In this week’s Yated, the editor bemoans the insufficient respect
accorded to the Gedolim by their political opponents. He writes, “…how dare they
attack the Torah, its leaders and its followers with wide smiles on their
faces. How do they pontificate in all varieties of media, promoting their own
political futures by bashing shomrei Torah umitzvos? “ and says that it doesn’t matter if
accusations are true, any criticism of the Gedolim is wrong, “The
complaint against [Miriam] was not that she spoke untruths and not that she
fabricated a scandal about Moshe, but, rather, that she lacked the requisite
humility, reverence and awe when discussing the gadol hador, the k’dosh Hashem,
theav hanevi’im.”
The notion that someone should be immune from criticism because
of their position is perverse and dangerous. If anything, those in positions of
power are the ones who we need to be the most critical of, as mistakes they
make have the potential for catastrophic consequences.
What’s really interesting, though, is that apparently the Palestinian
government agrees with the Yated that one must never be disrespectful of one’s
leaders.
According to this article,a 26year-old Palestinian was sentenced
to a year in prison for posting a picture of Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas with a humorous caption. He was sentenced for “cursing the president,”
which apparently is illegal in Palestine.
The thing is, he didn’t “curse” the president, he was merely insufficiently respectful.
This is exactly the sort of thing advocated in the editorial. Not prison per se, but the attitude that making light of a leader is a grave offense. Apparently Israel’s opponents are, at least in this area, morally refined, while the non-Chareidi Israelis are disrespectful cretins. Either that, or enforcing unquestioning respect of leaders is an element of all repressive societies, and the Yated is just doing its part to shape public opinion and enforce unquestioning respect.
The thing is, he didn’t “curse” the president, he was merely insufficiently respectful.
This is exactly the sort of thing advocated in the editorial. Not prison per se, but the attitude that making light of a leader is a grave offense. Apparently Israel’s opponents are, at least in this area, morally refined, while the non-Chareidi Israelis are disrespectful cretins. Either that, or enforcing unquestioning respect of leaders is an element of all repressive societies, and the Yated is just doing its part to shape public opinion and enforce unquestioning respect.
There's definitely something to the comparison you're making - in fact someone should start to compile a list of ways that the charedi world resembles the Arab/Muslim world.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons we don't have peace with the Palestinians is that - unlike Israel - you won't find significant groups of Palestinian citizens expressing dissent and protest against government policy and pushing for peace. Part of the reason for that is the nonstop propaganda against Jews/Israel, which makes people less inclined to protest. But part is a cultural ethos which maintains a zero-tolerance policy for protest. Dissent in the country is like "shame" to the family's honor - it has to be blotted out.
And while I wouldn't compare the *scope* or *intensity* of brutality and violent intimidation used by Palestinians to that used by Charedim (i.e. you don't have charedi "traitors" taken around to the back of buildings and shot dead), still like you say it's at heart a repressive society, and even though they won't shoot you, they'll shun you, humiliate you, threaten you, possibly even rough you up.
I know I'm a bit late commenting over here, but this is the first time I've seen this post.
ReplyDeleteAnyway whilst I have no sympathies towards anything the Yated writes, and certainly not this particular article , I do believe that this is a case of reductio ad hitlerum.
"Reductio ad hitlerum" is an argument that takes the form, "Hitler (or other bad person) did X, therefore X is bad."
DeleteThat's not what I wrote here. The Yated's editorial isn't bad because it agrees with Palestinian policy. The editorial is bad because, as I wrote, "The notion that someone should be immune from criticism because of their position is perverse and dangerous. If anything, those in positions of power are the ones who we need to be the most critical of, as mistakes they make have the potential for catastrophic consequences."
Comparing it to the piece on the Palestinians is an interesting parallel, not the reason that it's a Bad Thing.