A tzadik not trying to be too much without actually
be "Do not be too tzadik" (Kohelet VII, 16).
Jewish
The said appointment shows that we must not fall into the excesses and exaggerations. A text that can be found on the web from Bama, home of the Jewish educator, explains saying that "there should be more religious than the Torah" .
I bring this up because I found an article entitled "Who killed Rabin?" , Daniel Alaluf, which I perceived, in fact, exaggerations and excesses. The author wishes to do justice in a meritorious case (for those who mock the truth and bumble the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin), but ends up becoming a judge who wants to do her justice unjustly. For the sake of what it considers fair, apply penalties (read as "destructive criticism") to others who do not deserve. Ends up being unfair.
What writes Mr. Daniel Alaluf, in some passages verging on the grotesque. The first great fallacy is that the real enemy of Israel is inside and not outside. This leads to an internal problem exclusive magnification and a relativization of the external threat. Iran is a real enemy, Hamas is a real enemy, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are true enemies. The writer may seem more or less threatening but can not say they are not real enemies. It is a mockery of Israeli families who mourn their children jaialim killed in combat or civilians killed their children in terrorist attacks. It is a perverse ideological position that holds part of the Israeli left devoid of memory and often moral.
not considered real threats properly, is promoted by organizations that are believed to be radicalized and above the sole and true heir to Rabin's legacy, but deform and manipulate it for their own political gain. I'm talking about Agshav Shalom, among others.
What that specific broadcast television program put together their own versions of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin terrible, shocking. Nobody sane could deny. It is historical revisionism seeks to rewrite and cover the real story, and should be condemned by the right and the democratic left. But not the way that article does.
Very subtly the author, through the manipulation of language, tries to grab unsuspecting readers and get them mixed up terms as synonyms: right, the nationalist right, the religious fanatic, religious fanatic nationalist right, etc. Several combinations in which everyone is stuck in the same bag. Quoting a leftist pacifist, Amos Oz, to confront this deceptive technique: "Whoever does not distinguish between degrees of evil, ends up being a servant of evil ".
With respect to national security and religious interests as Alaluf converge after the assassination of Rabin, we must not forget that the settlement arose and were encouraged by both the left and the right, and there was some consensus, back in 1967 in thinking about them as measures of safety. Today's left and right condemned the stands. The fact is that the settlers were Israeli, and the fundamental obligation of a state is providing security to its people, therefore can not be criticized for a government to defend the settlers and take any safety measures. Not if this man is asking the author to send the settlers "to die", but he complains that religious law did not meet democratic Israelis leave without protecting them, leave them at the mercy of terrorism insurance is to go against of democratic law and the fundamental objective of a modern state.
Needless to say, the author of the re-use, immediately, an obnoxious use of language, which is also due to the pretensions of European leftism and liberalism, with terms such as "settlers" or "occupied territories." If we use the term "settler" to mention those who live in settlements, then it should be called the wrong way the whole Zionism "colonizer" in the same way derogatory or aggressive. They want to believe that the settlers are violent conquerors plundered land, when in fact built their homes even with government assistance. Yes there are fanatics, yes some people do horrible things (though not conquered by a creed of violence), but choose to define what a coincidence that all the settlers for special cases and not the generality. And of course, preferably are called "settlers", and if it were alleged racist Zionist ideology and violent, the better.
Moreover, international law refers to "occupied territory" as the possession by military force of a sovereign power over land that previously belonged to another state. In the territories of Judea and Samaria (West Bank called to remove the Jewish identity and assimilate them into Arabic terminology) there was never a Palestinian state, but that there was occupation of Jordan. They were conquered by Israel in wars of self-defense against attacks from Arab countries (including Jordan). Thus, came under Israeli jurisdiction. Therefore, the territories are not occupied, are disputed. And having been won in a war of self defense is not initiated or provoked, are as described by Julian Schvindlerman, "legitimate issue negotiation ".
There is also a paragraph on Binyamin Netanyahu is very destructive. Netanyahu condemned was applauded banners depicting Rabin in Nazi SS uniform. But what remains, what do Alaluf? On one hand, complains that the right of 1970 is retrograde and should not keep those positions, and on the other side when Netanyahu moderated his stance and the right supports the future creation of a Palestinian state protest also like hypocrisy. It seems that nothing is good about the right positions, or rather, does not suit you right directly.
Netanyahu held liable for the murder Rabin is serious libel. To invent or fix, based on any test, a distant cause and display it as a major cause and efficient.
I wonder what the "irreversible damage" that Netanyahu tries to infer the state of Israel. Now leave the territories and have terrorism on both sides of the map (from Gaza and from Judea and Samaria), yes it would be suicide and irreversible damage. This raises suicide left that sector. Meanwhile, the Likud government maintains nearly zero rate of terrorism inside Israel's borders. That alone deserves applause and sincere thanks.
When he talks about the current prime minister allied with radical sectors need to survive, is directly a lie. Netanyahu's government enjoys broad consensus in Israel and if the election were held today, would win comfortably again. The votes and gave him the power alliances, and so happen again. What happens is that the author fails to say that Netanyahu got a government coalition: Likud Prime Minister (himself), a Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel Beiteinu (Avigdor Lieberman), a Labor Party Defense Minister (Ehud Barak) and continues in office as President someone from Kadima (Shimon Peres). Besides, he offered to Tzipi Livni, opposition leader, to form the government and she refused. No one doubts that the right has sought alliances religious parties extremists, but that's not important or representative of the highest positions in government or the most important security decisions. If Ovadia Yosef of Shas would think that non-Jews say they were born to serve the Jews, "Netanyahu influences when he urges the Palestinians to negotiate peace without preconditions?
on what the author says the United States, you do not talk much because we know that the damaged relations Obama, who is openly pro-Arab and quite critical of Israel. Recently the Jewish state has been isolated internationally, even though it was Kadima in power, right?
In paragraph he writes that the conflict can not be resolved until there are clear limits of the Jewish state falls back on the assumption widely refuted by reality, every day, government after government. The central problem is the settlements, or the territories. The bone is not there, should know that both searched without finding it. The main problem is ideological non-acceptance of Israel by the most fanatic Arabs and non-acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state by the Palestinian Authority Abbas. Terrorism, the continued legitimization, the failure to open to coexistence, much less living together that is the crux of the matter. You can not negotiate until the end and sign a treaty peace if there is no recognition of the Arabs towards Israel. If there is no recognition, many of them think that this could unleash violence.
Finally, the right most representative of Israel does not base their claim on divine right, but a historical right. It should be added to Alaluf's assertion that the Zionism of Theodor Herzl in some ways it was also distorted by the left socialist incursions. Reread "Der Judenstaat" and "Altneuland" and check again the conclusions of the Zionist Congresses in which Herzl participated help you understand. We must not criticize one side this case (the right), otherwise it falls into the bias and lies.
be correct that Mr. Alaluf complain about what you have to complain and those who have to complain, and so to be fair, and simultaneously engage stop unfair to those who should not receive complaints. So just who wants to be, ends up being unfair. A not trying to be too tzadik not really be. Ezequiel
Eiben
30/10/2010
22, 5771 Cheshvan
0 comments:
Post a Comment