BBC Newsnight plumbs new depths of bigotry

Stefan

Why am I not surprised?

Truthtriumphs.

I suppose that Katja Adler's nasty and fundamentally dishonest report had nothing to do with her career prospects with the BBC, now did it?
The BBC is especially fond of Jews who turn against their own---- another plus point in her CV no doubt.
Her historical knowledge of conflict between Israel and its enemies is more than superficial, and reveals her laziness.
She should take a look at film archives from the 6 day war, and she will see orthodox Jews with ringlets firing shells at the aggressors, in defence of their country.
She does not understand the difference between the morality of those who launch an aggressive war, and those who defend their country from it.

Stefan

Adler's assumptions in the Newsnight piece are typical of the superficial and biased BBC coverage of Israel. First of all, Judaism is not a pacifist religion like Christianity supposedly is. So there is nothing morally dubious about Jewish chaplains going to the front line. But that does not mean - like one of Adler's interviewees claimed - that a "holy war" has "no limits". Quite the opposite: volume upon volume of Jewish religious legal commentary and analysis has been devoted to exploring, defining and understanding just what those limits are! Scholarly argument and analysis has been devoted to this for centuries - even when Jewish self-determination in their historic homeland seemed nothing more than a dream. Famous examples of such limits include the imperative of seeking peace before waging war and of not damaging fruit trees in enemy territory.
Adler makes the fact that rabbis give soldiers pep talks before going into action sound monstrous. Didn't Christian chaplains tell Tommies that G-d was on their side when fighting the Germans? Hamas is a genocidally antisemitic organisation, not unlike the Nazis. I would hope that even Adler's G-d would be on the side of those who fight such a gang.
And is it so surprising that rabbis would warn the soldiers that they would have to 'harden their hearts'? They are about to go into a war zone and will probably have to kill people. Forgive me if I get fundamentalist here but the sanctity of human life (of ALL human life) is central to Torah Judaism. But Judaism is not a pacifist religion. So, in those exceptional circumstances when Jews have to fight they can do so with moral clarity - but they have to temporarily overcome the abhorrence they have to shedding blood.
And what's so shockingly new about 'religious zionists' entering the army? Such people have, for decades, been amongst the most motivated, skilled and ethically punctilious members of the IDF.
And all those images of (supposedly fanatical?) Jewish soldiers praying. Has it occurred to Adler that many of these young men are nothing more than traditionally observant in civilian life. They may celebrate Friday night Sabbath dinner with their families and not mix meat with milk but otherwise lead lives not hugely different from the bulk of Europeans. Yet it's well known that you won't find an atheist in a foxhole. When these young men find themselves wrenched from their jobs and families to defend their country against a particularly brutal enemy many of them will turn to G-d for strength and comfort. What's so shocking about that?

Jason from AZ

Last year, the U.S. news magazine "60 Minutes" on CBS had a similar hit piece about Jewish settlers in Israel, although perhaps a tad less bigoted than the BBC piece.

Let's face reality. When it comes to the main stream (i.e. leftist) media, Isreal and Jews = bad, Muslims and Palestinians = good. That is the equation that is followed.

George

A shallow and unbalanced report, replete with errors of fact and bad translations of Hebrew.
She says that the soldiers going in to Gaza were told by their Rabbis to "harden their hearts". This is indeed a literal word by word translation of the Hebrew. What it means though is that the Rabbis talking to the troops were telling them to be brave. Not exactly the same thing as what Ms. Adler was implying.
Towards the very end of here report she makes the following statement over a shot of the Old city of Jerusalem: "Day to day, Israel's army mainly operates in civilian areas: in Gaza, the West Bank and here, in East Jerusalem." The shot then cuts to two Israel policemen. Firstly, she has a factual error in that the army does not operate on a day to day basis in Gaza: Israel left there August 2005. The second factual error is that the army also doesn't operate in East Jerusalem. And then to compound the error (or simply to display her ignorance), she misleads the public by portraying policemen as soldiers.

Alan

I'm a secular Jew and I found that the report was anti-semitic and I have complained to the BBC.

wonderer

The BBC is of course beyond the pale. A friend mildly drew my attention to the following:-
"The soloist at tonight's proms 7th September was Saleem Abboud Ashkar a (Christian?) Arab from Nazareth. He was educated and lives in Israel and given his initial opportunity with the Israel Philarmonic by Zubin Mehta but tonight there was no mention of Israel instead the BBC introduced Saleem as growing up in Palestine.
"In an interview with the Irish Times on September 2nd he was correctly identified as a Palestinian Israeli pianist and was then quoted as saying:
"“It’s very important to me to be able to play for Palestinians,” he says. "“To be heard and to be understood. But of course, that takes investment because before, we didn’t have audiences for this music. Now when I play there, it sells out. All the kids come – and they, also, want to become pianists and violinists. I feel extremely privileged that I have been able to give that impulse to others because it means that I can go home, not just as a person, but as an artist.”"
"In a way, he has become a spokesperson for Palestinian artists in the wider world, certainly in Europe. As a pianist, does he feel this is a role which has been thrust upon him? "“Yes and no,”" he says. "“The role of a spokesperson is inevitable. I always stress the fact that I am a pianist and not a spokesperson – but the more I stress that, the more my role as a spokesperson becomes even stronger. But I don’t want to put on any uniform. If anything, what I speak for is our wish to develop our lives and to live in a way that is with dignity. To express our potential as individuals. The more I do what I do, the more that becomes clear by itself.”"

"All of the above is reasonable comment - but for the BBC to say he grew up in Palestine and not Israel and not to mention that he had his musical education and initial professional opportunity in Tel Aviv is unreasonable."

James C

Adler is clueless, dose not know what she talking about. But then not many people do.

Joe

Shock horror, there are religious Jews in Israel who care deeply about their country.

Perhaps any outward manifestation of Judaism should be banned as Ms Adler clearly has a problem with this.

This could well be a personal view as alledgedly Ms Adler has an Orthodox Jewish background having been educated in a Jewish school and having family who are stictly Orthodox.

This obviously sits uncomfortably with Ms Adler, having rejected her heritage and as s result her opinions reflect a very personal hostile view of anything Jewish.

jose garcia

one day melanie you are going to have to explain yourself why so many of Israelis and jews are so hell bent upon self destruction, i dont know of any other civilised country with so many enemies from within and out, from inside to israel to liberal US , to the silence of jews everywhere to the suffering of others,

"the religious/secular divide in israel is so extreme.......".

so this is how you are going to fight the jihad?.

i dont think so. maybe the day you stop fighting between yourselves

Merlyn

I just hope that all of you here expressing your disgust, do it where it makes a difference, to the BBC [ Biased, Bigoted Channel] and point out to them their allowance of hate encouragement to the radicalized Muslims wanting more ammunition to blow people up.

Anth

Well said, Melanie. Tragic that you have to. Shame indeed on the BBC. Sadder still that THEY don't feel it, being so perfectly insulated in their monopolistic ivory transmitting tower, busy brainwashing us that they are the broadcaster that everyone trusts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trumpeldor

Shalom Melanie,

It is great to see you back.
Israel is changing
Vey slowly,people return to traditions and your example of army rabis,willing to instill Jewish values to our soldiers is a meaningful one.
Truth is the chasm is growing between secular ,nihilist,next to be muslims Europeans and Israelis going back to traditions
Katia Adler's fantasy world is disappearing fast.She chose her side and she is disappointed to notice that very soon,she will be alone.

Miranda Rose Smith

Does Ms. Adler know how many ultra-Orthodox Jews are violently anti-Zionist? Does she know about the divisions within Orthodox Judaism itself? The hostility that some ultra-religious Jews have toward the Hassisim, for instance? The rifts between the different Hassidic sects?

gary ashton

its the bbc

what do we expect?

Edgar Davidson

At the end of Adler's report she also stated that the civilians of the West Bank AND GAZA were under the occupation of Israeli soldiers.

raymond

And the BBC maintains its fiction that it is "impartial" ! God , I long for the day I am freed from paying this POLL TAX that masquerades as a license fee !

Louise

Merlyn, a show that was once respected by many people is now referred to in the blogosphere as BBC2's Taqiyyanight.

roger

I was recently at the Western Wall and witnessed an IDF rabbi telling a group of soldiers that their role was a defensive one..''to defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life.'' He emphasised that their function was not unprovoked aggression.
I was reminded of Khrishna speaking to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita on the eve of a decisive battle. He stressed that evil must be fought and he sought to inpire and encourage the war weary and despondent Arjuna with a sense of noble purpose impressing on him his duty to defend the good and the innocent against tyranny.
Adler and the BBC are siding with the forces of darkness.

S.J.

This article was written 40 years ago!!! Some things never change.

ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION
by Eric Hoffer* (LA Times 5/26/68)

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman.
Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one.
Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace.
Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.
No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him.
The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.
The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts and Jewish resources. Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs their Russian backers won the war, to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.
I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all.

*A non-Jewish American social philosopher, 1902 – 1983. Hew wrote nine books and won the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Mailman

Additionally I see the BBC is now publishing the organ theft story.

However, they are quite clever around how they do it.

Initially, when the story was released the BBC didnt cover it, probably because even they realised how rediculous the story was.

However, now that a couple of arab MP's are asking questions, the BBC now has the cover it needs to run the story.

Hmmm, arab MP's in Israel. I wonder if the irony isnt lost on the BBC?

Mailman

Robbit

Yup. Spot on Melanie. Saw it. It was absolutely disgusting. Perniciuos, slanted, tendentious and question-begging cant. Par for the course. As Stefan says; why am Inot surprised.

Elise

It is sad how craven and ignorantly bigoted the English people have become. The UK's acquiescence to modern virulent anti-semitism smacks of a degeneration of the British soul and the corruption of the British intellect. The UK has become an embarrassment unto itself.

peter

TruthTriumphs.

(Or not)

It has been disproved that Arabs were looking to mount a war against Israel in 1967.

The Six Day War took Six Days, precisely because the Arabs were not prepared for war.

Israel was able to destroy its Air Forces on the ground, because they were dispersed in a peace time manner, as were the Americans at Pearl Harbour, and the Russians when attacked by the Germans.

The Arabs were not the aggressors. Israel started that war.

Henry Sidgwick

"When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces,then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilised...In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good." ...This was written in 1973 by the Chief Chaplain of Central Region Command. I read in the newspapers that similar guidance was offered by rabbis to the troops going into Gaza last year. Would anyone who understands Hebrew be able to confirm that? Is it also the case that the IDF when the advice was brought to its attention admitted that it was inappropriate? I would be interested to know.

Anne Wotana Kaye

I cannot take any news on Israel seriously, when presented by the BBC, until they release the contents of the Balen Report.

andy c

Remember one thing.

God gave the land to Abraham, "and his seed". Not to some of his seed.

The Arabs are part of that seed, as are the Jews.

So even on the basis of Biblical analysis, both people's have equal right to the land.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Roger: I'm glad someone else on this website, besides me, loves the Bhagavad Gita.

Joshua

Something about Katya Adler from a piece about her at Wikipedia:

"Adler was born to German parents in London, England."

"After graduating in June 1995, she moved to Vienna to work as an organiser of International Congresses at Mondial Congress.[3] Adler began working as a correspondent for Austrian national public broadcaster ORF in late 1995"

"Adler joined the BBC in Vienna in 1998, reporting on Austrian and Central European affairs."

Why am I not surprised?

Adonis

The disgusting BBC had a short piece in their London evening news slot where the presenter gave a representative from the Active Change Network (?) a free pass when he made the unchallenged statement that Islamic terrorists are motivated by anger at the UK's foreign policy.

The BBC - helping Britain's enemies.

Anne K

Excellent article Ms. Phillips. My only quibble is with the way you described Israeli society as violently polarized on the religious issue. As commenter Trumpeldor said above, secular Israelis are beginning to return to their Jewish roots. There is a thirst for Jewish knowledge that has been absent for decades. I suppose it is a backlash to the lack of Jewish education in the state school system.

As to there being no middle ground on religious issues, again I wish to take issue with this statement. As a "modern Orthodox" Israeli I can confirm that probably the majority of Orthodox Jews are very happy to interact with non-religious Israelis, we work together, serve in the IDF together, live in the same neighbourhoods in the same apartment blocks etc. I don't know where you get the idea that there is no middle ground. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is only the minority of noisy extremists who are like this.

peter

If Israel has rights on Palestinian territories, then Greece has rights on Ephesus and large parts of Turkey.

Henry Sidgwick

I would also appreciate clarification of what rabbis mean when the say that the fight in Gaza is a fight against the Amalekites, and of what are expected to be the practical consequences of such a description.

PauL

About time a mass Stop-Paying-Your-Licence-Fee resistance was organised.

Mailman

Peter,

Clearly history isnt your strong point.

http://www.sixdaywar.org/myths-and-facts.asp#unprovoked

Mailman

peter

Joshua

That is a straight implied slander.

You re not a lawyer.

Are you?

Trumpeldor

@Peter,

San Remo 1920 international conference granted sovereignty over THE WHOLE palestinian mandate to the Jewish People.
The decisions of this seminal conference are still binding and valid under international law!
Britain unfairly gave eastern Palestine to emir Abdullah as a compensation for losing Hejaz to Ibn Seoud.
Sorry guy but the remaining piece is for us ,from the Med to the dead sea
I will spare you my deep and intimate belief that under Divine Right,we are entitled to the whole mandate until the Moab mountains range.

ISAAC

Thank you Melanie for showing us this piece of television which is quite accurate.

we try very hard to make sure our next generation is understanding of our religious beliefs, and it is of vital importance that those who take up the arms for us against the palestinian squatters know we are here for to support, help train and educate them properly.

Peter Burman

Thank you, Melanie, for another great and truthful article. I do not understand why the government of Britain, which funds the BBC, allows such bias to continue. The BBC's own ombudsman concluded the BBC had an anti-Israel bias and recommended changes, yet the bias continues. Is there anything that can be done about this? Keep up your good work!

Brian Moshe

Great to have you back Melanie!

There are some excellent comments here that support Melanie's incisive piece above and which I can't really add anything much to.

However, I would like to point out that not very long ago the BBC paid a sum originally said to be £30,000 but subsequently rumoured to be £45,000, to the Muslim Council because the latter objected to comments made in a BBC TV programme that it claimed were in some way biased against Islam.

The comments in question were made by a panelist on a BBC topical questions programme (I don't now recall which one).

The panelist subsequently wrote in The Spectator that although he had been told that the BBC had paid out this huge sum in relation to comments he had made they would not inform him of what the offending comments were.

Thus, in true Kafka-esque fashion, they swelled the coffers of a Muslim organisation that cried bias (using our money) but they failed to tell anyone what the allegedly offending comments were.

Perhaps a Jewish organisation or congregation can demand similar payment given that the Newsnight report in question appears to be wholly biased and inaccurate.

Augustus

Of course Melanie is right, and it is typical of yet another biased BBC Jerusalem correspondent to attempt to put a wedge between brave Israeli soldiers' Jewish beliefs and their duty to defend the state.
Ultimately, nothing but Jewish self-determination will influence the Israeli soldiers, or their commanders. You don't have to be an 'ultranationalist'
to demand that loyalty to the state be a condition of citizenship.

Despatches from most of the West's media would have one believe that an Arab peace initiative would give Israel peace in return for withdrawal to 1967 borders. Sounds like a good deal: End the occupation, get peace. But the deal not only requires Israel to withdraw completely from East Jerusalem as well, including the Jewish parts, it also requires it to accept the return of an increasing number of Palestinian Arab 'refugees',
thus ending Jewish self-determination at a stroke. But it's even worse than that. The Arabs say that any initiative on their part is only a recommendation in principle. So the deal would be: Give up your capital and your country, and maybe some of us will decide to give you peace. And all this while Egypt kicked out all of it's Jews without asking them if they were loyal or not, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia do not allow any Jews to become citizens. But does the BBC, or Associated Press, and others ever stop letting the facts get in the way of a good Israel bashing story? No, of course not, the anti-Israel bias is always in evidence, no matter what the subject.

Raymond in DC

This BBC report reminds one of the false equivalence Christianne Amanpour made in "God's Holy Warriors", equating Jewish nationalists and settlers (and believing Christians) with Islamic jihadists. Wrong then, wrong now.

Melanie overstates the division between religious and secular. Clearly, there is a vast gap between the radically secular and the ultra-orthodox. But there in fact is a broad "middle". Even if they don't describe themselves as "traditional", they manifest their true attitudes through action.

I saw this personally in recent trips to Israel, but it should suffice to point out that the percentage who, for example, light candles on Friday night (at the start of the Sabbath), who observe the dietary laws, who fast on Yom Kippur, or who participate in a Passover Seder is far higher than the number who count themselves as "religious" and, I might add, higher than found in the Diaspora.

On another matter, peter's claim that "The Arabs were not the aggressors. Israel started that [Six Day] war." is demonstrably false. Egypt's expulsion of UN forces, closure of the Straits of Tiran, and movement of army divisions toward the Israeli border were all causus belli.

George

Brian Moshe the BBC is a Muslim corporation in all but name, therefore pointless to ask for redress for insulting lesser religions even if they are al-Kitab.

Get to know your dhimmitude already!

David Elder

Welcome back Mel. I am Protestant but am unconcerned that Israeli chaplains sport Hebrew Bibles and even weapons. These are the least of the Middle East's problems. While the settlement issue is a factor in the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, it is nowhere near as central as one might think from Obama's speeches on the subject. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza shows the real problem. Israel removed all 'settlers' from Gaza, only to see it used to launch lethal attacks on Israeli civilians by an adversary with no interest in a peaceful two-state solution. Hamas and Fatah even fight a vicious civil war among themselves in Gaza. The Israeli-Palestinian issue could have been fixed years ago if it were not for abysmal Palestinian leadership like this. Their own people suffer from it as much as anyone.

SHIM

I saw the programme and agree with the Rabbi who told the sodliers to harden their hearts when conquering areas taken by palestinian civilians. There is no reason for mercy.

C. Gee

Henry Sidgwick at 12:01:

The advice for soldiers you quote is sound.

Pete Tiarks

Wasn't the idea that the IDF is in the business of teaching its recruits that "the people, the religion and the land are inseparable and bound together by the thousands of years of history of the Jewish people in the land" pretty much exactly what Adler was saying. As far as I can see all that's happening here is that Mel thinks they should be doing it, Adler doesn't, and Israelis are divided on the question.

London Calling

"Maybe some of these rabbis had issued leaflets which really were politically extreme. So what? "

Shame on you Melanie...
Because you of all people know that extreme has its roots in promoting fanatical views that will cast a shadow over Israel and the her sincere dedsire for peace.

If as noted in the report by the BBC that the Israelis soldiers are programmed to believe they are the sons of light fighting against the sons of darkness (Muslims) what hope is there of breaking down extreme views by quoting religious doctrine?.

How can the general concerns of living conditions of the Muslim population living in Gaza be taken seriously when Muslims are promoted as evil? Whilst extreme views are being promoted on both sides?

Biased accusations apart, the BBC were right to report this even though it may offend in its exposure, I found it disturbing, but it is essential we get the whole picture on both sides to understand the underlying issues and mindset in this so called Holy War to better understand what it is that is not working that drives it.

Truthtriumphs

Peter.
You are delusional.
In the sequence of events which unfolded prior to the outbreak of the 6 day war, the Egyptians closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping.
That was an act of war in international law.
The Egyptian air fleet was assembled in readiness for an attack on Israel, and Nasser was not backward in coming forward to declare that his intention was to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.
The Arabs underestimated the ability and organisation of the IDF, which is why they lost the war.
The Israelis never have the luxury of losing wars waged against them,for if they lose, that would be the end of Israel.
When the Arabs are in danger of losing wars they initiate, the UN, America et al make sure that a ceasefire is brought about asap, so the Arabs are always able to live to fight another day.
Sorry chum, but after the Holocaust Jews refuse to be obligingly killed without resisting, so you'd better get used to it.

BTW what do you mean by Palestinian territory?
There was never a country called Palestine, so that idea is nonsensical.
Until 1948, the Jews of Palestine were called Palestinians.
The (largely immigrant) Arabs were offended by the term.
Only in 1964 did Arafat highjack the term when he created the Palestine Liberation Organisation in order to win western sympathy for this phoney cause.

Truthtriumphs

Brian Moshe.

It was the admirable Charles Moore on the BBC's Question Time, whose comments about the MCB were taken up by a firm of libel lawyers on behalf of the MCB, which was the reason for the BBC payout.
It was in relation to the disgraceful behaviour of a few extremist Muslims who caused great offence and outrage by their behaviour in Wooton Bassett upon the return of the coffins of those brave soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan in defence of all our freedoms.

terence patrick hewett

The British Army has a long tradition of Padres joining in the action in extremis. They generally seem to be both Irish and Catholic. Probably something to do with Charity.

Norman Dee

I refer to my comments on another section of this blog. Pack up and sell off the BBC news organisation, take away the poll tax money that it uses to propagandise it's bigoted agenda. I am pleased to say I have escaped the "poll Tax" but it doesn't leave you any less angry

Henry Sidgwick

C. Gee, "In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good."

There is no way to distinguish a "good" civilian from an "ostensibly good" civilian. The rule is thus "Kill civilians".

This may in some circumstances increase a soldier's chances of survival. Soldiers of all armies resort to it when panicked. It is however murder. Trained professional soldiers are meant to be able to control themselves. I readily admit that no amount of training would help me curb my panic. So I am in no position to judge anyone who shows weakness or makes a mistake on the battlefield. Those who glory in murder, and those for whom it is a religious duty, are another matter.

Wm. Hazlitt

George's comments at 8.10am provide a useful reminder that it is not always straightforward to translate from one language to another or from one way of life to another. The words "harden your heart" in English mean "be ruthless". It may well be that soldiers need to be not only brave but ruthless. Nevertheless these are different things and should be kept distinct. Yet George tells us that the Hebrew words for "harden your heart" mean "be brave". It is easy to see how misundertandings can arise (although journalists of all people should be aware of the problem).

Just out of interest, what would be a literal translation into English of the Hebrew for "be ruthless"?

SHIM at 3.59pm appears to think that "harden your heart" does mean "be ruthless". SHIM, are you a Hebrew speaker?

John Edwards

Same old hysteria. Obviously her break did not do Melanie much good.

On a point of fact it is of course nonsense to pretend that the settlers are entitled to settle the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem under "international law". As the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body in the world, declared in its advisory opinion on the separation wall these are Occupied Palestinian Territories under international law.

Establishing colonies on this land is forbidden under the Geneva Convention.

Like it or not that is the position under international law.

Some good comments from "Peter" on this thread though

John Edwards

Rather than getting into a flap about military rabbis perhaps Melanie would like to comment on the BBC's main Middle East story about the report by the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem concerning the 252 Palestinian children killed by the "IDF" in Gaza during the recent invasion?

JAE

With regard to Katy Adler , why would we be surprised when she calls Jeremy Bowen her 'mentor'?

C. Gee

Henry Sidgwick:
You say "Trained professional soldiers are meant to be able to control themselves. I readily admit that no amount of training would help me curb my panic. So I am in no position to judge anyone who shows weakness or makes a mistake on the battlefield. Those who glory in murder, and those for whom it is a religious duty, are another matter."

And who are those who glory in murder? Not the IDF, and not the religious soldiers. And the religious duty is to fight in self-defense, not for wanton destruction. War is war, and the rules for fighting are to all intents and purposes the same whether religious or secular.

But by all means judge those who glory in murder and those for whom it is a religious duty: Hamas and other Jihadists. I certainly do.

Rebel Saint

It is Ramadan. Tis the BBC's duty to knock the Jews & Christians. The other time is Easter.

Henry Sidgwick

C. Gee, "War is war, and the rules for fighting are to all intents and purposes the same whether religious or secular."

That is indeed correct. And the rules of war forbid what the rabbis insist Halakha requires, namely, the killing of civilians. To repeat, it is not possible to distinguish between "good" civilians and "ostensibly good" civilians, so the rabbis injunction is simply to kill civilians. Indeed they appear to make it a religious duty. By no definition of self-defence within the rules of war is this allowed to be other than criminal. If you read the advice again, you will find no caveats, no ifs and buts, no careful circumscribing of the duty to kill.

This advice of the rabbis should be condemned, as should anyone who defends it.

If you remember the representative story about the tasteful teeshirts soldiers ordered up to celebrate their exploits, you will be less categorical in your comments about those who glory in murder. This is of relevance because, like the rabbis' advice, it encourages an attitude among soldiers that makes wanton slaughter more of a risk. Studies of what happened in the Vietnam War and other conflicts allow psychologists to be quite precise about this.

Henry Sidgwick

I would still like to know what the rabbis mean when they say that Israel's fight against the Palestinians is a fight against the AMALEKITES. All our resident experts have gone very quiet.

George

Henry Sidgwick,

Wait patiently. Some of us work for a living!

Jonathan Gold

Henry Sidgwick,
The Torah commands the Jews not to kill Amalek, but to rembember what Amalek did to the Children of Israel during the Exdous (Deut 25:17). Specifically, to earse the mememory of what they did. What was Amalek's crime (Deut25:19)? According to the bible, they attacked the children of Israel were worn out, targetting the weak and straglers. Does this sound familiar?

Truthtriumphs.

Henry Sidgwick.

You wish to know why the rabbis invoke the memory of Amalek in the present day struggle between Israel and her enemies.
Excellent question.
There has been much written on this topic, and I'll try to summarise as best I can.

Amalek was seared into the Israelite consciousness as the first enemy that Israel encountered after crossing the Red Sea.
The Amalekites (a nomadic tribe), attacked the Israelites in a pitched battle at Rephidim, which is thought to be in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula. (Ex. 17:6, 7, 8-16;18;5).
The book of Exodus relates that Joshua fought against Amalek under the inspiration of Moses, and that he mowed them down with the sword.
Amalek was not completely destroyed, however, and at the end of this war Moses was ordered to write in a document, as a reminder, that the Lord would one day blot out the memory of Amalek.
In commemoration of the victory, Moses built an altar and proclaimed that "The Lord will be at war against Amalek throughout the ages".
During the period of the Judges, the Amalekites participated with other nations in attacks on the Israelite tribes.

The decisive clash between Israel and Amalek came only with the advent of the monarchy, in the famous Amalekite war of King Saul.
The Bible relates that the war began as the result of a divine command to Saul, through Samuel, to smite Amalek and destroy it totally.
Samuel's words closely parallel the narrative about the attack of Amalek in the Book of Deuteronomy (25:17-19), which relates how the Amalekites attacked the Israelites on their way out of Egypt, "when you were famished and weary," and cut down the stragglers in the rear, without mentioning any victorious Israelite counteraction.
Deuteronomy explicitly admonishes the Israelites to remember Amalek, and blot out its memory.

The significance and importance of Amalek in Jewish history lies in the fact that Amalek was singled out from all the Israelites enemies as being quintessentially evil, and for trying to destroy them without any motive other than hatred.
They were especially cowardly, which is why the biblical narrative emphasises how they attacked the defenceless from the rear.
The parallel between Amalek and say, Hamas today, is striking, in how the latter fight in civilian clothing from civilian areas, using human shields to draw Israeli fire and kill Palestinian civilians for propaganda purposes, (against all the international laws and conventions relating to warfare).

The memory of Amalek is invoked with regard to all those who wished to destroy the Jews throughout the ages, motivated by nothing but pure evil, such as Nebuchadnezar, Haman and in recent times, Hitler.
Iran's Ahmadinejad is a "worthy" contempory ideologue of Amalek, as are Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quaida and others like them.
I hope you understand, now, why the Israeli army chaplains, quite rightly, "remember Amalek".

Mark2

"Adler made this leap because to her, all orthodox Jewish religious observance is extreme, right-wing and aggressive; all settlers are orthodox and therefore extreme, right-wing and aggressive"....

except of couirse Naturei Karta!

"The fact also is that the religious/secular divide in Israel is so extreme that one of the major grievances amongst secular Israelis is that religious Jews have traditionally managed to get out of army service. The fact that in recent years more and more religious Jews have been signing up to perform their patriotic duty in defending their country and its people against attack might occasion a degree of admiration."

Yes - that is ther real story here. one suspects the BBC held this story to follow the terrirst plot one - seeing it laughably as "balance".

Truthtriumphs

Henry Sidgwick.

Just noticed your comment about the tee shirts some of the IDF allegedly wore, that glorified killing.
This disgusting calumny was totally faked---- no one could source it.
Anyone with half a brain should be careful about repeating such obvious rubbish without checking its veracity.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

For Henry Sidgwick's information, the book of Exodus refers to Amalek as the nation that attacked the weakest among the Israelites on their flight from Egypt, a transgression that, according to the Torah, had to be punished by annihilation.

It is imperative that we (Jews)recognize who Amalek is in our own generation and fight it in every way we can. I don't think that there can be any doubt that our present day Amalek is the so- called 'Palestinian' sector as part of the wider Islamist group of nations, since they all repeatedly declare that it is their intention to wipe out the whole Jewish nation (not just the Israelis),and they repeatedly demonstrate this! In all the circumstances, it's simply a matter of: "It's them or us",or in the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny: "Ya gotta fight fire with fire!". It makes perfect sense to me.

If H Sidgwick wishes to enlighten himself further on the subject, I suggest that he searches against 'Amalek' and clicks on 'My Jewish Learning'.

Henry Sidgwick

...and the Canaanites...and the Midianites...and the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Jebusites..."of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive none that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deuteronomy 20: 16-17) Are such passages much discussed in the Talmudic literature? And why do rabbis bring them up in talking about the Palestinians?

As a historical footnote, Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli quoted Numbers 31: 13-20 to justify the massacre at Qibbiya, in particular, verse 17, "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man..."

My question is, Why do the rabbis refer to such passages? What is meant to be their relevance?

Henry Sidgwick

Jonathan Gold, I should say that it is now several decades since I had any formal instruction in the Bible. My questions express some shock at the apparent meaning of the rabbis' references, but also a willingness to acknowledge that I may simply be mistaking the true meaning. George's point about translation is well taken.

Nevertheless, it does seem that the Scriptures tell of a tribal God giving over to the tribe territories already inhabited, and giving permission to slaughter those inhabitants if they resist. The rabbis appear to be applying these stories to the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

On the specific verses of Scripture you cite, I am familiar with the King James and with modern translations, but cannot read Hebrew, Greek etc. The King James has, "Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it." The Revised English Bible has, "you must without fail blot out all memory of Amalek from under heaven." - I may have seen too many films about mafiosi, but that sounds more ominous than you imply.

Ronnie

Jonathan Gold.

I feel a certain amount of clarification is required here.

If there is a command not to kill Amalek, and the fight against the Palestinians is the fight against the Amalekites, surely then Palestinians may not be killed?

Furthermore, how can Amalek's crime be remembered if, at the same time, the memory of what Amalek did is to be erased?

ahad ha'amoratsim

John Edards-- B'Tselem may call itself an Israeli civil rights organization, but it is not. It is a left wing advocacy group funded by countries hostile to Israel, and according to journalist Lee Kaplan, has cooperated with the terrorist supporting Internatioanl Solidarity Movement by offering to provide false cover stories to foreign students who want to enter Israel to act as human shields for people shooting and throwing bombs at Israeli troops.

ahad ha'amoratsim

Henry S., the T-shirt incident was stupid, embarrassing and disgusting, but should not be blown out of proportion. The shirts were an unofficial act by recruits who had just completed basic training. Similar acts of stupid bravado are found among other armies, and do not reflect army policy, and certainly not the teachings of the Israeli chaplains. In fact, it was a religious soldiers who blew the whistle and told the commanding officer about the t-shirts, and the CO immediately put a stop to them. Let's not turn an unauthorized stupid joke by non-religious recruits into some kind of symbol of army policy or religious teaching -- it is neither.

Ronnie

Thank you truthtriumphs.

Original Tony

BBC = Barbarian Broadcasting Corporation

Truthtriumphs

Jonathan Gold and Ronnie.

The Bible specifically relates that Amalek had to be wiped out in its entirety.
It was because King Saul disobeyed the divine commandment by sparing some of the tribe, that he was punished by losing his kingdom and then killed in battle, after which the House of David took over.

The Biblical injunction to "remember Amalek" was in order to finally destroy them, once and for all.

Truthtriumphs

Henry Sidgwick.
I note that you slipped into one of your posts the fact that the Israelites marched into lands "already occupied by other people."
If you noticed, the Amalekites were a nomadic tribe.
The idea that all the world's countries are inhabited by the same people since time immemorial is ludicrous.
There have always been large movements of populations and peoples, which is ongoing in our time.
Have you not noticed the immigration of some 25,000,000 Muslims into western Europe in the last few decades?

It's only with regard to the Jews that some people have a problem in this matter.
As a general rule of thumb, those who dislike Jews in their midst are often those deny their legitimacy in the Holy Land also.

Meira

Thank you Melanie for putting constantly irritating and superficial reporter Katya Adler in the correct context. I saw a short report of her piece on BBC website and was so angry, I almost wrote to them, but remembered that Katya is one of the current darlings of the station.

As a religious woman living in our ancient Jewish heartland, and whose husband & sons have served in our army, and in a few years grandsons too, all proudly wearing their kippot and ritual fringes, I do not recognize Katya's portrayal.
By the way, my late father was a Military Chaplain serving in the British army in WWII in Europe and the Far East, where I understand that his spiritual council and practical help was much appreciated.

Truthtriumphs

Henry Sidgwick.

In your latest post you quote a list of tribes that should be destroyed, the inference being that the Pentateuch is a barbaric document which has no relevance in today's world.
Anyone can prove anything by taking passages out of context.
I've already explained in the clearest possible terms the meaning of Amalek.
There is another profound message that the Bible teaches us in relation to this, and that is that there is an Amalek in every generation, and it is futile to try to negotiate or reason with them.
The Nazis are a good example.
The only way is to utterly destroy them.

Henry Sidgwick

ahad ha'amoratsim, I accept that your comment of 2.37pm is fair. I did not, I think, say that the tee-shirt episode reflected religious teaching or army policy. I do think it representative of attitudes to Palestinians among Israeli soldiers over the years (I remember the general who referred to them as roaches in a bottle; and Moshe Dayan who's policy was to make them live like dogs). However, you are quite right that what I said was imprecise, and I consequently diverted attention from the main point, namely that the advice of the rabbis requires soldiers to kill civilians, even "ostensibly" good ones.

Henry Sidgwick

Truthtriumphs, "The idea that all the world's countries are inhabited by the same people since time immemorial is ludicrous.
There have always been large movements of populations and peoples, which is ongoing in our time." Quite.

Henry Sidgwick

Truthtriumphs, "The only way is to utterly destroy them". Who in the current generation does this apply to? The Palestinains? All Arabs? All Muslims? All Muslims and Lefties?...

I will not say that you have explained the purpose of what the rabbis say. I would prefer someone more measured and more knowledgable.

George

Andy C,

You need to go back and re-read your Bible. God indeed promised the land of Israel to Abraham's "seed", which as you correctly infer means Isaac and Ishmael. However, if you read further, you will discover that the promise is only for Isaac and his descendants (Jacob and the 12 tribes).

George

Wm. Hazlitt,

The talks that the IDF chaplains gave would have been based on Deuteronomy, Chapter 20. The term used there is not "harden your hearts", but rather "do not be faint-hearted" - not the same thing at all. The classic Jewish commentators explain that a soldier should go into battle thinking only of the battle and not allow his thoughts to dwell on his loved ones left behind.
There is no direct translation for ruthless in Hebrew. The nearest I can think of would be better translated as cruel or merciless. Don't forget that there is a concept that is a mistake to show mercy to the cruel, as you will end up having to be cruel to the merciful.

Henry Sidgwick,
The only people who can define the rules of engagement for Israeli soldiers are their officers and not military chaplains. It may well be that the Chief of Staff asks the army's Chief Rabbi what Jewish Law states for a specific set of circumstances and then write his orders accordingly. But he will also consult with the Advocate-General as well and ultimately the Chief of Staff, and only he, defines the Rules of Engagement.

BJ

Is Katya any relation to Larry?

George

Henry Sidgwick,

Take it from someone who is a lot closer to Israeli soldiers than you are (two sons, one daughter and one son-in-law), the t-shirts do NOT represent the attitude of the average Israeli soldier to the Palestinians, nor of the average Israeli.

Truthtriumphs

Henry Sidgwick.
"Who, in this generation does it apply to?".
I should have thought it's pretty obvious!
How about barbaric groups, such as Al Quaida, Hamas and Hezbollah who masquerade as "liberators", but, in fact, are just the opposite.
Tomorrow is 9/11, and rather appropriate to the subject under discussion, don't you think?
They do not respect life or limb of their co-religionists, so what hope for the rest of us?
Indeed, they are utterly ruthless in the pursuit of their totalitarian, fascist ideology.
Have you ever read the Hamas Charter?

As to preferring "someone more measured and knowledgeable" than myself, who are you to comment on my, or anyone else's Jewish knowledge".
You admitted that you cannot read Hebrew.
The account I gave you re. Amalek is totally accurate, and represents the correct interpretation from the sources.
If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.

Henry Sidgwick

George, I do indeed accept what you say at 7.10pm, without reservation.

Could I clarify something that relates to your comment of 6.17pm: I do not think I said anything about the rules of engagement. The discussion has been about the spiritual guidance of the rabbis and what it means (i.e. can it please be clarified for those who don't speak Hebrew), and speculation, at least on my part, as to what effect such guidance has on believers who find themselves in the armed forces. I think it is a legitimate question. I am sure senior officers would agree. I believe that Israel, like Britain, has a highly professional army. That is not what is in dispute. The most professional of armies can be warped by the circumstances they are placed in.

Wm. Hazlitt

George, Thank you for your explanation, which makes things much clearer (although I think you may have caused some of my confusion in the first place: "She says that the soldiers going in to Gaza were told by their Rabbis to "harden their hearts". This is indeed a literal word by word translation of the Hebrew.") Anyway, a salutary illustration of the need for careful translation.

George

Henry,

You are right, you didn't specifically mention the rules of engagement. But the inference behind the report and also of some of the comments here was that religious soldiers were "authorised" by the IDF chaplains to kill innocent civilians, contrary to the established rules of engagement. Nothing could be further from the truth. The spiritual guidance of the chaplains is meant in the spirit of Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy, especially verses 2-3, as I tried to explain. The battlefield is not a place for the faint-hearted and the job of the chaplains of any army is to help bolster the morale of the troops. This, and only this, is what the chaplains did. They did their job in a variety of ways; some talked to the troops before they went into Gaza, others actually accompanied the troops. The IDF Chief Rabbi (Brigadier-General Avichai Rontzki) went in and out of Gaza during operation Cast Lead. Indeed, he spent an entire Sabbath with my elder son's battalion, to the great appreciation of the battalion's officers and men.

Trumpeldor

@John Edward,

Like it or not,San Remo 1920 protocols are still valid and binding !
Like it or not, foreign office diplomats spread dicontent in their ancient colonies to try to
remain the masters
-Sri lanka :massive influx of Tamils and a civil war going on
-English supression of Maharat kingdom and subsequent wars between Muslims and Hindus
-Treasonous award of Eastern Palestine to emir Abdulla (JORDAN)whereas the WHOLE mandate was to be under undisputed sovereign Jewish rule
Under disguise of false "international laws",do not try to disguise history !
Thank you

Henry Sidgwick

George, The rabbis are there for the pastoral welfare of the soldiers. There is no dispute about that. They are also there to keep up the soldiers' morale. There is no dispute about that. You say they are also there to instil the martial virtues. This is where I think there is cause for unease. The rabbis instil the martial virtues by telling the soldiers that they are fighting the good fight as did the Israelites of old against the tribes who lived in the lands the Lord their God had promised them; and by telling them that they are to fight in the same spirit as did the Israelites of old. You mention Deuteronomy 20, especially 20:2-3. Read 20:16-17 - "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing that breatheth; But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites,and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded it."

This is very much the spirit in which the Rabbinate encourages the soldiers to fight:

""[There is] a biblical ban on surrendering a single millimeter of it [the Land of Israel] to gentiles, though all sorts of impure distortions and foolishness of autonomy, enclaves and other national weaknesses. We will not abandon it to the hands of another nation, not a finger, not a nail of it." "Is it possible to compare today's Palestinians to the Philistines of the past? And if so, is it possible to apply lessons today from the military tactics of Samson and David?" "A comparison is possible because the Philistines of the past were not natives and had invaded from a foreign land ... They invaded the Land of Israel, a land that did not belong to them and claimed political ownership over our country ... Today the problem is the same. The Palestinians claim they deserve a state here, when in reality there was never a Palestinian or Arab state within the borders of our country. Moreover, most of them are new and came here close to the time of the War of Independence." "When you show mercy to a cruel enemy, you are being cruel to pure and honest soldiers. This is terribly immoral. These are not games at the amusement park where sportsmanship teaches one to make concessions. This is a war on murderers. 'A la guerre comme a la guerre.'"

The Rabbinate is at the very least indulging in politics, but I think is clearly equating the current conflict with Biblical conflicts where the Lord enjoined the Israelites to slaughter their enemies.

And before someone tells me that the advice on showing no mercy is sound advice for a soldier, may I remind you of the Halakha and the interpretation of the Talmud that rabbis have used since the founding of the state of Israel to the effect that it is right and proper to kill civilians in combat, even "ostensibly" good ones. This chimes with pamphlets distributed to the soldiers going into Gaza by rabbis, although not by the IDF Rabbinate, which said that the civilian population is not innocent: "Spare your lives and the lives of your friends and show no concern for a population that surrounds us and harms us."

You have made very reasonable points about army discipline and the rules of engagement. You have made very reasonable points about the rabbis' duty of care. You have not, I think, given a full account of how the rabbis go about fulfilling their duty. No-one has explained to me why it is necessary to frame the conflict in terms of genocides described in Scripture. No-one has explained why it is framed in terms of the Talmud and Halakha, nor indeed why the Talmud and Halakha speak of a duty to kill civilians in battle. No-one has said anything to persuade me that the blog which started this debate is anything other than disingenuous, at best.

just Louise

I'm afraid Katya is casting herself in the image of Jeremy Bowen, to whom she is on record as paying tribute, albeit easier on the eye than her "mentor" - and, let's face it, boss.
This seeming attempt at demonising religious Jews reminds me that during Operation Cast Lead Al Beeb - in an extensive report - introduced (sans commentary) footage of three black-hatted Charedim standing on a hillock looking towards Gaza. As the plumage of an Israeli air strike rose above the buildings these three raised their fists into the air.
The BBC evidently wished to convey the impression that the ultra-frum trio were fanatically pumping the air in exultation, cheering on the destruction.
In fact, they were almost certainly members of Neturei Karta, shaking their fists at the military actions of the secular Israeli state.
Just another instance of stoking the fires of antisemitism among viewers, and making Israel a pariah.

Truthtriumphs

Henry Sidgwick.
You simply cannot be allowed to get away with the assertion---utterly false---- that the rabbis ordained that it is right and proper to kill civilians in warfare.
Which other army in the world would leaflet and telephone civilians to clear out of an area before bombardment, in order to protect them?
Civilian areas being the theatre of war by the design of Hamas for propaganda purposes.

Incidentally, it was Richard Kemp, past head of Bitish forces in Afghanistan, who said, in relation to the IDF in Gaza, that no army in the history of warfare has done more to protect civilian life than has the IDF.
And he should know.
Sorry it doesn't accord with what you would have us believe.

Henry Sidgwick

"When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces,then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilised...In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good."

Ann

It does NOT mean "harden your hearts". It means "Fortify your spirits". But what else would you expect from the dyed-in-the-wool antisemitic BBC?

Ann

It does NOT mean "harden your hearts". It means "Fortify your spirits". But what else would you expect from the dyed-in-the-wool antisemitic BBC?

NickW

Don't worry too much.

I gave up watching the BBC a long time ago and treat its output with the contempt it deserves.

I also refuse to pay a licence fee.
I am not alone.

daniel maris

Hmmm...

Seems to me this was a perfectly valid report about a trend that gives lots of secular Jews in Israel cause for concern (or are you saying the BBC has fabricated that concern?).

In terms of PR this trend is a disaster for Israel. Lots of long-bearded religious fanatics, appealing to ancient holy texts in hysterical fashion - where's the difference? That's how it will present itself to most people.

If Israelis really want to play that game, of turning themselves into an explicitly religious state - fine. But they can hardly expect the support and succour of the secular West if they do.

As for the assertion from Roger and others that this is purely "defensive" that all depends entirely on how you define Israel. Where exactly is their Israel? We often here people here tell us that it extends to embrace the whole of Jordan. Where is YOUR Israel. Only then can we say whether these statements are defensive or not.

What this dangerous conflict requires is not more religion, but more rationality.

roger

On a recent stroll through the Haredim quarter of Jerusalem, Meir Shearim, I noticed a number of street posters with this: ''Zionists and their collaborators out''. It is hard to say who exactly is responsible for these sentiments. Most certainly a mixture of Neturai Karta and a number of ultra-Orthodox Haredim who refuse to recognise the state of Israel, do not do military service and don't pay taxes.

Ann

Daniel talks about 'rationality', but clearly spouts his nonsense without ever having been to Israel or knowing the first thing about it.
Only the most lunatic 0.0001% of Israelis want to take over Jordan (even though it's an artifical country established illegally on 75% of Mandate Palestine).

Tim

Dear Elise and others:
Don't worry.
Just make the aquaintance of the "English Defence League" and "Stop Islamification of Europe". They seem to share your blanket hatred of all Muslims and seem to be keen on direct action that should get your approval as they show a different kind of Englishmess.

George

Henry,

I live in Israel, I am fluent in Hebrew, I was in the IDF as a reservist until 6 years ago and my sons were both involved in the fighting in Gaza. Despite this, you seem to know better than me what the IDF's chaplains said to the troops, why they said it and in what spirit. Seeing as you are obviously such an expert, there seems little point in me explaining it to you, especially when I seem to have understood differently from you.

daniel maris

Ann -

Several commentators here - and I think Melanie herself - have claimed that the original League of Nations mandate was for all of Palestine and Transjordan and that the "Jewish Home" related to that territory. I think it's a few more people than you suggest who think that Israel as in the pre 67 boundaries was not the whole of Israel.

I think people are in any case drifting off the topic. MP's charge was that the BBC had with this report "plumbed new depths of bigotry". Well, that's pretty much insupportable I think. I saw the report. You might argue that it was "biased" in the sense that it didn't give the whole context: Israel being faced by an existential threat, a fanatical genocidal movement.

But in no way could one call it bigoted or "plumbing new depths" of bigotry. I think you'd have to go to the Arab and Muslim media to get that.

Truthtriumphs

There is another point here about the Newsnight programme that seems to have passed us all by----namely that this was essentially a non-story.
In other words, the BBC's obsession with, and hatred for Israel has to be fed, as well as the over representation of their reporters there given enough to occupy themselves with, so that every scrap of non-news is dressed up if it can be of use in the drip feed of poison infecting viewers psyche re.Israel.
For the BBC, the end result of placing Israel beyond the pale of the civilised world justifies the means.

daniel maris

Truthtriumphs -

Non-story? Everyone here seems to confirm it was essentially true.

It is an important trend. When I was growing up the point was always made that Israel was a secular country that did not give religion undue prominence in its government and military.

If Rabbis are now to become the motivators of Israel's army. If religious parties are to govern more and more of everyday life in Israel (as they have been doing through Sabbath enforcement, marriage rulings etc) then Israel is becoming something different from what it was.

Some people make like the changes. But the rest of us are not obliged to like them. And they are certainly newsworthy.

Stop being hysterical would be my summation. Newsnight has done a lot of good work exposing Islamic extremists world wide and in the UK.

Henry Sidgwick

Goerge, There is a pattern here. You make very reasonable comments that are nevertheless beside the point. On the main point itself you fall back on mere assertion. When you are presented with evidence and argument that indicates that your assertion is in all probability unsustainable, you fall silent, or say loftily that there is no point in further discussion. You did it with Wm. Hazlitt over what happened before and after the kidnap of Corporal Shalit and over the question of state terrorism. You are doing it now over the interpretation by the rabbis who talk to soldiers of the Pentateuch, the Talmud, and Halakha. This is not how rational debate is conducted. I quoted from rabbinical sources. I said what they appear to mean. I asked how they could be interpreted differently. So far no-one has explained how what appears to be incitement can be interpreted as anything more benign.

George

Henry,

You are right. When I assert what the IDF chaplains said and in what spirit it was said, based on first hand evidence from talking to my sons WHO WERE THERE, and you tell me it's not true, then there is indeed no point in continuing the "discussion".

Henry Sidgwick

George, I was not aware that we were discussing what your sons read or heard or how they interpreted it. Nor was I aware that your sons are omnipresent. What I thought we were discussing was a pattern in what rabbis say and write about the conflict with the Palestinians. I argue that there is a pattern which is worrying. I have yet to hear anyone disputing the rabbis' interpretation of religious texts. I have given sufficient evidence to substantiate what I have said and the question is of sufficient importance to be worthy of discussion. It is not enough simply to say that your sons heard no such thing. While I am at it, what proportion of the IDF now comprises settlers and orthodox who take such words from the rabbis as indisputable truth and as a call to action?

If I could remind you of some of the evidence. I am sure someone who understands Hebrew will have little difficulty in finding more.

"When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces,then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilised...In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good."
Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli quoted Numbers 31: 13-20 to justify the massacre at Qibbiya, in particular, verse 17, "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man..."
"Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."
"But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing that breatheth; But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites,and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded it."
""[There is] a biblical ban on surrendering a single millimeter of it [the Land of Israel] to gentiles, though all sorts of impure distortions and foolishness of autonomy, enclaves and other national weaknesses. We will not abandon it to the hands of another nation, not a finger, not a nail of it." "Is it possible to compare today's Palestinians to the Philistines of the past? And if so, is it possible to apply lessons today from the military tactics of Samson and David?" "A comparison is possible because the Philistines of the past were not natives and had invaded from a foreign land ... They invaded the Land of Israel, a land that did not belong to them and claimed political ownership over our country ... Today the problem is the same. The Palestinians claim they deserve a state here, when in reality there was never a Palestinian or Arab state within the borders of our country. Moreover, most of them are new and came here close to the time of the War of Independence." "When you show mercy to a cruel enemy, you are being cruel to pure and honest soldiers. This is terribly immoral. These are not games at the amusement park where sportsmanship teaches one to make concessions. This is a war on murderers. 'A la guerre comme a la guerre.'"
"Spare your lives and the lives of your friends and show no concern for a population that surrounds us and harms us."

George

Henry,

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I was under the impression that we were discussing the role of IDF chaplains in operation Cast Lead and how their pre-battle talks to build morale may have affected the troops. I have told you what they said,on what they based it and what it means. In return you have brought me quotations from various Rabbis, either IDF chaplains over 35 years ago or not IDF chaplains at all. I am not quite sure of the relevance of all your quotations, but if you are asking is how did these remarks affect the behaviour of IDF troops during operation Cast Lead, the answer is not at all. You also ask "what proportion of the IDF now comprises settlers and orthodox who take such words from the rabbis as indisputable truth and as a call to action?" I have no idea of actual numbers, but based on my knowledge of the army, I would estimate the number to be so small as to be totally insignificant. This doesn't mean that there are no such soldiers, but there are nowhere near enough of them to do anything about such beliefs.

Adam B.

Henry Sidgwick, I assume you show as much concern about the hatred and antisemitism spewed from imams on a daily basis.

Henry Sidgwick

George, I quoted extensively from what the IDF rabbis said. I quoted the pamphlets distributed by other rabbis which Ms. Phillips found harmless. I quoted from other rabbis on earlier occasions to provide evidence of a pattern which I think should be of concern.

It is not enough to tell me you have explained the meaning by saying they are speaking in the spirit of Deuteronomy 20 and then ignore what Deuteronomy 20 says.

On the IDF, I would cite the work of Yagil Levy, an Israeli academic. I do not say that he contradicts what you have said - far from it - I believe what you tell me and do not question it. You have much direct first-hand experience and I rely solely on secondhand sources. He provides, I think, another part of the picture. I appreciate the time you have taken and I have learned from what you have said.

kate b

Yes,I saw this and thought it was absolutely shocking.

The best thing for Israel to do is to continue to defend itself: Rabbis don't condone suicide bombing of civilians or kidnapping, or smiting at the neck; however, very many imams belonging to the religion of the Islamic faith do ie the Muslim Hamas, Hizbullah, Fatah &. (a lot of them freely walking in London in allegiance with these very names and seen as the poor oppressed'goodies' by the BBC/press against the 'baddies' of the SIOE which have been erroneously tarred with the same brush as the BNP to discredit them).

The values of Judaism on which our country (and the rest of the free West) too once thrived is being seen as evil and that which wishes to colonise and replace with sharia is seen as good. Words which once stirred feelings of hope and respect e.g Israel, Zion, the Bible are seen as evil or things to be laughed at. The world is up-side-down.

daniel maris

Kate B -

It's a rather odd doctrine you are propounding: the BBC can run no stories on Israel as long as the Mullahs are worse than the Rabbis. I agree the Rabbis are worse than the Mullahs.

As to the contribution of Judaism to Western Civilisation, well that's up for debate I think. Certainly paganism and the civilisations of Rome and Greece has a very strong influence. When Judeo-Christian values dominated we had burnings at the stake, rampant (and murderous) anti-semitism, intolerance, and political tyranny.

daniel maris

Sorry wrong way round - meant to say I agree the Mullahs are worse than the Rabbis! No doubt about that in my mind.

kate b

Daniel, I am not saying that at all. I am agreeing with Ms Phillips here.

Also Judeo-Christian values are not the same as man-made Roman/Greek religious values - but you need to read the text ie the red words in the gospel and compare them against the 'revealed' words of mohamet's, then compare their actions and those of their followers to see who really is following their leader, here.

I'd like to debate why the Jews are still around as the longest living nation in the world and why the free west use the Torah for the basis of fair judgement for all - perhaps it is because the mitzvot work in protecting people and families and have that very rare commodity 'moral absolutes'.

R. L.

As always, Melanie seems to understand Israel better than Israel understands itself.

Michael Levitt

It is especially shameful, as Melanie points out, when journalists are so easily able to find ignorant or self-hating Jews to "prove" right their bigotry. David Mamet has written convincingly about the reasons in his book,The Wicked Son: "Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred and the Jews".

Gábor Fränkl

1st of all, thank you Melanie! This piece is informative about Katya Adler's distortions and manipulations of certain facts. I wish to be brief. I've had correspondence a year ago with Ms. Adler. I knew her journalism from her earlier assignments like in Madrid for example. I thought that she is reasonable and moderate vis-á-vis Israel. Then came a, how to say it in English [it's not my mother tongue] a panel that highlights the upcoming news reports during the day. she said Tel-Aviv the actual capital of Israel [sic]!!! Afetr I pointed out to her in a private letter her odious misrepresentation of fact she replied - to my utter surprise I admit! - that she suggested as word for word that "Tel Aviv is the technological, financial" etc. blahblah "capital of Israel". So outright lies are not foreign to her.
On a lighter note I should add a more personal aspect to her bigotry and ask a well-pointed question: It's known that she brought to life her - supposedly first, I don't know - child in Israel during her already underway stint [mission] to be the Jerusalem correspondent of the BBC. I'm wondering whether she might have enjoyed the 1st class care of the hospital - Hadassah? - and the care unit and doctors et all. How easy her conscience is after this little episode in her private life concerning Israel and her odious attacks on it...?

Please do not censor this comment!

Gábor fränkl

Queen Mary University of London [QMUL]
Dept. of Politics,
Public Policy Studies MSc postgraduate, part time student
2009-11

Currently in Budapest, Hungary
from 20th on in London, U.K.

hadrian

Of course all secularists are innately prejudiced against God and anyone who dares beieve in Him. Our society today is virulently and ( ironically!)self-righteously atheistic. So any excuse to paint all theists as fanatical is never missed.
That the BBC indulge in such crass ignorance is as you say entirely to their own shame.

hadrian

Daniel Marris-
It seems to me you are missing the point when you attribute the long catalogue of European atrocity, tyranny and oppression to 'Judeo-Christian vaules'. More accurate to attribute these all-too-universal traits simply to the fallen, innately corrupt condition of mankind and the need for salvation from a different, untainted source.
Christianity addresses this plight of man directly. And Christ DId warn some of the worst offenders would be the self-righteous and religious, outraged at being reminded of their own total depravity.

J. Mckay

This is further confirmation of
the fact that the BBC are no longer a news organisation to be taken seriously.
The BBC have become a byword
for socialism, where bias and
bigotry are quite acceptable.

sebastian

For the sake of "balance" will Newsnight now be reporting on the religious nutters (and I make no comparison here with Jewish military Rabbis) sprinkled throughout the forces of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and many other places where islam has a grip over a military establishment as it most certainly does in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah? Nutters who are quite open - boastful - about the religious obligation to fight for Al'Lah in order to not merely defend a certain territory, but to expand it globally and to institute by force if necessary, a certain theocracy.
Compared to this, a few Rabbis that fortify young IDF soldiers with a just cause that many in this world would deny them, are fairly trivial.
By not providing some sort of counterbalance, the BBC is guilty of portraying the Israeli instance as somehow unusual, or even as particularly sinister. Look more comprehensively at the region, though, and you'll see this is far from so. Indeed, there is much more worrying religious militancy evident among Israel's neighbours and enemies, than there is within the IDF. So show one; show the other. It should be on screen too. But it's not.

hadrian

I am not so sure the BBc can accurately be described as a 'byword for socialism' if that means conscious, card carrying Labour leftists.However they certainly are heavily and uncritically influenced by humanistic, salvation-by-government thinking.

Gibby Gibson

This article is a rubbish. (And I am fully aware that this comment will not be published due to the unique way that "The Spectator" is run, which is very badly.)

Firstly the BBC are the only news organisation that I trust because most of the other mainstream news organisations such as "The Spectator" are running out of money and fast. The fact is that they only make the real money from selling Newspapers, which is a format of news that is dieing, and fast. The adverts on the website that are embeded into the various pages (such as this one), do not generate enough cash to keep these organisations running at there current size because of the ammount of views that most news websites get. So by writting a controversial artical (such as this very one) they will be able to increase the views. This explains why given even the slightest opportunity newspapers employ idiots such as Melanie bloody Phillips to write articals that are designed to cause a stur. Simple.

Augustus

Gibby Gibson, it is you who are simple. Poor man!

R. S. S.

Melanie,

You're right about the BBC as usual but you missed the overriding purpose of shows like these: it is a very effective defence of the tactics of the anti-Israeli and anti-American forces. This is no different to the reason why the BBC stopped using the word "terrorist" to refer to, well, terrorists. The mistake they made then was to put it in writing. Today, the equivalent but more effective method is to try to editorially show Islamic "extremism" and "terrorism" are not so bad. If everybody is guilty, then nobody is guilty. That is the thread that ties them all together.

Little Fluff

BBC: Israeli = aggressive, guilty, criminal.

Palestine: victim, innocent, innocent.

Best not let the BBC report on anything too complex

Chris Roberts

You have to admire the jews, they stick together to preserve their people. It's just a shame that when indigenous Britons try to do the same they get branded as Nazis by people like Melanie Phillips.

Andy

Has nobody here read the Talmud?

As an elder in the orthodox religion said:
"A state of Israel is an anathema".

Nicholas

Gibson: "This article is a rubbish. (And I am fully aware that this comment will not be published due to the unique way that "The Spectator" is run, which is very badly.)"

Well, you were wrong there then. Guaranteed that Israel will bring out the sharp and uncompromising edge of the left.

daniel maris

Kate B seems to have forgotten about the Chinese in talking about Jews as the "longest lived nation" on the planet. Anyway, such chauvinism I find quite disgusting.

Hadrian may be right to ascribe the depravities of the past to the innate corruption of human beings, but it is still nevertheless the case that it is only since Judeo-Christian religion went into precipitous decline in the last 50 years that we have seen an absence of the appalling outrages that disfigured European history. It remains a fact that anti-semitic massacres, witch burning, mass casualities in war were all a feature of the times when Judeo Christian values ruled supreme. So if we are talking about innate corruption, then it appears Judeo Christian values are less able to keep them in check than secular, rational, democratic values.

ABED MALHAS

- Nobel Prize 4 Children

The addition of children to Nobel
It will just take a moment of your time but will impact for a lifetime
We humbly request you to Send Emails to
info@nobel.se
weboffice@nobel.se
supporting & declaring your solidarity to include NOBEL PRIZE 4 CHILDREN
" shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind " Nobel Will
WE believe including all the World Children ( more than 2 Billion Children )
in the greatest Human Brain acknowledgement ( Nobel Prize ) is the greatest benefit 2 mankind
( detail – CASA WEB ) www.casaart.org ( under construction )
www.casaartinc.org ( active )

Please join us ( free ) as a Supporter ,Sponsor or Artist Donor
Please relay to all
( artists , art outlets , students , children , schools ,sponsors , celebrity , media etc.)

CASA Founder
ARCHITECT ( AUB ) – PAINTER – PHOTOGRAPHER - INVENTOR
Recipient of 10 International Award
Amman ,Jordan
00 96 2 65 81 59 55
amalhas@batelco.jo
ABED MALHAS