The trial of Elor Azariah has expanded
well beyond its original contours. From the case of a single soldier, who was
yesterday convicted of manslaughter in the death of a neutralized terrorist, it
has ballooned into a polarizing event, which expresses and exacerbates many of
the fissures within Israeli society. The latter development is deeply
regrettable, inter alia, because it encourages imprecise and
irresponsible declarations, when what is required is nuance, precision and
caution.
A
particularly egregious example of the latter appeared in yesterday’s English
version of Haaretz, authored by Jerusalem rabbi, Rabbi Daniel Landes
(‘Elor Azaria’s act of murder, and the rabbis who justify it, defile Judaism’).
In his intemperate if sincere, exposition Landes makes several assertions that
are deeply troubling and factually problematic.
To
begin with, he declares that ‘shooting a terrorist is an obligation that is
necessary if it can prevent bodily injury or during the act before more damage
is committed. That is without question. But after the terrorist act has
finished and the perpetrator contained, to harm him is itself murder.’ The
first portion of Landes’ statement is undoubtedly correct. However, it is simply
not the case that ‘after the terrorist act has finished and the perpetrator
contained – itself a judgment call – to harm him is itself murder.’
Azariah was convicted of
Manslaughter, not Murder. His actions were, even per the court, the result of
the explosive, adrenaline laced situation on the ground. That of course, does
not excuse him. However, that is apparently why the army chose to charge him
with manslaughter instead of murder, which they initially considered. The
circumstances, intent and state of mind of an individual are critical elements
to the evaluation of a crime. Calling his acts murder is, therefore, deeply irresponsible,
a wanton distortion of both Israeli Law and Halakhah (Cf. Yam shel Shlomo Bava Kamma 8:42). In
addition, according to Jewish Law, it is by no means clear whether the case of
Azariah would be deemed a violation of civilian or military law (i.e. Hilkhot
Rotzeach vs. Hilkhot Melakhim).
Rabbi
Landes devotes most of his attention to a vitriolic condemnation of rabbis who
deny that ‘the court’s decision is absolutely just, and in full accordance with
Halakhah. Those rabbis who say otherwise or who remain silent are accomplices
in this tragedy/travesty…Those rabbis are part of a not so hidden, indeed
blatant, racism that pervades our yeshivot’s batei midrash (study halls) and
common conversation….Fueled by messianic imagery of this being an apocalyptic
moment in Jewish history, restraint is shoved aside. And with it, Jewish
notions of the horror of murder are dumped into the sewer of messianic
madness…’
Let
us put aside the fact that Elor Azariah is not the product of a Religious
Zionist home or education. To whom is the author referring in this sweeping,
demagogic condemnation? All rabbis? Some rabbis? A few rabbis? In the absence
of names and citations, Rabbi Landes proves himself as guilty of the kind of
conspiratorial mind-set as the chimerical Religious Zionist (I assume it is to
them he’s referring) eminence noire that he invokes in his article. Honestly.
Are there religious and political extremists within the Religious Zionist Camp?
Absolutely. They are as real, and nefarious, as radical Leftists who demonize
not only the political Right (and Center-Right), but every aspect of Judaism.
Are these extremists representative of their entire community and its
institutions? Absolutely not.
The
same is true of the author’s invocation of ‘messianic imagery of this being an
apocalyptic moment in Jewish history.’ As with his legal analysis, Rabbi Landes
is only partially correct and his conclusions, accordingly distorted.
It
is true that messianic aspirations are an integral, and abiding part of
Traditional Judaism. It is extremely odd to find an ostensibly Orthodox rabbi
decrying them. However, and more to the present point, it is also true that
messianic aspirations, based on the teachings of Rabbis Kook (père et fils)
motivated and energized the settlement movement from the seventies until the
nineties. What Rabbi Landes seems to have missed is that the signing of the
Oslo accords started a period of messianic disappointment and crisis within the
Religious Zionist world, a process which came to a head with the Disengagement
from Gaza (as Ari Shavit once noted). The Religious Zionist community no longer
bases its political positions on messianic or apocalyptic conceptions (if,
indeed, it ever did). All one needs to do is compare the many and varied
responses in the Religious Zionist leadership to the Amona issue, compared to
the anti-Oslo demonstrations, to see the tectonic shift that has occurred. Reading
Landes’ words, I was tempted to paraphrase Barack Obama’s retort to Mitt
Romney: ‘Peace Now wants its 1980’s Antichrist back.’
At
the end of his remarks, sadly, Rabbi Landes descends into out and out demagogy.
‘To those who admire Azaria and seek to emulate or defend him, we can only say:
This is not the Torah’s path.’ As I already wrote, there are obviously those in
Israeli society who admire Azaria. There might be those who think, like Lt.
Gen. Raphael Eitan, that no terrorist should be allowed to emerge from his
actions alive. I challenge, Rabbi Landes, to adduce proof that Israeli children
(much less religious children) are being taught or encouraged by their parents
and teachers and rabbis to emulate him, with malice aforethought! As to
defending him, I would like to call his attention to the fact that the Hebrew
social media are full of nuanced assertions that both admit Azariah’s guilt,
while noting the impossibly complex, highly charged nature of anti-terrorist,
urban warfare. These type of statements, from both Right and Left, provide the
type of critical nuance and precision that the tragedy of Elor Azariah requires
and that Rabbi Landes’ article so lacks.
Here, at least, I can agree with our author. Heated
rhetoric, flawed legal analysis, historical myopia and hyperbolic rhetoric are
absolute ‘not the Torah’s path.’ 
No comments:
Post a Comment