MORE justification for killing here

All in the name of...

"God"

Isn't Theology wonderful?

Yeah...these people use any reason to justify death or murder, but yet claim to be followers of God's commandments.

How convenient!!

Is that a title of a group, or a smear on an entire group of people?



Dov Lior is the George Wallace of the West Bank, no doubt.

But seems to me this article is pulling the same old tricks we see over and over: tar all "Israelis" as part of his group and trying to suggest there is something endemic to "Jewish ethics" that justifies whatever Dov Lior claims it does.

I'm not buying it.

He's part of the Kach party. He built a monument to honor Baruch Goldstein.

'Nuff said. Don't need to know any more.

The only thing more that needs to be said is that the Israeli government uses the tools it has to limit the activities and effectiness of idiots like that. Their activities are limited, and the security services and police do their best to make sure they can't implement their evil plans.

Israel News lists him as one of the world's worst religious leaders.
http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=1719

Religion: Hasidic Judaism
Who is he?: Head rabbi of Kiryat Arba settlement
Country: Israel

Quote: “A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail.”

Why he matters: Lior is the chief rabbi for Kiryat-Arba, a Jewish settlement near the turbulent West Bank town of Hebron, and leads the council of rabbis for the West Bank settlements. He has stated repeatedly that the killing of Palestinian civilians is compatible with Jewish law and that the commandment “thou shalt not kill”applies only to Jews (*). Rabbi Lior gave a eulogy at the funeral of Baruch Goldstein, the Jewish doctor who gunned down 29 Muslim worshippers at Hebron’s Ibrahimi Mosque in 1994. Lior has also issued a religious ruling forbidding Jews from employing Arabs or renting them property.

[snip]

So, BTW, though, he is not the "head Rabbi of the people of the land of Israel". He is the head Rabbi of a settlement and a self-appointed head of the Yesha Rabbinical Council, which claims to speak for all the settlements of Judaea and Samaria. He is a Kahanist member of the Kach party, banned in Israel for racism and terrorism.

(*) In case anybody is curious, he is absolutely, totally, dead wrong on this point, according to the Talmud.

Seriously. There is very obviously no such thing.

If the right wing IsraelNews lists him as one of the worst, he must be a problem.

No, the reason he matters is his threats of violence and terrorism. The reason he does not matter is that the position of Chief Rabbi of a town is a rather nebulous meaning, even religiously observant people are not subject to his opinions. What it means is he has an office. He has no authority to set public policy, though he does have some persuasive capiblities, like any other demagogue.

Actually, there sort of is. The Sephardic and Ashkanazi communites (and may be the Ethopian also?) do have someone in the position of Chief Rabbi of Israel. But really all they do is manage some religious beauracies. The have some "moral suasion" over some observant people, but others, including especially the more observant, ignore them. The have no particular standing in Jewish law (halacha) unless they are truly learned, in which case they'd have the standing with or without the title.

So why add the adjective "zionist" to the title? Maybe the rabbi is a zionist, but that is like adding the word "black" in front of any black person arrested. A story about two black men raping white women is not racist, but a title saying "black men rape white women" certainly is.

There are a lot of extremist people out there. To choose the words of one person and ascribe it to a group you dislike is the very foundation of bigotry.

I was thinking more in terms of the way the article was written -- giving Dov a more prominent role than he has, to make some kind of political point. Though there can't be a direct parallel, a rough equaivalent might be saying that the Archbishop of Los Angeles speaks for all of "christian USA".

In fact he'd have even less credibility than the Archbishop, since he doen't really have authority over Jewish practice. He probably certifies Kashrut in the city, but then there are a lot of orthodox who often won't accept the kashurt certification of a particular city's rabbinate, because it's not strict enough. (ok, too much detail). He's more like the pastor of a large church or a small group of churchs.

I'm not sure who said it, (to paraphrase) they "don't belong to an organized religion, they are Jewish."

Yeah, I was going to use a Warren Jeffs or some prominent televangelist (televangelism used to be called "the electronic church"), but yeah, there are really no accurate parallels



That's a new one on me. Thanks.

[Name of a religion] leader declares that [holy text] permits [type of abuse] against [other religion].

Use this helpful mad-lib whenever you need to simplify any conflict.