Comments on: ‘If not now, when?’ a response to Gordis’s criticism of Brous

By: David Henkin

David Henkin — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:40:05 +0000

i'm not sure you know what the word euphemism means, let alone the word chumash. Back to all kinds of school for you!

By: David Henkin

David Henkin — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:40:05 +0000

i'm not sure you know what the word euphemism means, let alone the word chumash. Back to all kinds of school for you!

By: Elise Ronan

Elise Ronan — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:41:23 +0000

Phil Cohen it was a euphemism for Jewish education..perhaps I should have been more explicit..:)

By: Herbert Kaine

Herbert Kaine — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:20:42 +0000

The Palestinians are not being demonized by Israelis, but Israelis are understandably cautious about being mixed with a population in which 5-10% would perform acts of violence if the circumstances are correct. Bronfkam should stick to what he knows best, booze, and perhaps open up a Seagrams branch in Gaza city.

By: Gabriel T. Erbs

Gabriel T. Erbs — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:07:33 +0000

Wouldn't you prefer to analyze ideas for their intellectual merit as opposed to your perception of the speaker's credibility–especially if that credibility is based on physical distance?

Do you agree that ethics are absolute; is there good and evil regardless of the proximity of the ethicist, or does the ethical paradigm shift based on its speaker? Interestingly, you argue against moral relativism in accusing Rabbi Brous of equivalency and go ahead and rest your admiration for Gordis on his relativity–both morally and physically–to your perception of the subject's "ground zero."

Alternatively, what do you call this distance-based moral philosophy? Is it the same for the metric system?

By: Brian Dyskin

Brian Dyskin — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:58:06 +0000

How heartless are Rabbi Brous' congregation that they have to be reminded to empathise with the innocent victims every time she mentions Israeli suffering? Are they likely to gloat if she doesn't?

And while pointing out that it is Hamas, not the innocents who cause Israel's suffering, why does she not point out that it is Hamas, and not Israel who have brought the suffering onto the the Gazan civilians? As Rabbi Gordis points out, why does she not point out which side is good and which is evil? Does she think that in a post-modern world there isn't right and wrong, just "narratives"? Anybody reading her words could reasonably presume that it was Israel's fault that there is suffering on the other side as it is Hamas' fault that there is suffering in Israel.

How about this as a solution – if you need to mention Palestinian suffering every time you mention Israeli suffering (because your community might not understand that we as Jews don't rejoice in the suffering of innocents), just add the words "because of their barbaric leaders" to it. So, for example, she could say: " I also believe that the Palestinian people, both in Gaza and the West Bank, have suffered terribly BECAUSE OF THEIR BARBARIC LEADERS and deserve to live full and dignified lives."

If however she believes that the suffering IS because of Israel and not because of the choices and actions of successive Palestinian leaders, she should not be calling on her community to support Israel.

Finally, why are there 3 articles replying to Rabbi Gordis' single article? It seems like a disproportionate response

By: Ted Druch

Ted Druch — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 21:43:48 +0000

I hate to say this, but all the arguments against Gordis are refusing to deal with the main point.
The fact that Rabbi Brous can imagine that the solution is for Israel to engage in substantive talks with the Palestinians, without mentioning that such talks have never been successful because the Palestinians are not interested, is just another example of putting ideological correctness ahead of a real and true understanding of the real problem.
Everyone can agree that suffering is universal and that we should grieve for the poor innocent victims on both sides. Unfortunately, that isn't the problem and pretending that it is just to make yourself feel good strikes me as little more than sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Gordis nowhere suggested that we should not feel compassion for the enemy and all this criticism is unwarranted and frankly, in my opinion, stupid.
Come off the moral high horse.

By: Michael James Rudmin

Michael James Rudmin — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:01:40 +0000

Rabbi Brouse gets it. The drops of water in the wine at passover are exactly the essence of Judaism. And what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? By no other means can Jews prepare to be God's peculiar treasure.

By: Michael James Rudmin

Michael James Rudmin — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:01:40 +0000

By: Lawrence Weinman

Lawrence Weinman — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:24:25 +0000

I know you had your tongue firmly in your cheek tjecorrect ratio of :"particularism (and yes violence to our ememies) and a dream of self governing jerish entity to :universalism in our sacred texts I would put it way over 10000:1. Without recognizing that you're (sorry but true) closer to a secular universalist humanist (a nice thing to be) than being "faithful to the jewish tradition. "Even the strong tradition of respecting the "other" doesnt leave out particularism or (sorry) that their faith and beliefs are not the true ones. The word gayr or gayr toshav or avoda zara are there for a reason.

By: Lawrence Weinman

Lawrence Weinman — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:17:45 +0000

there are 2 texts didnt you know? the misha cited and the midrash about the egyptians drowning No
parshat zachor, megillat esther (the whole thing) etc etc etc ….skipped that

By: Lawrence Weinman

Lawrence Weinman — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:47:57 +0000

key texts always cited by certain circles: the hillel quote above and the midrash about the angels at the red sea…neither of which in the chumash or tanach neither of which halachic. Megillat esther (the messy part people dont like) the story of amalek, the cheeyuv(remember those) to hear parshat zachor to name a few on a very very long list….not so much. We have plenty of universalistic concern for the other in our tradition …but to read out the particularistic concern with our own self defense…is pure and simple a narrow misreading (hmm isnt that what they accuse the yeshiva world of ?).

By: Meir Liberman

Meir Liberman — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:23:24 +0000

once again, the word "only" is not found anywhere in that mishna…

I love how these people try to be scholarly but instead show they have no idea what they are talking about.

By: Lawrence Weinman

Lawrence Weinman — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:49:15 +0000

Here are the words of Gershom Baskin who for decades has served as an unofficial negotiator between Palestinians and Israelis and a constant critic of Israel. If people like you and Rabbi Brous woud echo these words at every opportunity you would be doing more for the lives of children and their mothers in Gaza than every platitude about "cylce of violence" and "demonizing the palestinians" Sometimes there is wrong and right and being humane means standing up and potinting it out.
Gershon Baskin
Wouldn't it be great if the people of Gaza said to Hamas and Jihad "we don't want you to defend us by sending rockets into Israel" No rocket will bring the people of Gaza freedom and prosperity. "We want our leadership to invest in building schools, parks, museums, factories, etc. and not rockets, bunkers, and bombs". I as a critical Israeli and a peace activist really believe that Israel wants nothing more from Gaza than to live in peace and quiet next to you. A regime in Gaza engaged in building rather than destroying would find a lot of support in Israel. It is not like the West Bank – Israel has no territorial claims or aspirations in Gaza. It is time for people on both sides of the border to say – enough destruction, enough bombing, enough hatred. We need a new future". Until people like me with friends in beersheba whoare figuring out how to drum up the $20,000 for a safe room hear people like youand Rabbi Brous talk truth to the people lobbing the missiles aimed directly at their homes and cowardly placing those missile launchers next to gaza kindergartens we wont think you are either "for yourself" or "for the other" and really interested in fighting the "cycle of violence".

By: Lawrence Weinman

Lawrence Weinman — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:43:08 +0000

There is one side that amasses offensive missiles from Iran (think they want a lasting peace) deploys them in civilian areas (the pictures are readily available) making those mothers and children human shields, of course unlike Israel they spend no money on civil defense and plenty on amassing offensive weapons. Sorry but the blood of the children is on the people that knowingly put them next to military targets. If you care check the "laws of war" it's a basic violation of them, as is targeting the israelis civilian sites.