Misplaced criticism (PRO PALI CHIEF RABBI IS A PRAT, SAYS TELEGRAPH)

The Daily Telegraph ^ | August 28, 2002 | The Daily Telegraph

[MadIvan]

The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, is no stranger to controversy, and he has certainly stirred one up with his latest remarks about Israel. Dr Sacks sees the present conflict as "tragic, because it is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals".

He cannot abide the "hatreds and insensitivities that in the long run are corrupting to a culture". He is made "very uncomfortable as a Jew" by "things that happen on a daily basis". The only example he gives is his "profound shock" at pictures of cheery Israeli soldiers posing with a dead Palestinian.

Note the careful emphasis on "the long run"; note, too, that he is shocked, not by the killing of terrorists in self-defence, but by any hint of triumphalism. It is a pity that Dr Sacks did not say more clearly what exactly disturbs him. A nation engaged in a struggle for survival is likely to do many things that make outsiders uncomfortable; that does not make them wrong.

In arguing that hatred may ultimately corrupt the hater, Dr Sacks is merely restating a truism of Judaeo-Christian morality. He is, of course, not a politician but a rabbi, and his target was not Israeli policy, but the moral consequences of a siege mentality.

He cannot be faulted for measuring the conduct of his fellow Jews by the law of Moses. And it is Israel's greatest strength that, as an island of democracy in a sea of despotism, it sees self-criticism not as a luxury but as a necessity.

The context in which he spoke, however, is important. Dr Sacks made his comments in an interview with the Guardian, which ran an extract from his new book, The Dignity of Difference, a serious work of moral theology.

However, "Chief rabbi calls for mutual toleration from world faiths" is less enticing than the Guardian headline: "Israel set on tragic path, says chief rabbi". It is legitimate for an author to provide arresting remarks to publicise his book, but it was at best naive for Dr Sacks to utter them in a newspaper that has been unremittingly hostile to Israel.

It was predictable that the Guardian would turn his words into ammunition for its own purposes, so distracting attention from the deeper message of his book.

Jews and Gentiles alike may reasonably debate whether Dr Sacks meant to give comfort to Israel's enemies. He has surely earned the right to the benefit of the doubt. When Israel has never been more embattled, when anti-semitism is again ubiquitous, and when British Jews have never felt less secure, however, his own community might have expected a more robust stance.

There is a time and a place for a chief rabbi to draw attention to Israel's faults. This was, perhaps, the wrong time; and it was certainly the wrong place.

[MadIvan]

The good old Telegraph gets it right again. The Guardian is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Arafat. Who the bloody hell cares what they think.

Regards, Ivan

[mmmmmmmm....... donuts]

That's what I said in an email to the Chief Rabbi himself.

[MadIvan]

That's what I said in an email to the Chief Rabbi himself.

I commend you on your restraint. My reaction to what he has to say is not repeatable in polite company; and I'm not Jewish either. ;)

Regards, Ivan