Are they guilty when they just hate us without committing any crime?
- I asked an Israeli lawyer I’m close to.
Civil Western Law holds that everything is allowed unless it’s forbidden.
A society can choose to limit expressions of hatred because it’s suspected to lead to physical violence. But people are free to believe what they want.
The Law protects a person’s good name against harmful defamation, but spreading negative baseless stereotypes against groups is allowed as long as that doesn’t threaten or could lead to physical harming them.
Saying Jews are monsters and, therefore, should not be protected against people who hate them already seems to encourage threats and violence.
But a gray area may be when a person would opine that Jewish stores should be boycotted. It threatens the livelihood of many Jews, and that is physical violence, and it is against equality that is the basis of democracy. But this would only be forbidden if there is a law outlawing discrimination.
Freedom of Speech is a great good so you can voice practically any sentiment except for very specific things like slandering individuals.
Yet, voicing support for terrorist organizations or acts is regarded as a call to violence. It obviously depends on the circumstances. If you say, in the middle of a Muslim town, that all Jews are wicked, that might encourage violence. If you say it, in the center of Bnei Brak, they’ll call an ambulance.
Spreading supremacist notions, in the end, always leads to violence and murder. Western-democratic rule must outlaw discrimination to stop it.
- This is different from my ideas about Radical Democracy.
I would forbid spreading negative ideas about oppressed groups. Negative stereotyping is a form of doing harm. Spreading lies would be illegal too, not only when it intends to defraud others. But who must decide what is not harmful thought? The same people (judges) who decide if you stole.
Just imagine what our world (and the news, politics) would look like when lying is outlawed. Politicians and lawyers would need to be retrained.
The argument that these judges are not democratically elected is rubbish. Neither are the physicians who need to decide on life and death questions.
Present democracies are based on equal liberties and rights, while my idea is built on parity, needs, and preventing or undoing harm because it cares.
The members of Israel’s Supreme Court are blamed for being left-wingers. They should be since they need to protect minorities against majorities.
A problem is that the owning class never agreed to this when it agreed to general voting. They need reassurance they’ll be even safer and happier.
- I asked several Orthodox rabbis I’m close to.
Through the Laws Against Slander, Jewish Law clearly acknowledges that speaking badly about someone or groups hurts and can even kill.
There is a law that if a fellow Jew stands up to murder you, you kill him first if there is no other safe way to stop him. However, there must be direct preparation. Merely saying I hate those people is not enough.
These are laws between Jews. You can imagine what Jewish Law should be for Gentiles who say they hate us. Iran saying we’re going to wipe Israel off the map should be enough to stop them in any safe way possible, even before they start to build up their military. Then, there seems to be no difference between bad but ‘innocent’ thoughts and wicket plots.
Democratic Israel and the IDF are much milder than Jewish Law regarding Gentiles in and around Israel who express hatred for Jews. The former will keep all the civil and war laws even if the other side is not. But less and less so to the idiotic point, we would be sitting ducks ready to self-sacrifice.
When Israel was a kingdom, many Gentiles lived in the State. It had all kinds of punishments for a Gentile who spoke disrespectfully of Jews, like caning, fining, (expulsion?), all for deterrence and possibly to motivate a change in attitude. Today’s Judaism has nothing like that. Jewish Law predominantly deals with behavior between Jews or from Jew to Gentile.
4. To exterminate Amalek
All the Rabbis today agree we don’t know who is our eternal (!) archenemy under the world’s Peoples. All the Peoples got mixed. So they say: Amalek are those who behave like it. The Nazis were. Not the Germans. Chamas is. Not the Gazans. Chezbollah is. Etc. A distinction the ICJ did not make. They left it unclear if they see all Gazans as Chamas terrorists or all Chamas terrorists as civilians. But the civilized world does make the distinction.
There is no genocide in the Torah obligating us to destroy Amalek before it destroys us.
Our Sages also mentioned that we don’t need to exterminate Amalekites who repented! You can’t get it any better than the Orthodox-Jewish way.