Article

2007-05-31 Israel-Palestine-Jordan

(Former Sephardi Chief Rabbi) Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing Gaza

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2007-05-31 00:50|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 I concur completely with the Rabbi. This is the kind of thinking required to deal with muzzies. I recommend artillery bombardment. Economical and very effective.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-05-31 01:05|| 2007-05-31 01:05|| Front Page Top

#2 Former Sephardi Chief Rabbi) Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing Gaza

channeling Old Patriot and Old Spook,

this guy [Eliyahu] would eventually make the sink trap if given enough time!

Old Red Dog ;-)

Posted by RD">RD 2007-05-31 01:20|| 2007-05-31 01:20|| Front Page Top

#3 Once upon a time my sense of humanity held forth for the Palestinians, at least to some slight degree. It no longer does. Rabbi Eliyahu is entirely within his rights to declare the entire population of Gaza culpable in the constant terrorist attacks against Israel. The majority of them voted for Hamas and sealed their collective fate. May the Palestinians rot in everlasting Hell.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-05-31 03:27|| 2007-05-31 03:27|| Front Page Top

#4 Gush Katif belongs to Israel at this point.

Posted by newc">newc 2007-05-31 06:41|| 2007-05-31 06:41|| Front Page Top

#5 I like the way this guy thinks. Very progressive.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-05-31 06:58|| 2007-05-31 06:58|| Front Page Top

#6 Nothing wrong with Gaza that a few ARCLIGHT strikes wouldn't cure in a big hurry.

Posted by Mac 2007-05-31 08:28|| 2007-05-31 08:28|| Front Page Top

#7 There are two ways of dealing with such problems. One is to screw around until the situation is acute, then overreact. The other way is to take strong action quickly, and in such a way that no matter what the bad guyz say, only what they do will matter.

That is why I advocate land takings from the Paleos, as a response to their violence. Because one way or another, it would eventually have to result in peace, if the Israelis could maintain their will.

It would end the screwing around, the endless small violence leading up to big violence. The futile effort to keep the status quo.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-05-31 08:49|| 2007-05-31 08:49|| Front Page Top

#8 The Sepharadi Jews come from the Arab world. While a part of the, if you will, Jewish world, they are not a part of the West, and do not share the "White Man's guilt" felt so keenly by the descendants of the European Jews. Also, while they have no experience of the Nazi Holocaust, they do have 1300 or so years of experience as dhimmis under the solicitous rule of the conquering Muslims. As the non-European Jewish portion of the Israeli population rises, and their birthrate is closer to that of the Arab societies from which they fled than to Europe's, we can expect less handwringing over and cosseting of Israel's enemies, and more of this kind of thing.

It is said that timing is everything, and it seems the Arabs have only a few more years to bully Israel into giving up her conquests in a vain attempt to buy peace.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-31 09:38|| 2007-05-31 09:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Rabbi Eliyahu is obviously an RB fan. Why on these very pages I recommended carpet bombing just days ago, under a different nym.

Posted by Grusosh Borgia9229 2007-05-31 09:53|| 2007-05-31 09:53|| Front Page Top

#10 Dubbed "Operation Joshua Drops Acid"...

Posted by mojo">mojo 2007-05-31 10:24|| 2007-05-31 10:24|| Front Page Top

#11 TW, Id like to think that moving on from notions of collective punishment of civilians is not just "white mans guilt". Im quite sure there are halachic sources on war ethics that argue exactly the opposite of what R. Eliyahu argues, though I have no sources handy at the moment. I do personally know a (Conservative, in the Jewish sense) rabbi who worked on the halachic/ethical status of nuclear war (where deliberately targeting an entire city is unavoidable to maintain MAD) and Im quite sure he had sources that would argue the other way.

I note he uses Rambams COMMENTARY on the Shechem story, not any explicit Halachic decisions of Rambam. Thats NOT generally how halachic reasoning is done, AFAICT, but of course Im not an authority compared to R Eliyahu. It seems like hes not citing any specific halachic decisions post bible, and the bible cite is a story, not a commandmant. Unless theres FAR more to it than this, it makes the Dorff tshuva on gay ordination look like a model of traditional halakhic process.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-05-31 11:08|| 2007-05-31 11:08|| Front Page Top

#12 I don't know much on Jewish law, but I would agree on the collective guilt. If you do not stop the few, you are guilty by association. The Paleos have had chance after chance after chance to prove they want to end the violence and cycle of killing and hate. And time after time after time again, they choose the path of violence. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-05-31 11:20|| 2007-05-31 11:20|| Front Page Top

#13 "If you do not stop the few, you are guilty by association. "

Even if I accepted that an adult had a positive obligation to stop terrorism, an obligation so strong that not doing so justified killing them, despite the fact that the actions to stop terrorism would themselves have endangered the adults life, how would that apply, to - yes,Im sorry I have to say it - the children?

And note well, IF a terr leader is being attacked, and a child dies by mistake, Im willing to say "c'est la guerre". But deliberately carpet boming the entire population?

And to stop a few Qassams, which have killed maybe one person and injured a couple of dozen in the last 6 months?

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-05-31 12:48|| 2007-05-31 12:48|| Front Page Top

#14 "If you do not stop the few, you are guilty by association."

If you dont stop the jew bolsheviks/usurers (take your pick) you are guilty by association?

Wasnt someone talking about classical liberalism here the other day, wrt immigration? Isnt one of the principles of classical liberalism that we hold each individual responsible for their own actions, and we reject collective guilt?

If a Palestinian who doesnt take up arms against Hamas is guilty, how about a Jew who doesnt? Is every Israeli Jew who opposes carpet bombing ALSO guilty by association? Shall the carpet bombing of Ramat Aviv start as well?

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-05-31 12:54|| 2007-05-31 12:54|| Front Page Top

#15 "If you do not stop the few, you are guilty by association."

If you dont stop the jew bolsheviks/usurers (take your pick) you are guilty by association?

Wasnt someone talking about classical liberalism here the other day, wrt immigration? Isnt one of the principles of classical liberalism that we hold each individual responsible for their own actions, and we reject collective guilt?

If a Palestinian who doesnt take up arms against Hamas is guilty, how about a Jew who doesnt? Is every Israeli Jew who opposes carpet bombing ALSO guilty by association? Shall the carpet bombing of Ramat Aviv start as well?

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-05-31 12:54|| 2007-05-31 12:54|| Front Page Top

#16 LH, it's not about guilt & punishment---it's about survival: ours and theirs seem to be mutually exclusive.

p.s. Any system of ethics not based on reciprocity is faux.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-05-31 13:03|| 2007-05-31 13:03|| Front Page Top

#17 liberalhawk, I was pointing out the general mindset that put the rabbi on the path that led to this conclusion, for which I suspect he found supportive arguments afterward. The White Man's Guilt is that of the European colonizer toward the displaced native, which has caused so many problems for Westerners over the last half century. as for the Shechem story and commentary, how far back since the last time a Jewish state was involved in warfare? Did the rabbis comment on the brief Macedonian wars of conquest, which occurred at the beginning of the Rabbinic period? (I ask because I don't know, having never had a serious interest in such things.)

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-31 13:07|| 2007-05-31 13:07|| Front Page Top

#18 And to stop a few Qassams, which have killed maybe one person and injured a couple of dozen in the last 6 months?

Liberalhawk, from what I've been reading the Qassams are shot off quite a few times each day from the Territories. It's only because they are so poorly made that most either plow the fields or damage buildings instead of killing people. Nonetheless, a significant number of the local Israelis have reached the point of shell shock, and increasingly the local businesses are becoming unsustainable. This isn't just "a few Qassems," as much a danger as a pebble thrown up by the car in front might crack my front windshield; this is an active state of war, a small scale London Blitz with the sirens going off several times a day... at least according to articles I've read in the Jerusalem Post and elsewhere.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-31 13:20|| 2007-05-31 13:20|| Front Page Top

#19 It long past the time we hit the reset button on Gaza. I hate to say it but if this is done more lives would be saved than lost.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-05-31 13:32|| 2007-05-31 13:32|| Front Page Top

#20 Id like to think that moving on from notions of collective punishment of civilians is not just "white mans guilt".

Liberalhawk, you just don't get it, do you? Islam is all about collective punishment. The doctrine of dhimmitude explicitly states that if a single dhimmi offends a Muslim then all dhimmis in that community are to be punished. Terrorism is another plu perfect example of collective punishment as well. If ever there was a need to "fight fire with fire", it is in our battle against Islam. The only legal tender that Muslims recognize is force and violence. It is what their doctrine prescribes at all turns. We are obliged to repay Islam in their own coin. Little else will put paid to their constant predations upon the West.

Collective punishment is one of the only vehicles by which Muslims will be made to understand their own obligation to halt jihadism. The West cannot possibly perform Islam's housecleaning for it. Iraq stands as glaring proof of this fact. Despite being democratically elected, Iraq's government participates in the basest forms of gangsterism. Much the same can be said for the democratically elected Hamas government as well. The thought of making democracy flourish in the Middle East is entirely misguided. Islam is utterly inimical to the democratic process. The populations sovereignty is a direct affront to those who demand ascendancy of religious law. There is no political vehicle that can overcome an ideology whose adoption of terrorism represents a basic instrument of policy and not some temporary expedient.

It is impossible to segregate jihadism from Islam. To treat terrorism as a pathology that is entirely separate from Islamic doctrine is both wrong and incredibly dangerous. Violence is indivisable from Islamic doctrine and cannot be isolated as a misinterpretation or factionalist modus operandi. All Muslims subscribe to this tyrannical tract and thereby become the declared enemy of Western civilization. Witness the almost complete and total inaction of Muslims against the spread of global jihad. Whether that support be tacit or overt, their deafening silence can only bespeak approval. Even those who outwardly decry violent or fast jihad demonstrate few reservations about furthering demographic slow jihad, whose ultimate goal is imposition of global sharia law through the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. How is it possible to distinguish between fast or slow jihad when both seek the same end result? It is a goal that would spell the death of half this worlds population.

The Islamic doctrine of jihad and Muslim support for it makes all Muslims our collective enemy. Already, they treat Infidels as a monolithic enemy whose sole prescription is terrorism and subjugation. Muslims must be collectively made to understand the unacceptable nature of this position. The onus of eradicating jihadism must be thrust upon Muslims, by force if necessary. If collective punishment is the only vehicle which proves sufficiently persuasive whereby Muslims are finally convinced of the need to perform their own housecleaning, then so be it. The West is beyond foolish to believe there will be any other way of dissuading Islam from the pursuit of global jihad.

What do you recommend we respond to Islams collective punishment with? Nuanced dialogue? Precision surgical strikes? Low casualty actions that preclude complete eradication of enemy populations?

We are fiddling while Rome burns.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-05-31 15:02|| 2007-05-31 15:02|| Front Page Top

#21 How about the civilians that died during the bombing raids during WWII? Were those different than the Paleo civilians today? Is the same murderous and racial ideology different?

Short answer, not really.

Everybody in Gaza is part of the problem. They have refused to work with anyone. They have refused to do anything except kill or support the killing of civilians. In short, force needs to be applied. The targeted killings did not solve the issue. Bulldozing houses of people that house bombers did not solve the issue. Gifts from Israel and the west did not solve the issue.
Apply force until they holler "STOP!". That means massive force now. Show them what the west can do to their pathetic cause. Grind it into the dirt and kill everything. These people are no different than the Germans in Nazi Germany. They support the cause, whether directly or indirectly. Yes, children will die. I really don't care since the Paleos support such a sick cause.

Zenster is right. The western leadership is fiddling while the West burns and Islam throws more gas on the fire.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-05-31 17:24|| 2007-05-31 17:24|| Front Page Top

#22 I'm with DV.

I don't think of it as "punishment," which is a law enforcement mentality.

It's a war, and this would be a strike against the enemy's support structure.

Most of the people in Tokyo or Hiroshima had nothing to do with Nanking or Bataan. But they voted for a government which was able to be corrupted by the military. They paid taxes to buy the weapons. They worked on building the weapons in their homes.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2007-05-31 19:29|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-05-31 19:29|| Front Page Top

#23 Hiroshima! Nagasaki!

Posted by borgboy2001 2007-05-31 21:17|| 2007-05-31 21:17|| Front Page Top

#24 The polls and the last election show that the Gazans have the 'government' they want. If they want war, I say they be given war.

Collective guilt ceases when the people at large stop supporting terrorism. To see it otherwise is not more moral, it is weakness.

Posted by SR-71 2007-05-31 21:45|| 2007-05-31 21:45|| Front Page Top

#25 Collective guilt ceases when the people at large stop supporting terrorism. To see it otherwise is not more moral, it is weakness.

Whoa Nellie, the voice of reason!

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-05-31 23:43|| 2007-05-31 23:43|| Front Page Top

23:57 Zenster
23:44 Barbara Skolaut
23:43 Zenster
23:33 DarthVader
23:28 Mike N.
22:52 DMFD
22:51 3dc
22:50 RD
22:46 DMFD
22:25 Barbara Skolaut
22:23 trailing wife
22:12 Alaska Paul
22:05 Frank G
22:01 Captain Lewis
21:59 Mike N.
21:51 Alaska Paul
21:51 Frank G
21:45 SR-71
21:43 Nimble Spemble
21:37 Jan
21:37 Mike N.
21:32 DarthVader
21:30 Jan
21:26 borgboy2001