The statement of a fanatic
JVL Introduction
Earlier this month we re-published an essay by Moshé Machover examining how the biblical “promised land” narrative has been harnessed by Zionists in the service of settler-colonisation.
Evan Robins, writing in Vashti’s The Pickle, has produced an inciteful follow-up as he wrestles with the impossibility of comprehending not only the endless catalogue of massacres perpetrated by the IDF, but also the latest attempt by Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, writing in the New Statesman, to justify them on the basis of religious scripture.
Robins finds himself tormented and enraged, in particular, by “one completely asinine, utterly egregious line from the Chief Rabbi’s essay” in which he claims that “The Torah (Five Books of Moses) is, in effect, a 3,000-year-old constitutional document for the establishment of a nation state in the territory known previously as Canaan…”
“In short,” Robins says, “the Chief Rabbi’s statement is that of a fanatic.”
NWI
This article was originally published by Vashti on Fri 18 Oct 2024. Read the original here.
A Diary Entry
“This claim is so cynical, so outrageous, such an utter and complete desecration.”
Loading article text…
What a hot mess of an article this Mirvis character has written, and doesn’t he know that even seasoned Zionists like Ben-Gurion acknowledged Palestinian relatedness to ancient Hebrews.
isn’t it just awful, that whatever we say, we are not saving lives. i can barely believe i’m alive to witness such atrocities. mirvis is a creationist fundamentalist zealot, a dangerous and vile person.
Mirvis condemned the UK government ban on components to make Israeli weapons more accurate, since they could be used to commit war crimes. He claimed that more accurate weapons would lead to less innocent victims. Evidently the Government believe that the innocent victims ARE the targets. Does Mirvis not get this or does he support it?
Given that this is the UK government’s position, why do they still express support for Israel and its policies? Evil or stupid is not necessarily a choice.
A lot of the Christian (Christian, not Christian zionist – which isn’t Christian) Old Testament is based on Jewish scriptures. I write this as a Christian whose primary duties are to love God and to love my neighbours
A key item for Christians and, I believe, Jews is the Ten Commandments which God gave to Moses on a mountain. Modern zionism seems to disregard them, with the zionists killing as if there were no tomorrow. And as for telling untruths, at the present time, that is something entirely disregarded..
It seems to me that Mirvis is completely up the creek with his thinking..
Evan, you say that Mirvis doesn’t “really matter … And neither does this” — but you are right to argue. We have to do and say what we can, where we can. A strange but powerful Talmud story (Shabbat 55a) has the Attribute of Justice — often personified in these tales — challenging God’s propensity to make excuses for people who fail to protest against abominations on the grounds that any such protest would be ignored. God reminds Justice that he’s omniscient and knows that the protest would fail. Justice replies: You know that, but did they [the people who could have protested] know it?
One more Talmud quote, just to add a little more evidence as to how Mirvis distorts and disgraces Judaism. This one’s from Yevamot 79a, which describes the Jews as having three characteristics: they are merciful, they are shamefaced (or “capable of feeling shame”) and they do acts of kindness. In other words, the exact opposite of Netanyahu’s merciless, shameless and bloodthirsty government. Mirvis and its other cheerleaders betray Jewish teaching every time they tell their lies.
It should be shocking that this kind of stuff is printed by “The New Statesman”, but it’s not at all.
Surely, according to his own logic, Mirvis now has an anti-imperialist duty to find out where the Cannanites are today and lead a genocidal war to return them their land.
The New Statesman could run a few articles to help their readers understand the Cannanites’ point of view.
If there’s to be a zionism at all after all this it will have to be a totally spiritual, ideal kind, as I believe it once was for most Jews. I suppose there were different interpretations of “Next year in Jerusalem!” (good discussion here https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/next-year-in-jerusalem/ ) and as phenomenology told us you don’t have to physically be in a place in order to very much really be there. (You’re talking to your office colleague when suddenly he gets a call from his friend in New Zealand and for a few minutes he’s closer to Auckland than to you; or in a school anywhere, “You, Jones at the back, stop daydreaming!”)
Jews have always understood that the life of the mind is paramount. If there’s to be a future at all for everyone, that’s the only kind of Zionism which can have a place in it. Some form of ‘redemption’ is found in many religions and as I understand it originally referred to God’s promise to help the Israelites escape from Egyptian slavery. My recently bought Penguin, The Talmud (nothing like Israeli moral turpitude to send a lapsed Jew back to reading the basics) gets almost Jesuistical in its casuistry dealing with the Redemption of the Firstborn, so I wont dare go there.
‘Redemption’ for Jews, post the Israeli-wrought genocide probably has to be redefined now. There’s an anecdote from the Holocaust, one victim asks another, “So where’s God?” If I’m asked that now, I reply, “Out to lunch for the last two hundred chiliads”.
Here’s a Yiddish phrase to deal with Mirvis and his megaphone: “Shray nit, vest oyfvekn got!” — Don’t shout, you’ll wake up God!
Might I recommend the works of Prof. Keith Whitelam? He has done extensive work over decades about how the Israeli government and its Zionist allies have recruited the Hebrew Bible and the rather questionable discipline of “Biblical Archaeology” to further a host of “prior claim” narratives to sites all over the Holy Land. “The Invention of Ancient Israel” is a good primer.
Needless to say, Prof. Whitelam has had all sorts of accusations and even death threats aimed at him- something he evidently relishes and treats as positive criticism (ie: he must be doing something right to cause such ire!).