 |
|
|
Jewish World Review May 5, 2000 / 30 Nissan, 5760
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
WE ALL LIKE to think of ourselves as men and women of
principle. Yet identifying what those principles are often
proves too much for us. When we try to pin them down,
they keep slipping away. And even when we think we
can identify those principles, applying them proves
difficult, as they keep banging up against one another.
Two of next week's coming attractions illustrate the
problem.
As surely as the night follows the day (or vice versa, for
those who prefer Genesis to Shakespeare), this coming
week some fearless camera crew will penetrate a fervently-Orthodox
neighborhood (even if it has to go all the way to Emanuel
in Samaria to do so) to film a haredi Jew not standing
during the moment of silence on Remembrance Day for
the Fallen of Israel's Wars.
My own principle here is clear: It is both wrong and
stupid to do things that will needlessly arouse the hatred
of one's fellow Jews.
On closer examination, however, that principle would
seem to prove too much. The sight of other Jews violating
Shabbat or eating nonkosher food, for instance, deeply
pains religious Jews. Yet no one would think of refraining
from doing these things because of someone else's
sensitivities.
The "give no offense" principle leads to other confused
applications.
My friend refused. He noted that no Moslem should be
offended by a Jews' non-observance of Moslem fast
days. He also wanted to know why on the fast day of 17
Tamuz, the commanding officer had not asked the
reservists not to eat in front of their religious comrades.
The only rule that explains the officer's orders is: It's OK
to offend your own religion and coreligionists, but not
other peoples' religions.
That is, by the way, pretty much the current legal doctrine
in Israel. Both Jews and non-Jews are free to insult
Judaism, but Tatiana Susskind receives two years in jail
for posting a picture of Mohammed and a pig in Hebron.
Also next week, Shulamit Aloni will receive the Israel
Prize as the living emblem of the rule to be nice to others
unless they are Jewish.
The prize committee cited her for contributing to "mutual
respect" between different "nations" in Israel. No doubt
Ms. Aloni has always shown the greatest sympathy for
the Arab population. But it would be hard to find anyone
who has done more violence to the principle of mutual
respect within the Jewish community.
She is free with the Judeo-Nazi equation; Netanyahu is "a
good student of Goebbels"; Rafael Eitan is "from the
school of Franco" the religious "drink from the same
wellsprings as the Nazis"; and rabbinical courts are
"executors of Nuremberg Laws."
The prophet Joshua and Chelmenicki are "equal" in her
eyes; and the book of the former is a genocidal tract
unworthy of study. Anyone to her Right is an object of
scorn. Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin are praised as
"cholera - at least from cholera you sometimes recover."
By the impoverished Israeli standards of free speech -
standards which Aloni herself has often championed when
employed against political opponents - many of her
comments were likely criminal. On more than one
occasion, her parliamentary immunity shielded her from
prosecution for incitement. In 1987, justice Meir Shamgar
termed her comments about present and past Supreme
Court justices as beyond the pale of legitimate comment.
Again, only her parliamentary immunity protected her.
A perfectly sensible principle indeed. Except three years
ago, the High Court turned itself into precisely such a
committee when it required the prize committee to
reconsider its award for journalism to the late Shmuel
Schnitzer.
True, Schnitzer had been censured by the Press Council
for having given offense to the Ethiopian community in a
column. But Aloni has done far more over decades to
turn a far larger percentage of her fellow Jews into
objects of hatred and scorn.
True, Schnitzer was unrepentant. But Aloni is defiant.
True, the prize committee did not know of Schnitzer's
censure. But in response to Yahalom's suit, it was
admitted that the prize committee did not have a detailed
list of Aloni's vitriol, only that she was a controversial
figure. Schnitzer's prize committee also knew he was no
milquetoast, specifically citing him for adherence to his
views, whether popular or not.
Most importantly, Aloni's prize committee had not known
of justice Shamgar's sharp criticism of her from the bench,
or of the number of times she was protected by her
parliamentary immunity.
Mindful that the two cases can barely be distinguished,
except by the fact that Aloni's favorite targets are
traditional Jews, Justice Turkel, in his concurrence, sought
instead to anchor the court's decision in Aloni's right to
free speech. He thereby jumped from the frying pan into
the fire, completely misunderstanding the principle of free
speech.
Aloni has, or at least should have, the legal right to say
and write what she wants. But that does not entitle her to
be rewarded for employing that right in such an ugly way.
Schnitzer, too, clearly had the right to express his views
on matters of public policy. Unlike Aloni, he did not just
defend his freedom of speech: His offending article was in
part a defense of the public's right to know uncomfortable
facts about the medical condition of the Falash Mura.
If such august jurists seem driven by little more that
whose ox is gored - with Jews and Judaism the preferred
ox --- perhaps I shouldn't feel so bad about my own
inability to work out the governing principles in the Elian
Gonzalez
Love your fellow Israeli --- except if he is religious
By Jonathan Rosenblum
A friend of mine was once instructed by his commanding
officer not to eat in public during Ramadan while doing
reserve duty in the West Bank. The officer explained that
Moslems were fasting, and out of consideration, Israeli
soldiers should not be seen eating.
Yet when MK Shaul Yahalom petitioned the High Court
of Justice to overturn the award of the Israel Prize to
Aloni, Justice Dalia Dorner told him: "Don't turn us into a
committee for awarding prizes."
JWR contributor Jonathan Rosenblum is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post. He can be reached by clicking here.
04/24/00: Of matzas and mitzvas
04/10/00: Israel's post-democracy
04/03/00: Welcome to 'democratic' Israel, where speaking your mind can land you in jail --- especially if you are religious
03/27/00: The ADL's latest imaginary enemy: Religious Jews
01/25/00: Of ostriches and cavemen
01/14/00: Reason and madness
12/27/99: Love sweeter than wine
11/23/99: When lives are at stake, where's Israel?
11/17/99: The Mortara Affair Revisited
11/08/99: Do religious Jews make lousy parents?
10/28/99: Heed the heart
10/14/99: Tell me you love me --- please!
09/27/99: True Jewish rejoicing
08/09/99: Many Ways to be a Jew
07/15/99: Abolish the Three Weeks?
07/08/99: Memories of Entebbe
05/17/99: The Leadership We Deserve
05/10/99: Still a Hero
03/18/99: Israel’s "Little Rock Central High"?
02/19/99: Why Israel's fervently-Orthodox are mad-as-....
02/04/99:Those ornery Orthodox: Myth and Reality
02/01/99: Keep the money