Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia
Titolo: deportazione : si o no ?

L'articolo riporta le opinioni di due rabbini ortodossi che dissentono su un
problema serio: e' accettabile deportare i Palestinesi per por fine alla
guerra?
R' Shemuel Eliyahu dice di si', R' Yuval Sherlo dice di no.
The Torah called for transfer, but is it still valid?
By Anshel Pfeffer
In retrospect, it may be surprising that the issue of transfer has not been
until now been raised for serious discussion in the religious Zionist
mainstream. Although Rehavam Ze'evi made sure to adorn his Knesset list with
Rabbis Yosef Ba-Gad and Benny Elon, his solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict never received any real play in the internal discourse of the
national-religious camp. For years, the National Religious Party (NRP) took
a clear-cut line against transfer, and the rabbis of the settlement movement
preferred to deal with questions of the Greater Land of Israel than to
consider what ought to be done with the population that occupies that land.
But a series of questions recently sent in to Internet sites that cater to
this public indicate that the issue of transfer, and especially as it
pertains to Halacha (Jewish law) and ethics, troubles many young religious
people.
Two rabbis holding contrasting views on the issue - both of them
high-profile representatives of the younger generation of Zionist rabbis -
have used the Internet podium to promulgate their beliefs. One is the Chief
Rabbi of Safed, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who belongs to the hardal (a
contraction of haredi leumi [national-ultra Orthodox]) stream; the other is
Rabbi Yuval Sherlo, who heads the Hesder yeshiva (combining Jewish studies
with army service) in Petah Tikva, one of the leading spokesmen of the
modern Orthodox stream.
Questions about transfer from religious young people are evidence of the
sense of bewilderment they have as they try to weigh between various
biblical sources and principles of Jewish morality. Many of them have
reached opposite conclusions. "Is it possible that there are religious Jews
who believe the act of transfer is unethical?" asks one. "Didn't Joshua send
the three letters to the seven peoples [that occupied Canaan], and said that
if they did not agree to make peace, and did not choose to fight, then they
were supposed to leave the land? We know that a non-Jew who does not agree
to recognize our right to inherit the land and to levy taxes, and does not
observe the seven commandments of the sons of Noah, may not live in the
land, and essentially, must be transferred from here." But other voices are
heard, as well.
One visitor to the Web site asks: "Isn't the idea of transfer more
appropriate to Nazi Germany than to Israel? There is no such thing as
`voluntary transfer.'"
These sort of questions are directed to the "Kippa" Web site, where they are
treated to brief, no-nonsense replies from Rabbi Eliyahu, one of several
rabbis who regularly responds to questions referred to the site. "Are you
asking or determining? Do you have a better solution? That Jews be blown up
here every day? Men, women, and children? Maybe we should give them the
Temple Mount? The Right of Return and also our necks for slaughtering? Why
does the transfer of Jews from places they are living not seem like `Nazi
Germany' to you? Perhaps its easier for you to identify with the suffering
of the Arab people than with your people."
In other answers found on the site, Eliyahu offers more detail on his
position regarding the morality of transfer. "All the `lovers of justice'
who are willing without pangs of conscience to tear hundreds of thousands of
Jews from their land in the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria and Gaza and put
them on trucks are the ones who are threatening not to follow orders if this
is done to Arabs. This `justice' is not ours. It is a distorted justice. All
these people have to explain to me and to you and to themselves why it is
moral to do so to Jews and immoral to do so to Arabs? I did not create the
world. I did not create morality or justice. I did not create the Arabs and
it is not I who decides where they live. I try my best to understand what
real justice is, and to follow it. Sometimes justice means you should cut.
Anyone who has mercy on a screaming patient and stops the operation is
essentially saying that even the best doctors are worthless. But he who has
mercy on the patient and continues the operation is observing the
commandment, `Heal and be cured.' We must now perform an operation. For our
good, for the good of the Arabs, for the good of the world.
"We don't have a war with all the Arabs. We have a war with those who want
to throw us into the sea, of which there are only a few thousand. We have
all learned the hard way that no `unilateral separation' can exempt us from
the evil of the murderers. It is best if we ascertain who are our opponents
are, and determine the solution to the problem, and the sooner the better."
In another answer, he comes out against those who claim that transfer is
opposed not only to Jewish morality but also to Halacha. "Non-Jews cannot
live in this land if they do not totally accept us; even if they do accept
us, they cannot be here. According to Halacha, only a partial proselyte (ger
toshav) may remain here, and if you believe in God and believe in his path,
do not seek another path, because there isn't any. I don't know what
transfer is. I do know that there is no more merciful being than the Lord.
And I know that the Torah doesn't change. If He determined something in the
Torah, then that is the most correct and most compassionate way. If someone
claims that this idea is not supported by the Halacha, he then didn't read -
Please show me one rabbi in the world who disagrees with this idea, and can
bring one reference in the Halacha."
Dissenting voice
One person who does contest Eliyahu's unequivocal statements is Rabbi
Sherlo, who is cognizant of the seeming contradiction between morality and
the commandments of the Torah. Replying to a question sent in to the
"Moreshet" Web site that cites the biblical verses that require the exile of
non-Jews from the land, he writes: "A believing person wants to be sure of
God's word, and be sure that what he believes in is indeed the will of God.
At times, he finds contradictions between his morality and God's word, and
it is a fact that the expulsion of individuals who are not actively opposing
us is now conceived - in our hearts - as something immoral. On the other
hand, he encounters the verses and the laws, and looks for a way to
understand if God did indeed command transfer. He's not certain, because the
Torah says other things, as well. Such as that a rapist must give 100
shekels to the father of the girl - is this the Torah's position today, as
well?"
"He sees that the Torah itself recognizes the ethical progress of the world
and that the picture is more profound that the simplicity you describe in
your letter - What arises from the deep picture is that the Torah does not
find anything wrong with expelling those who harm the nation, but insofar as
those who are not part of the circle of violence, this does not seem to be
the path of Torah, and how to treat the descendants of our father Abraham
benevolently and justly. Thank God, the world is progressing somewhat, and
despite all the hypocrisy and cynicism, there is moral progress in the field
of human rights, and the truly religious Jews believe that this is the will
of God."
In another response, Sherlo clearly marks out the fundamental difference
between him and Eliyahu. "If we were now living in the biblical period,
transfer would have been the most correct and moral act. The question is
whether the Torah commanded a morality relative to a specific period, or an
absolute morality. Anyone claiming the latter would no doubt continue to
argue that if anyone rapes his daughter, God forbid, he would demand 100
talents of silver as compensation, and leave it at that - Anyone who thinks
so does not believe the Torah is everlasting, but that the Torah is not
interested in keeping up with moral ideals as they develop."
"The Israeli nation is not against the moral advancement of the world; it is
a partner to it. It is obvious that it does not espouse the Western
Christian morality, which is the morality of the weak, and of original sin,
and therefore is vindictive and rancorous toward terrorists and criminals.
However, the expulsion of human beings who are not part of the cycle of
violence runs counter to the moral progress of the world, which, despite all
the hypocrisy around us, can still be thought of progress, and of which we
want to be part."
Rabbi Eliyahu explained to Ha'aretz the reason that transfer has not until
recently figured on the agenda of the religious public. "We disregarded the
path of the Lord, and thought we were smarter. But everything is written in
the Torah," he said. In his opinion, the religious public is tainted by
Western morality. "We were in exile for 1,930 years and a lot of moral
distortions of an accursed culture seeped in, but now the situation is
improving."
Rabbi Sherlo is aware of the support for transfer, but claims that it is
primarily among "youth that are more easily swept up by the idea that offers
a simple solution, although it is a simplistic approach." The Moreshet Web
site, where Sherlo fields questions, appeals to an older audience.
The two rabbis respond to those asking questions on the Net, but have not
yet held a direct dialogue on the subject. Eliyahu asserts that he has no
halachic argument with Sherlo. "What he wrote is not a halachic ruling, but
opinions. I, however, brought sources."
Sherlo considers this to be the basis of their disagreement. He is a product
of Har Etzion Yeshiva, whose head, Rabbi Yehuda Amital, wrote an article
entitled, "Halacha Isn't Everything." "For him, Halacha comes first,"
explains Sherlo. "My world of concepts also includes the Aggada [Talmudic
fables] and the prophecy as guidelines; Halacha is only one part of the
package."
Sherlo says that despite his opposition to transfer, "within the Israeli
public discourse, I am still what is called `the extreme right.'" In one of
his answers, he explains that the opposition to transfer does not apply to
"criminals and murderers, terrorists and inciters, who should be transferred
as soon as possible." Eliyahu would like to refute any possible extremist
image that might apply to him. "My heart is not unfeeling to the sorrow of
others; they, too, are human beings with a father and mother, and they feel
pain. When I was in the army, it was a trauma for me to hold a weapon meant
to blow apart brains. But we have to think of a real solution, not a sterile
one."
The disagreement between Rabbis Eliyahu and Sherlo is more of a statement of
the changes afoot in the national-religious public than of contrasting
political stands. The men are arch representatives of two ideological camps
now crystallizing. Eliyahu, son of the former chief rabbi, Mordechai
Eliyahu, is more closely affiliated to the hardal public, which in recent
years has moved toward overly strict observance of mitzvoth and political
extremism, and lives mainly in the settlements, peripheral areas and the
northern neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Rabbi Sherlo left his position as a
rabbi in the Golan Yeshiva several years ago to set up the Hesder yeshiva in
Petah Tikva. He is active among students and the religious public in the Tel
Aviv metropolitan area, and is one of the more prominent figures in the
"Tzohar" (Window) rabbinical group, which seeks to contend by creative means
with conflicts arising between religious life and the shifting social
realities of Israel.
The fact that a disagreement between rabbis is taking place in such a free
and open way on the Internet is itself evidence of the broad gap between the
religious public, including its more Haredi-leaning groups, and the Haredi
sector proper, where such a dispute is unheard of. "I don't see myself as
being closed or non-pluralist," says Eliyahu. "The fact is that you are
interviewing me about things I wrote on the Internet."
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=145085&contrassID
=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=145085

Mio caro, questo articolo dimostra la tua malafede e il tuo antisemtismo
(dopotutto usi gli stessi articoli di Artamano!). Le deportazioni NON stanno
avvenendo, e NON avverranno. Non ci sono al momento deportazioni, e quella
storia dell'esponente di destra, sono le idee d un gruppo lontano dall'avere
l'appoggio della societa' israeliana. Il voler per forza ricondurre agli
israeliani come nuovi nazisti e' veramente deplorevole. Chi fa la propaganda
nazista? Arafat, con tv, giornali e libri scolastici. Guarda la costituzione
palestinese, e dimmi se e' una cosa che "istiga alla pace"...
www.fateh.net/e_public/constitution.htm
Danty

 avvenendo, e NON avverranno. Non ci sono al momento deportazioni 
ma in passato sono avvenute? Perche' l'ONU attraverso diverse
risoluzioni (l'elenco te l'ho postato pure una volta) hanno chiesto a
Israele di cessare le deportazioni?
A cosa si riferivano? 
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG


Non sono avvenute delle deportazioni, i palestinesi sono fuggti in
Giordania, Siria ed Egitto...ma NESSUNO li ha mai deportati.
Danty

 Giordania, Siria ed Egitto...ma NESSUNO li ha mai deportati.
stai dicendo che l'ONU ha palesemente mentito in quelle risoluzioni?



Ho detto che delle deportazioni NON sono avvenute. I palestinesi sono
SCAPPATI nel 1948 e nel 1967 da Gaza e Cisgiordania.
Danty

 SCAPPATI nel 1948 e nel 1967 da Gaza e Cisgiordania. 
mi dici perche' l'ONU ha richiamato Israele a cessare le deportazioni? 
Se le e' inventate perche', tua nota teoria, l'ONU e' controllata da
antisemiti?


 wrote in message
ef2eea9a96939141d92...@mygate.mailgate.org...

1)Vedo che continui a non dare retta a Piero
2)La maggioranza dei paesi all'ONU chi l'ha? I democratici e non razzisti
paesi arabi o Israele? Ricordati come e' cambiata la politica mondiale dopo
la crisi petrolifera...da allora a oggi, tutti i paesi occidentali hanno
sempre tentato di farsi amici chi ha i cosidetti petrodollari, i quali hanno
chiesto solo delle gravi risoluzioni contro Israele...e' una cosa che va
avanti tutt'ora, vedi berlusconi con l'Enichem
Danty

Israele è appoggiata dagli USA che hanno diritto di veto.
Se non ci fosse la lobby ebraico-sionista americana, vi trovereste con 4-5
portaerei americane sotto costa che vi intimerebbero di sloggiare i
territori.
E vorrei vedere i vostri ridicoli piloti(buoni solo per bombardare villaggi
e duellare in superiorità tecnologica, e cazzo, F16 contro MiG 23 da
esportazione mi pare scontato l'esito) se riuscirebbero solo ad avvicinarsi
a meno di 300 km dalle CVN americane.

 chiesto solo delle gravi risoluzioni contro Israele..
puoi documentare questa tua "nuova"? Ci sono prove ? O ti sei inventato 
tutto ?


La storia stessa e' la prova. Basta che guardi come si sono irrigidite nei
confronti d'Israele le politiche dei vari stati europei, un po' degli Usa,e
quella dell'ONU dopo la crisi petrolifera.
Danty

 conti un po' tu...
continui a dimostrare di non capire un cazzo ti ricordo che l'onu non e'
nelle mani di quelli che tu chiami razzisti, ma in quelle (e non e' detto
che siano migliori) delle ''potenze'' che hanno il diritto di veto e qui la
maggioranza la vedo a favore di israele.

 wrote in message
LF1p8.42099$S52.1...@news2.tin.it...

Ti sbagli. Il diritto di veto e' in mano alle 5 potenze che vinsero la IIGM
(USA, Russia, UK, Francia, Cina), ma le risoluzioni ONU possono solo essere
bloccate da queste nazioni. Da dopo la crisi petrolifere, c'e' stato un
proliferare di queste risoluzioni...possibile che le 5 potenze avessero
cambiato idea?
Danty


Al momento sono stati i terroristi palestinesi ad ammazzare un bel po' di
gente e non gli israeliani mio caro...Netanya te lo ricordi? Se non ci fosse
stato la situazione non sarebbe questa.
Cmq, sbagli su USA e URSS...una piccola domanda:
1)A cosa miravano gli Stati Uniti con la guerra del Golfo?
Ad avere una posizione d'onore col Kuwait, che e' uno dei maggiori
produttori di petrolio.
Per quanto riguarda l'URSS, tutti sanno che e' stato da dopo il 1967, il
piu' grande amichetto degli arabi.
Danty

 sia agli USA che all'ex-URSS.
ma tu hai una vaga idea di chi sono i maggiori produttori mondiali di
petrolio dopo i paesi arabi, e quali sarebbero completamente autosufficenti
in caso di crisi petrolifera?

 wrote in message
HE6p8.43049$S52.1...@news2.tin.it...

Completamente autosufficienti, non direi...negli usa si parla spesso di
scorte d'emergenza, a cui gli americani non vogliono mettere mano.
Cmq facciamo un calcolino
USA: ha il petrolio, quindi in teoria se ne dovrebbe infischiare. Pero' ha
fatto la guerra del golfo, e il kuwait la guarda di buon occhio
URSS: ha il petrolio, ma da dopo il 1967 la sua politica e' stata
chiaramente antiisraeliana e proaraba.
Gli altri, UK, Francia e Cina, hanno pochissimo petrolio (UK nel Mare del
Nord, la Cina non so)...e quindi rietrerebbero nella mia teoria.
Quindi, sicuramente questi 3 in una crisi petrolifera, per accontentare i
paesi arabi, accetterebbero tali risoluzioni. Si puo' benissimo aggiungere
l'URSS, che era anti Israele. Per me si possono anche aggiungere gli USA:
nonostante dopo i paesi dell'OPEC siano tra i paesi piu' ricchi di petrolio,
anche loro hanno passato la crisi petrolifera molto male, e quindi direi che
si possano aggiungere per benino
Danty

 Nord, la Cina non so)...e quindi rietrerebbero nella mia teoria.
di questi 3 l'unico senza petrolio e' la francia, la cina ha immense
riserve,  la gran bretagna ha dei discreti depositi nel mare del nord oltre
a essere storicamente il miglior alleato degli Usa, alla fin fine almeno tre
dei 5 membri permanenti avrebbero potuto bloccare le risoluzioni anti
israele eppure non l'hanno fatto... non sara' che ogni tanto conservano un
briciolo di coscenza

 si possano aggiungere per benino 
ma sei o non sei un genio? La tua tesi che l'ONU e' un covo di 
antisemiti (in quanto antisraeliani, come tu spesso in altre genialate 
hai scritto) e' finalmente dimostrato!


Non direi: Francia e URSS sicuramente avrebbero votato a favore, ma anche la
Cina, se e' come l'URSS...Inoltre la crisi petrolifera aveva colpito molto
forte sia Inghilterra e USA, i quali, nonostante siano ottimi amici, non
credo sia ben disposta ad usare le proprie riserve per
l'Inghilterra...inoltre tu mi confermi che gli USA volevano proseguire una
campagna petrolifera con i paesi arabi, e quindi avrebbe fatto di tutto per
accontentarli...creod che la briciola di coscienza ce l'abbiano per non aver
fatto distruggere Israele.
Danty

 fatto distruggere Israele.
costa meno distruggere qualche milione di palestinesi, comincio a credere
che sergio abbia ragione sei solo un razzista.

 stato la situazione non sarebbe questa. 
sapresti dire chi sparo' dentro una moschea? era gente o terroristi 
quella che fu ammazzata?
 

...non e' che potresti chiedere scusa?
ROFL!
}
Con questo suo stesso messaggio io dimostro che NON credo gli ebrei una
razza perfetta (perche' poi io NON credo alle razze), ma nella mia personale
opinione, credo che sbaglino gli ebrei che accusano Israele (cio' era il mio
intento iniziale)...ma ad arrivare a dire che per me gli ebrei sono una
razza perfetta! Sicuramente non distinguo in "razze" se uno la pensa
diversamente su Israele: sono opinioni politiche diverse. Ma lui ha
affermato che uno dei motivi per cui sono razzista e' perche' considero gli
ebrei una razza perfetta, cosa che ho dimostrato con i suoi stessi messaggi
di essere falso.
Ma sergio, come potete notare, non mi vuole chiedere scusa. Non vuole
ammettere di aver manipolato a proprio piacimento tali messaggi, proprio
quando in realta' lui cambia le accuse!
Cosa puoi dire su quest'analisi dei tuoi messaggi, Sergio? Sei in grado su
questo di chiedermi scusa?
Danty