From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: Jewish Fundamentalism
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:30:02 GMT

emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:

> Some Jewish poster recently have demonstrated the intolerance
> and fanatacism inherent in Jewish Fundamentalism.  Just as
> Christian and Moslem Fundamentalism is scary, so is its Jewish
> counterpart.  But what is Jewish Fundamentalism?

I don't know that fundamentalism, per se, is dangerous or scary.  Some
"brands" may be, but the very danger may be in where they diverge from
the fundamentals.  I have a hard time believing, for instance, that
what is commonly known (politically) as "Fundamentalist Islam" is, in
fact, what orthodox Muslims worldwide accept as fundamentalist.
I don't believe, for instance, that the Quran requires, among its
basic principles, terrorism, wanton murder and kidnapping.  Yet this
is the way the term is commonly used today.  If that's the sort of
"fundamentalism" you mean, then I agree 100%, whether it be Islamic,
Christian, Jewish or any other modifier you care to attach.

> Jewish Fundamentalism relies on a strict unbending interpretation
> of the Bible for modern complex situation unenvisioned by
> the Biblical writers.  So if we find an example of God instructing
> the Jews to slaughter and/or expel their neighbours, this is
> what we must do today to "purify" the land.  If we find examples
> of the "greater" land of Israel in the the Bible, this is what
> we must possess today.  No and's if's and but's.  Peace talk can
> go to hell.

Sorry.  If.  And.  But.

*IF* G-d instructs the Jews to slaughter and/or expel all neighbors
*AND* He states that this applies under all circumstances and at all
times, then I would agree.

*BUT* that's not what appears in the Torah.  The fact that you can find
"examples" of certain situations does not mean that these "examples"
constitute the fundamentals of our faith, nor that they apply to today's
circumstances.  If I took a look at a book of American case law and found
an "example" allowing killing (for self-defense), would I be correct 
in assuming that killing is a fundamental belief among Americans?
That is, that "Fundamentalist Americans" are killers?

> At the heart of Jewish Fundamentalism is the feeling that all nations
> are inherently (and apart from the usual nationalistic self
> interest) against Israel, and that non-Jews inherently against
> Jews.  As a result Messianic expectations and fervor run high
> among this group, with the intent to kick the Arabs off the Temple
> Mount and set up the new Temple to hasten the coming of the
> Messiah.

You don't really know much about this, do you?  First, the people I
would probably call "fundamentalist" Jews are diametrically opposed to
"this group" you mention.  Sure, they believe the Mashiach will come.
And because of this, WE do nothing with the Temple Mount.

Perhaps you're talking about other groups, perhaps more politically
motivated, perhaps very dangerous.  But they're not "fundamentalist"
Jews.  Or, to be more precise, these views themselves do not constitute
the fundamentals.  The members may be fantatics, extremists and/or zealots.
And they may be Jews.  But their "cause" is not what even the most
fundamentalist of Jews would call fundamentalist.  (Maybe you mean
that they're fundamentalist Kahane-ists.)

> The political interpretation and understanding of this group
> are generally quite narrow and limited.  Were they to gain power,
> They might be a self fulfilling prophecy actually bringing to
> pass the conflagration that they expect anyways.

I don't want them to get into power either, but I think you weaken
your own argument by lumping together all your prejudices against
religious Judaism.  Once again, fundamentalist Judaism may not be
to your liking, but don't try to heap upon them the evils of other
extremist groups.

> I think that we need to look at failed Jewish Messianic fervor in
> history and draw lessons.  These people are dangerous and
> almost all means should be used to stop them.

Sounds like you're advocating quite an extremist approach yourself.
Mind elaborating on "almost all means"?

> So many of us have
> concentrated on seeming threats "from the outside" when there is
> a potential explosion in our midst that will not easily go away.

Perhaps.  But don't ignore outside threats either, when they exist.

-Don Gertler