Settler Rabbi's Guidelines on When to Kill Gentiles

[AlicetheKurious]

Settler rabbi authors guidelines on killing gentiles

Published yesterday (updated) 10/11/2009 03:00

Bethlehem - Ma'an - Jews have the right to kill non-Jews in just about any circumstance, said Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the head of a religious school in the illegal settlement of Yitzhar, near Nablus.

"If we kill a gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments... there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira wrote, according to Hebrew-language Israeli newspaper Maariv.

In his new book, The King's Torah, Shapira, who heads the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, justifies the slaying of "non-Jews who demand the land for themselves," and for, among other transgressions, "hostile blasphemy."

"Those who, by speech, weaken our sovereignty" – deserve to die, the book explains. "It is permissible... even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation."

According to Maariv, the book is a manifesto, "230 pages, no less, on the laws of the killing of gentiles, a guide to deciding whether and when it is permissible to take the life of non-Jews."

Shapira and his followers began selling the guide at Saturday's memorial in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, the Israeli Knesset member who urged the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Israel and the territories.

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Shapira based the majority of his teachings on passages quoted from the Bible, to which he added his opinions and beliefs. Several prominent rabbis have recommended the book to their students and followers, the newspaper reported on Monday.

Shapira's book includes a chapter entitled, "Intentional Harm to Innocent People." The book explains it is permissible to kill civilians in other nations if the population "helps a murderer of Jews... Any case in which the life of the civilian endangers Israel - it is allowed to kill a gentile."

"The permit also applies when the persecutor is threatening to kill indirectly rather than directly," Shapira ruled. "If the civilian is aiding fighters it is permissible to kill. Anyone who helps the army and the wicked in any way strengthens pursuers."

He added, "Citizens [of the enemy nation] contribute to the war... So any citizen who supports the war or the fighters or expresses satisfaction with their deeds - the killing is permitted."

Even babies and children are fair targets, "if it is clear they will grow up to harm us," the rabbi wrote. "If hurting an evil leader's children will pressure him to stop acting maliciously - you can hurt them," the newspaper reported, quoting Shapira.

However, the book does not mention Palestinians or Arabs even by implication, Maariv pointed out, explaining that the author meant to discuss the killing of gentiles as a theoretical concept rather than in the context of the region's politics. The newspaper noted that he was "careful not to explicitly encourage private individuals to take the law into their own hands."

The report also quoted responses from settlers, including one who explained, "We respect the rabbis, but they do not represent the settlements nor the outposts."

In any case, the book's publication comes just two weeks after a gag order was lifted revealing that Israeli police had arrested a West Bank settler for a string of killings and murder plots, including the slaying of two Palestinians. An immigrant from the US, Yaakov Teitel allegedly confessed to shooting to death a shepherd south of Hebron in 1997 and killing an East Jerusalem taxi driver the same year. Teitel is also suspected to have carried out a series of bomb attacks, including a blast that damaged a police car during a gay pride parade.

After the March 1997 shooting of Palestinian Issa Jibril, Teitel told authorities that he had come to the country with the specific aim of shooting Palestinians in revenge for suicide bombings.

Shapira's book touched on the topic of revenge, as well.

"To defeat the wicked one should be vengeful, tit for tat," he wrote. "Revenge is a necessity... and sometimes doing savage things intended to create a true balance of terror."

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=238444

[American Dream]

The sort of talk as attributed to this Rabbi is deeply troubling and truly reprehensible, as is the support provided for his position.

However it should be pointed out that this sort of thing does not represent a uniquely Jewish and/or "Zionist" kind of problem- it's much, much bigger than that.

This does not make these sorts of behaviors even one iota more acceptable, though it does help to locate them in a broader context- which is a very important thing...

[Searcher08]

I see your remarks, A_D, as very dangerous, because the very act of saying "this is very similar to..." seeks to dismiss or deny distinctions. More distinctions are really needed here, not less.

This type of behaviour deserves NOT to be lumped, it deserves to be split, and analysed and understood on it's own terms and not seen as "just more whacko religious types" or "embedded in a Zionist class analysis".

Seeking to emphasize context in this case as though context is something objective, and externally agreed on, diminishes the most important aspect IMHO of this, which is to be attentive to and observe this type of Jewish (not Zionist) theocracy in action.

The Taliban philosophy is not as full of hate as this, yet the response of the West to this is to call shenanigans and tut "Those crazie rabbis!" like he was Mel Brooks on an off day.

[Jeff]

I can see context being dangerous only to idealogues. More of the former, less of the latter may benefit the discourse. It would be at least a refreshing change.

[MacCruiskeen]

However it should be pointed out that this sort of thing does not represent a uniquely Jewish and/or "Zionist" kind of problem

Of course it doesn't, AD. Nothing in the OP suggested it did. [The first thing I thought of when reading this was the fatwa issued by Khoumeini against Salman Rushdie more than two decades ago and the West's outraged response to it.]

And it's not the point. There's a precise term for the argumentative tactic you're deploying here (and deploying with remarkable haste too): Whataboutery.

[American Dream]

I do think that considering Alice's line as a whole makes it not only relevant to emphasize that this "does not represent a uniquely Jewish and/or "Zionist" kind of problem", but actually critically important.

The larger context does matter, in this way also.

[Wombaticus Rex]

The Taliban philosophy is not as full of hate as this...

Searcher, I'm kind of baffled by your assertion because as a student of reality, it would appear that religious justification of murder is what's going on whether it's militarized Rabbis discussing Gentiles or militarized Imams discussing Infidels.

Same rhetoric, same mannerisms, same goals. Same God even.

So what makes Taliban-brand Islamic holy war less "full of hate" than the Jewish version?

Bonus Question: Where does the US "Army of Joel" fanaticism stand on your Hate-O-Meter?

Please note that just because I find it hard to swallow your claim doesn't mean I'm not genuinely curious about how you came to get there and how you'd back it up.

[Searcher08]

I can see context being dangerous only to idealogues. More of the former, less of the latter may benefit the discourse. It would be at least a refreshing change.

Whose context? Yours or mine? You talk about context like it is as objective as a brick.

Thanks for that link, Mac
It was so familiar in Norn Eyelun conversations and just mapped over to what was happening here.

Cue (3 2 1 ) A_D saying
"BUTWHADABOUTDAVIDICKEANDTEHREPITLIANSSHAPESHIFTAHS??"

"the commonest form of moral evasion in Ireland today"1

-Cardinal Cahal Daly

"Whataboutery" is a factor in modern partisan political arguments. It arises where there are two distinct sides who share a history of mutual animosity, and where each side can be said to have wronged the other.

In Northern Ireland, where the term seems to have originated, there is a continuous spectrum of opinion on the big issue of whether the province is better off in the United Kingdom or in political union with the rest of Ireland. There are republicans, nationalists, "neutrals", unionists, and loyalists. Forget how you might use those terms to describe political factions in other countries- in Norn Iron, each applies to a specific, small set of particular parties and their traditional supporters and activists. The first and last factions I mention here are noted for the terrorist groups associated with their cause.

[MacCruiskeen]

Well, exactly what do you mean when you refer to "the larger context"? So far, it just looks like Whataboutery. Please specify

How broad does the context have to be? The narrower context is this: The man quoted in the OP is a religious authority in an illegal settlement, today, and that illegal settlement is currently pushing the natives off their land. He says it's fine to kill those natives.

Broaden the context to include the last twelve months and you see the Israeli government and army massacring 1400 of those natives (with 13 dead on their own side, ten of whom were soldiers participating in the massacre). Operation Cast Lead is an important part of the context, as far as I can see. Because the man quoted in the OP is not merely justifying it after the fact: he's saying it's fine to do it in future too.

[Jeff]

I can see context being dangerous only to idealogues. More of the former, less of the latter may benefit the discourse. It would be at least a refreshing change.

Whose context? Yours or mine? You talk about context like it is as objective as a brick.

For instance, I can imagine how important context might have become if the original post had been the story of a Hamas leader exorting the murder of all Jews.

Also, please refer to Wombaticus's reply.

[Searcher08]

The Taliban philosophy is not as full of hate as this...

Searcher, I'm kind of baffled by your assertion because as a student of reality, it would appear that religious justification of murder is what's going on whether it's militarized Rabbis discussing Gentiles or militarized Imams discussing Infidels.

Same rhetoric, same mannerisms, same goals. Same God even.

So what makes Taliban-brand Islamic holy war less "full of hate" than the Jewish version?

Bonus Question: Where does the US "Army of Joel" fanaticism stand on your Hate-O-Meter?

Please note that just because I find it hard to swallow your claim doesn't mean I'm not genuinely curious about how you came to get there and how you'd back it up.

I dont have a hate-o-meter!

Seeing it purely as 'religious justification of murder' means that they are lumped together as religious fanatics, who are treated as they same. Maybe that is correct, but maybe we could also be looking actively for the ways they are different, because that is an important thing to do - why? well as an example, I myself had very 'monolithic' model of Israeli Zionism; through discussions with hava1, we didnt argue - she made me aware of extra elements. I realised I needed to 'upgrade my mental map' to represent the very fractured, diverse, conflicted, coercive nature of Israeli politics. So myself it is a very important 'mental operation' to scan for difference as well as similarities.

Obviously we can see the ways the Rabbi and the Taliban are similar, but what do you yourself see as their differences? I see the Taliban as having themes of nationalist resistance and perceiving themselves as fighting a foreign invader, being non-hegemonic and seeking to impose a form of law (Sharia) which already exists in several countries. My perception is that they are primarily focused on the 'removal of foreign invaders' whereas the Rabbi is espousing a doctrine which appears to have racial supremacist starting point.

[Wombaticus Rex]

^^Good points, and thanks for humoring me.

[AlicetheKurious]

For instance, I can imagine how important context might have become if the original post had been the story of a Hamas leader exorting the murder of all Jews.

That's purely theoretical, since no Hamas leader, or any other "Islamic" leader has ever called for the "murder of all Jews", nor is that even conceivable, given the status of Judaism as one of the three divine religions (created by the Big Kahuna Himself) in Islam.

The context here is, first of all what MacCruisken said, ie that it we're not talking about some wacko blowing hot air, this is a rabbi preaching to vicious, armed, racist colonial settlers with a long track record of committing atrocities against innocent people, under the protection of a racist state and an army that also regularly and systematically commits horrific crimes against civilians (including children!) SOLELY because they are not Jews. All financed by American taxpayers and under the smug and self-righteously hypocritical protection of governments like the one in Canada.

Secondly, the context is that there has been a massive campaign to demonize say, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, by falsely attributing to him the exact sort of ugly naked racism that is so blithely ignored where it really exists, at the very core of zionism and in the daily practices of the zionist state.

So, the context here is that even supposedly "respectable" media have repeated and repeated ad nauseum the lie that President Ahmedinejad has called for "the murder of all Jews", and repeated the equally outrageous and false lie that Hezbullah's Secretary General has called for "the murder of all Jews", while remaining remarkably silent about the FREQUENT actual calls for the murder of NON Jews (aka cockroaches, lice, vermin endangering the "Jewish character" of the "Jewish state" with their "demographic bomb") by many prominent zionist religious, political and military leaders -- who are not only capable of, but are actually in the process of acting on their genocidal urges. (Ref. the sadistic and criminal starvation siege of Gaza, the use of depleted uranium, phosphorous bombs, DIME weapons, deprivation of water to the "non-Chosen", indiscriminate killing, destruction of factories, crops, olive groves, schools, hospitals, ambulances, home demolitions, and systematic deprivation of HUMAN rights to non-Jews in the Judeo-supremacist state.)

That's the context.

[JackRiddler]

http://themedialine.org/news/news_detai ... wsID=27051

ISRAELI RABBI'S GUIDE TO KILLING CAUSES FIRESTORM

An Israeli Rabbi living in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank has caused a firestorm in both Israeli and Palestinian media with a new book outlining a series of Jewish theological arguments for killing those who threaten Israel or demand Israeli land.

The 230-page book, "The King's Torah" was released over the weekend by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and gives theological backing to Jews killing those perceived to be violating Jewish commandments or threatening the Jewish nation. A theological treatise based on Rabbi Shapira's interpretation of passages from the Jewish bible, "The King's Torah" is an extensive guide to when it is permissible for Jews to kill non-Jews.

Rabbi Shapiro's book argues that Jewish law allows the killing of "non-Jews who demand the land for themselves", those from a nation which "helps a murderer of Jews," those spreading "hostile blasphemy" and "those who, by speech, weaken our sovereignty."

"Any case in which the life of the civilian endangers Israel," the book states, "it is allowed to kill a gentile."

"The permit also applies when the persecutor is threatening to kill indirectly rather than directly," Rabbi Shapiro's book reads. "If the civilian is aiding fighters it is permissible to kill... Any citizen who supports the war or the fighters or expresses satisfaction with their deeds - the killing is permitted."

Rabbi Shapira's book argues that revenge is a necessity under Jewish law.

"To defeat the wicked one should be vengeful, tit for tat," the book reads. "Revenge is a necessity... and sometimes doing savage things intended to create a true balance of terror."

The book further states that Jews are permitted to kill children "If it is clear they will grow up to harm us."

"If hurting an evil leader's children will pressure him to stop acting maliciously," Rabbi Shapira wrote, "you can hurt them."

The book discusses the laws regarding such killings in theological terms, never specifically mentioning Palestinians, Arabs or Israeli soldiers sent to remove Jewish settlements. Its release comes weeks after the arrest of Yaakov Teitel, a Jewish Israeli settler of American origin who is understood to have admitted to killing Palestinians and attacking progressive and messianic Jews.

Rabbi Shapira is head of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva, a religious school for Jewish boys based in the Yitzhar Jewish settlement a few miles southwest of the Palestinian city of Nablus. Rabbi Shapira's followers adhere to a radical form of Jewish religious nationalism and call for a Torah-based theocracy to replace the State of Israel, which they see as having abandoned core Jewish principals.

The school is best known for its former leader, American-born Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg, seen as the spiritual heir to the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, the American-Israeli founder of the extreme-right political party Kach, classified by both Israel and the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Rabbi Ginzburg was imprisoned for an article praising Baruch Goldstein, an American-born Israeli physician who killed dozens of Muslim worshipers in Hebron and injured 150 others in 1994.

Both Rabbi Ginzburg and Rabbi Ya'akov Yosef, another prominent leader of the radical Jewish religious nationalist movement, have recommended Rabbi Shapira's new book, which was first released over the weekend at a Jerusalem memorial for Rabbi Kahane.

Rabbi Hank Skirball, the chairperson of Hiddush, an Israeli organization dedicated to religious freedom and equality, said Rabbi Shapira's book represented only the far right fringe of religious Jews.

"It's a perversion of Jewish law and I don't think it's taken seriously by most," he told The Media Line. "It's giving people tremendous latitude to kill people they disagree with and opens itself up to violation of much more important prohibitions in Jewish law."

"In Israel we did not kill the murderer of Prime Minister Yitshak Rabin and we didn't kill any of the people who created sedition at the time," he said. "We have freedom of speech and its very difficult to know what is dangerous and what is not. Jewish law does not provide for us to go out and kill someone for what he's saying. You are only allowed to kill someone if it is very obvious that he's about to kill you and you have no other way to save your life other than by killing him."
Rabbi David Hartman, founder of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and a philosopher of contemporary Judaism, said that the rabbis of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva were not taking into account the consequences of their teachings.

"Has the Jewish tradition ever created a distinction based on race, gender, etc? Of course, there is no doubt that there are serious Jewish sources that do not look at the non-Jew with full equality," he told The Media Line. "But they have lots of sources they could use, and which sources you choose to read and don't read is important."

"One of the interesting things about Jewish law is that perception is a part of the criteria," Rabbi Hartman said. "Jewish theologians aren't pure academics nor are they spokesmen, so they are not writing in a vacuum. The most serious Jewish theological figures are very careful about the implications or consequences of their writings."

Rabbi Hartman argued that while such books touched a cultural chord, they were mostly ignored in the mainstream Jewish theological community.

"I make a distinction between a cultural fringe and what is fringe in terms of Jewish theological thought," he told The Media Line. "On the one hand, this is not fringe, and you have mainstream kids talking this talk. But in terms of Jewish law, there is no significant Jewish theological movement to permit the blood of non-Jews. If you're looking at the major thinkers, nobody is talking with that language, whether they are ultra-orthodox, Sephardic or Ashkenazi, and these kinds of things are ignored."

"The problem is that if you ignore something it doesn't mean it doesn't have any influence over students," Rabbi Hartman said. "Beware of that which you ignore, what is a cultural phenomenon today may become acceptable to major Jewish thinkers tomorrow."

"For example, when it comes to Israel, our return to power and the desire to strengthen the claim to the land has created a push for a new Jewish theological creativity and a cultural phenomenon in which certain Jewish theological positions are given more significance than what the major Jewish theological authorities would allow."

"Forty years ago there were no major Jewish theological figures who said the land of Israel was more significant than Pikuach Nefesh, the concept of the saving of a life," he said, in reference to Jewish theological debates over exchanging land captured by Israel for peace. "Today in the religious Zionist community there are major theological figures for whom this is now a self evident truth."

By Benjamin Joffe-Walt on Tuesday, November 10, 2009

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=41807

Rav Yitzchak Shapira’s Sefer Makes Headlines in Eretz Yisrael
November 9, 2009

rl.jpgThe publication of a sefer entitled Toras HaMelech (The King’s Torah) written by Rabbi Yitzchak Shapira, the rosh yeshiva of Ohd Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar, has become an item in the news in Eretz Yisrael on Monday, with the book explaining one is permitted in accordance with halacha to kill goyim who threaten Eretz Yisrael.

The sefer enjoys approbations from HaGaon HaRav Dov Lior Shlita, Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, and Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh. It is important to point out that while the media is having a field day with the sefer, it is written that the sefer discusses theoretic halachic principles, and in no way calls for the murder of goyim, “Arabs” or “Palestinians” as the media seeks to imply. The sefer goes as far as to state “one may not take the law into one’s hands” and that the sugyot discussed as strictly halachic interpretations for the sake of learning and understanding halacha and not chas v’sholom a license to kill, the words used for the bold daily Maariv headline (see photo).

The sefer adds that killing a non-Jew who has violated the Seven Mitzvos given to non-Jews because we care about torah and mitzvos, then this is acceptable. It stresses the importance of Eretz Yisrael, the halachic requirements of the land, and living within a torah framework, quoting passages from Tanach and the Rambam, citing sources for the halachic ruling.

Back in 1996, Rav Ido Elba published a 19-page kuntris on halachic guidelines regarding when one may kill a non-Jew, a publication that was also a halachic discourse, not a handbook for murder chas v’sholom. He was indicted for publishing the sefer and found guilty by the Jerusalem District Court. He appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court and lost. The court rejected the fact that the sefer deal with theoretic halachic matters, not an actual license for murdering goyim. He served a two-year jail term.

With Israel’s retreat from Shechem in 2001, the yeshiva which was established in 1982, located in the Kever Yosef complex was expelled, forced to relocate, setting up its new home in Yishuv Yitzhar. Rav Shapira, the rosh yeshiva, is a long-time resident of Yitzhar, a Chabad chossid, and a talmid of Rav Yitzchak Ginsburgh who is a known authority on kabala and runs the Gal Eini Institute.

(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)

[justdrew]

it's a fairly long list of ok-to-kill-ables:

The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and male homosexual intercourse.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: Set up a governing body of law (eg Courts)

maybe the settler mentality has finally gone too far. A new commitment to marginalizing and minimizing this mentality could now arise in the broad international Jewish community. There are far better ways for Jews and Israel to be strong and safe than making up lists of who it's OK to kill.

something else to be aware of:

However, it is actually forbidden by the Talmud for non-Jews (on whom the Noahide Laws are still binding) to elevate their observance to the Torah's [613] mitzvot as the Jews do.

and something I never knew:
the Talmud holds that Adam and Eve were vegetarians.