Ex-chief rabbi: Handing over land 'to the infidels' is sin

[Classical_Liberal]

Ex-chief rabbi: Handing over land 'to the infidels' is sin

By Nadav Shragai, Haaretz Correspondent



The former Ashkenazi chief rabbi, Avraham Shapira, now head of the Rabbis Union for the Land of Israel, took a strong and militant line on the disengagement plan in a letter to answer a follower's question.



"It is clear and simple that according to the Torah handing over the land of our holy land to infidels, including parts of Gush Katif, is a sin and a crime.

"Therefore, any thought or idea or decision, and any semblance of actions, of any kind, to evacuate residents from Gush Katif and hand the land to the infidels, is opposed to the halakha, and any action must be taken to prevent it, and not assist in any action that will evict from their homes and land."

The rabbi's letter is a follow-on to a ruling by the Council of Yesha Rabbis last week that "no man, citizen, police officer or soldier is authorized to help in uprooting settlements." The council avoided calling directly on soldiers and police to refuse orders.....

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/443941.html

[bemildred]

1. This "handing over land to the infidels" idea, I've heard it before.

It's not just nutball rabbis that think this way, is it?
It almost sounds like a "fatwa".

[The Magistrate]

2. Indeed, My Friend

This fellow, and some others like him, would seem to be seeking to demonstrate their line of the Abrahamic tradition can produce clergy as blindly irrational and reactionary as any other. This statement is poison swill: if the doing is actually against religious law, then religious law will simply have to be broken, for the benefit of the nation and the people.

The fundamentalist, of whatever stripe, is the common enemy of humankind, and, like pirates on the high seas, every man's hand ought to be against him....

[bemildred]

3. It would be interesting to see if one could get the

religious fundies on each side to collude with each other
to prevent a reconciliation ...

I would bet it would not be a difficult thing.

[The Magistrate]

4. Probably Not, Sir

And there might be real benefits to getting them in the same room....

It does seem to me, though, that their seperately conceived and motivated actions have a mutually reinforcing effect that obviates any need for joint planning and coordination. The problem boils down to each feeling himself to enjoy the particular support of an all-powerful diety: this lends the conviction victory is certain, and suggests the best strategy to obtain it is unswerving obedience to the deity, regardless of any other consideration, as this will most surely reinforce the diety's favor.

[bemildred]

5. "mutually reinforcing effect"

To be sure ...

In politics it is not uncommon for "opposing sides" to collude
without any need for meetings and planning. Each takes care to
shore the other up under the table as needed, thus preserving
the rule of both in a way that cannot otherwise be accomplished
on top of the table, so to speak. This sort of thing seems rather
common in democracies, where one finds two major parties that claim
to work against each other while making sure that any victories
they accomplish are not too telling against the long term fortunes
of the other. Better the enemy you know and trust than some upstart
that does not understand the game.

[The Magistrate]

6. A Favorite Quote From Mr. Gladstone, Sir, Sums It Rather Well

"There is often, in the course of this wayward and bewildered life, exterior opposition, and sincere and even violent condemnation, between persons and bodies who are nevertheless profoundly associated by ties and relations that they know not of."