindness, a freezing or locking of mental processes in a state of trauma such that nothing is visible but danger. Israel thus talks only of it's security needs, the requirements it needs to feel safe. But since the fear in internal the only security that satisfies is hermetic sealing off from life. The result of that, of course, is death. Religion is a tool or door into the mind. It is a technique by which we can see ourselves, how we are, how we are a series of predictable responses, conditioned reflexes and autonomic actions overlain on the illusion of freedom. The unexamined life is not worth living because it is mechanical. Of course the Jews aren't any different then anybody else, but because of their religion and the fact that some Jews take it seriously, there will always be Jews who can see. Under conditions of mass psychosis, sometimes only outsiders can actually see the insanity. The fact that humanity is asleep however does not mean we throw up our hands. We cannot excuse the Germans because they were gripped by an unconscious fear and hatred they projected on the Jews.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quote: religion is a rock for people who dont feel in control of their destiny.'Religion is a rock for people who don't feel in control of their destiny" is a faith based religious statement of the type uttered by somebody needing a rock to anchor his insecurities that religion may be something far beyond what he comprehends.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
rbhawcroft, I don't get it. I told you the facts, that religion is an instrument designed by seers to help the blind see.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
rbhawcroft, I don't get it. I told you the facts, that religion is an instrument designed by seers to help the blind see. If you want to wipe your ass with a telescope, fine by me. The fact that the eyepiece has fallen off and people are looking , if at all, through the wrong end, what does that prove. You claim you believe it when you see it, but I think you see it when you believe it. But I explained all that, so why aren't you agreeing with me. I mean, clearly you chose the linear path of words to try to convince me I'm full of it. Now when I do the same you won't reciprocate and admit the same to me. I wonder why? I hope it's not because truth can't be carried in words, that the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. Oh no. That would be bad news. That would mean that just as soon as I find the truth, I'm not going to be able to rush over and tell you. It will mean that I'm going to have to invent some other structure than linear words to tell you. Sounds like work to me.But since we each both now know that we are both impervious to each other's brilliant common sense, mind if I ask what was it about my post you didn't understand, or were you just looking around for additional support to rationalize your confusion.