skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to the Nishma Commentary Discussion Forum blog.
Commentary with Rabbi Benjamin Hecht is a regular column on the Nishma website in which Nishma's Founding Director analyzes contemporary issues, in the general as well as the Jewish world, from a Torah perspective.
If you have a comment on an article within this column, we invite you to place your comments here; then we invite everyone to join the discussion.
The Middle East: The Perplexity of Din and Rachamim
I find your analysis compelling. We all have a perpetual struggle finding the proper balance between Justice and Mercy. I can only hope that our experiences and upbringing will allow us to make the proper choices. In most Muslim societies, playing the victim is excuse enough to absolve the perpetrators of evil of responsibility for their actions. The "bleeding hearts" among us unfortunately play along in this scheme. It is all part of the "turn the other cheek" syndrome promoted in Christianity.
ReplyDeleteDear Rabbi Hecht,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the penetrating article -- as always when reading your writings, I much enjoy it. While reading the article, it occurred to me that the opposite of mercy may not be justice -- but the deliberate disregard of circumstances that gave rise to evil behavior, and possibly, of current behavior -- which both in a way is unjust. It appears that it is in fact upholding justice, to take into account that current evil behavior is a consequence of circumstances, and not inherent free choice. And, as I understand the article argues, in cases where peoples behaviors have led to circumstances, which then in turn gives rise to the sames peoples evil behavior, it would be justice to take the first actions into account also, and meter out punishment accordingly. This line of reasoning appears to point to the following: 1. Justice requires to specifically also take circumstances into account that led to current behavior -- for the better and the worse 2. Mercy is to (unjustly) disregard evil behavior, past, and possibly, present, and consider the person -- "ba-asher hu sham" -- as the person appears before us now ... and in a way in light of believed future potential for good (or un-evil) behavior.
It is in the recognition of the fact that human beings have autonomy yet they are also subject to external factors that we have the confusion of determining din and rachamim yet we also find the place where din and rachamim can merge. It is clearly just, not just mercy, to not punish one who doea a criminal act but does so because he/she is under the control of external forces.
ReplyDeleteI found the essay quite thoughtful. I had this thought to add. I am not sure if it is implicit in the essay or a possible extension of it. I would suggest, using the language and framework of Rabbi Hecht's original essay, that so-called "world opinion" tends at one and the same time to look at the Palestinians through the lens of Rachamim, and at the Israelis through the lens of Din. And, furthermore, that this "world opinion" nonetheless imagines itself to be taking a dispassionate, balanced view of the parties (that is, without seeing the contradiction in using different sets of lenses while claiming to look through only one set).
ReplyDeleteThis is a very thoughtful insight. The argument of anti-Semitism always haunts the entire issue of how the world relates to Israel (see the comments of Dr. Schweitzer elsewhere in the Forum) and it may be that the bias that is being identified here is a component of this issue. But I also believe that the inherent bias identified in my original article also explains the bias of world opinion.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it is possible to think too hard. Ms. Arbour, for all her intelligence, rationality and experience, is an anti-Semite. End. Full stop. Period. She hides her hatred for Jews (that would not be civilized) by criticizing Israel but it's a fake veneer, no different from the ones used by France and Russia. You can say she has a bias. Well, of coruse she does. She works at the UN, one of the most anti-Semitic organizations on Earth. She works with the so-called Human Rights Council or whatever they're calling themselves this week. The council is made up of representatives from murderous dictatorships whose sole interest is defaming Israel. Her aides are all certainly anti-Semites who will provide her with briefings in which Israel is the villian. She probably even watches CNN, the fiend! One can argue from a justice perspective that Israel is strong and the Arabs are oppressed. That in itself is a bias because of the frame of reference. Israel is certainly not stronger than the entire Arab world. Compared to the military might of every Arab nation put together, Israel is certainly out-classed. My bias would submit that Israel remains in existential danger and therefore is justified is doing whatever it needs to if it is going to survive. Our sages have said it succintly: "It is a halacha that Eisav hates Yaakov." Why a halacha? Because halacha is an expression of how Hashem wants the world to run. It's a rule that cannot be broken. Or as my father says: "They world loves dead Jews." You will notice that Arbour never criticizes the murderers of Jews and has nothing but praise for those Israeli leaders who wish to aid and abet those villians through appeasement and unliateral surrenders. Her only pro-Jewish moment came at the Durban Conference for the Promotion of Anti-Semitism (officially it had a different name but this is more accurate) when she realized that her anti-Israel love-in had degenerated into a "We hate all Jews" mob. No, don't go thinking too hard about this. It's no shock to me that Arbour unilaterally criticized Israel. For all her intelligence, she hates us. It doesn't make sense but neither does Sudoku's recent popularity and there's no denying that either.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it is possible to think too hard. Ms. Arbour, for all her intelligence, rationality and experience, is an anti-Semite. End. Full stop. Period. She hides her hatred for Jews (that would not be civilized) by criticizing Israel but it's a fake veneer, no different from the ones used by France and Russia. You can say she has a bias. Well, of course she does. She works at the UN, one of the most anti-Semitic organizations on Earth. She works with the so-called Human Rights Council or whatever they're calling themselves this week. The council is made up of representatives from murderous dictatorships whose sole interest is defaming Israel. Her aides are all certainly anti-Semites who will provide her with briefings in which Israel is the villian. She probably even watches CNN, the fiend!
ReplyDeleteOne can argue from a justice perspective that Israel is strong and the Arabs are oppressed. That in itself is a bias because of the frame of reference. Israel is certainly not stronger than the entire Arab world. Compared to the military might of every Arab nation put together, Israel is certainly out-classed. My bias would submit that Israel remains in existential danger and therefore is justified is doing whatever it needs to if it is going to survive. Our sages have said it succintly: "It is a halacha that Eisav hates Yaakov." Why a halacha? Because halacha is an expression of how Hashem wants the world to run. It's a rule that cannot be broken. Or as my father says: "They world loves dead Jews." You will notice that Arbour never criticizes the murderers of Jews and has nothing but praise for those Israeli leaders who wish to aid and abet those villians through appeasement and unliateral surrenders. Her only pro-Jewish moment came at the Durban Conference for the Promotion of Anti-Semitism (officially it had a different name but this is more accurate) when she realized that her anti-Israel love-in had degenerated into a "We hate all Jews" mob. No, don't go thinking too hard about this. It's no shock to me that Arbour unilaterally criticized Israel. For all her intelligence, she hates us. It doesn't make sense but neither does Sudoku's recent popularity and there's no denying that either.
ReplyDeleteI thank Dr. Schweitzer for his comments yet I still believe that we do have to think hard about these type of issues. This is not to say that an anti-Semitic bias does not exist in the world. Esav sone l'Yaakov must always be a consideration, yet the world changes and the manifestation of this axioms changes with it. Does every descendent of Esav hate Yaakov? The answer is clearly no as evidenced by the Caesar of Rome (whose name escapes me at this time) who was a close friend of Rebbi. The axiom is not black and white. There are times when it is fashionable to be anti-Semitic and the anti-Semite could just state his opinion, even, sadly, with pride. Now it is a bit more problematic to be anit-Semitic. Even the anti-Semite would be disgusted if he/she recognized that he/she was one. Thus the anti-Semite must devise new ways of expressing his/her anit-Jewish positions -- and we have an obligation to identify these devises and even see through them. My argument is not that every "liberal" in this matter is an anti-Semite. I am reluctant to declare Ms. Arbour an anti-Semite. Yet, is it possible that latent anti-Semitism in an individual may subtly and unconsciously push them to adopt this liberal agenda == to misread din and rachamim?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Louise Arbour is a case of latent anti-Semitism, to be frank. Anti-Semitism has always been fashionable and remains so until this day. Only the name changes. Had Ms. Arbour lived before Wilhelm Marr coined the term, she would have been referred to as a Jew-hater. the problem with the din vs rachamim argument is that it assumes a certain sense of logic on the part of the person, in this case, Ms. Arbour. Jew hatred is not logical and therefore din vs rachamim is not applicable. If Israel, Heaven forbid, had suffered a direct strike on the Haifa oil refinery and suffered thousands of deaths, Arbour would have said "See, that's what you get for starting a war with Hezbollah". There is no logic here, just hatred which Chazal tell us upsets the natural order of things.
ReplyDelete