By Yair Altman, YNET
Clashes between settlers and Palestinians broke out Sunday following a rally commemorating the deaths of Asher Palmer and his infant son Yehonatan in Kiryat Arba last Friday.
Funeral of Asher Palmer and son Yehonatan (Photo: Noam Moskovitz)
Some 150 people held a protest rally in the scene of the terror attack prior to the victims’ funeral. They marched towards Kiryat Arba and clashes broke out near the Beit Anoun village. The two sides began hurling stones at each other. IDF and police forces arrived at the scene to end the violence using crowd dispersal means.
During the rally, Rabbi Dov Lior called for a collective punishment to be carried out against the “rioters.”
-
“We have murderous rioters surrounding us, according to the Torah, there is room for collective punishment and the IDF must carry out the punishment against the rioters. There are no innocents in a war,”
the rabbi said.
The city’s Jewish spokesman Noam Arnon added: “I say this with a great deal of pain and sadness – there was an attempt to hide the truth. We know the effort put in here by the security forces and we cherish that, but we must say that this repulsive attempt to hide the truth was not the only one, this unthinkable thing was done without any clear motives.”
Police initially claimed the car crash which killed the father and son was the result of an accident but later concluded that stones had been hurled at the vehicle, which caused it to overturn. Settler leaders leveled harsh criticism at the police for what they referred to as a “cover up.”
Asher Palmer’s brother Shmuel addressed the failure of the police to declare the incident a terror attack from the beginning. “The police are a problematic organization as is the IDF. And I say this as a reservist,” he said. He added that he could understand talk of revenge. “A Jew was murdered here because he was a Jew, and this cannot be ignored. We shall prevail at the end, the only question is how. We are here to stay.”
Meir Bartler, one of the Hilltop Youth leaders, said that his men will not stay silent. “The hurling of stones must be stopped. If the IDF can’t do it, then we’ll do it and we know how. We shall deploy our men along the line. Anyone with a licensed weapon will arrive and we’ll equip others with batons and protective gear.”
The police said in response: “The initial investigation indicated the incident was the result of a self-inflicted car accident causing the car to crash into a pile of rocks. Evidence found inside the vehicle led the police to perform an external autopsy at the State and the family’s approval.
-
“The autopsy indicated that the driver was hit in the head by a blunt object which led us to believe that a rock may have been hurled at the car. The family was informed of the progress in the case. The investigation is still ongoing and the family will be provided with all the findings when it concludes. “
IDF: No cover up
The IDF Spokesperson’s Office rejected claims that it did not tell the truth about the terror attack, and tried to cover it up as an accident.
“The IDF is completely rejecting the claims. As the investigation developed, the police presented new findings related to the circumstances of the incident,” the statement said.
The IDF expressed regret over the death of the father and son, and stressed that the preliminary investigation that it concluded on Friday was based on evidence collected by police investigators who arrived at the scene of the car crash.
“A Central Command check held Friday indicated no stones were hurled at the car from the side of the road. Further findings then suggested the possibility that stones had been hurled from a passing vehicle. The issue is being checked,” it said.
No, Yamit, YOU have a habit of defining as ‘Christian’ anything that contradicts what your personally projected pathology conveniently defines as “Judaism” — especially if the said contradiction comes from the likes of your friendly correspondent here.
The truth is that most of the conventional “Christian” commentaries (at least the ones I’ve encountered) happen to take the same view as you do in the Sh’khem story. And as far as I’m concerned that makes THEM just as fullovit as you are, Yahnkele.
That’s what Rosenblit means by “proof”? — Get real.
It could just as easily be evidence that He regarded Jacob & the clan as not yet ready to hold their own in the Land — there does seem to have been some question earlier of whether Jacob had unwisely bought the parcel of land too close to the locals anyway — and that they would need the extra protection afforded by that “Godly fear,” so they could continue to develop according to His intentions, and apart from the culturally degenerate practices that were beginning to become apparent in the surrounding cities.
If that were the case, Yamit, He would have issued a direct command to wipe out Sh’khem, as with Midian and Amalek, etc. Matters of such overwhelming seriousness always call for explicit orders.
Not everything about the Sh’khem story was outrageous or unjust. The rescue of Dina, for example, was entirely proper, even noble.
The problem is that Shimon & Levi were a couple of emotionally undisciplined hotheads. How come Ruven & Yehuda weren’t in on the massacre? — THEY also were Dina’s full brothers, all children of Leah. But they were older; their sense of judgment was better developed.
Remember, it was Shimon & Levi specifically whose blood-in-the-eye envy & unbridled jealousy prompted them initially to broach the idea of killing Yoseph (who was, admittedly, spoiled rotten by their father’s special indulgence of him — BTW, was that parental favoritism ALSO Ya’acov’s “understanding of God’s moral authority”?).
Even ROSENBLIT, whose article you cite, acknowledges that, later on in the piece:
blockquote>>”Unfortunately, the very same anger that had led Shimon and Levi to attack Shechem… had later led them to plan the murder of Joseph — a Chillul Hashem (desecration of God’s Name).”
On his deathbed, Ya’acov counsels the other sons “not to take the counsel of Shimon & Levi” — whom he (twice) characterises as “cruel.”
It’s said that eventually Levi repented, though I’ve yet to see the evidence. In any event, at the end of his own life, Moshe blesses all the tribes by name — except Shimon.
— An oversight?
dweller says:
You have a habit of injecting your Christian beliefs into and onto Jewish scripture. Sorry, oil and water don’t mix. Christianity is the exact opposite of Judaism.
No it’s G-d’s moral authority as understood by Jacob. The text is clear on this point especially if you read it in context. The real proof comes later when: “They [Jacob and his family] set out, and there fell a Godly terror on the surrounding cities, so that they [the inhabitants of the surrounding cities] did not pursue Jacob’s sons.” (Gen. 35:5). By extending His Divine Protection to Jacob’s sons, God Himself had the Last Word — the brothers’ attack on the Shechemites was thereby justified and sanctified. But this is not the only evidence of Divine Ratification of the brothers’ actions; for, generations later, the tribe of Shimon proudly displayed a picture of the City of Shechem on its tribal flag (see Num. 2:2; Bamidbar Rabbah 2:7), something that God would never have permitted if the incident was a badge of shame rather than a badge of honor, and the tribe of Levi became, inter alia, the tribe which produced Moses, the tribe which was appointed as protector of the Ark of the Covenant and the tribe which became the source, through Aaron, of the priestly line.
The Torah relates that: “Jacob’s sons arrived from the field when they heard; the men were distressed and were fired deeply with indignation, for he [Prince Shechem] had perpetrated an outrage in Israel by lying with a daughter of Jacob – such a thing may not be done!” (Gen. 34:7). Please note the use of the phrase “outrage in Israel” when the text otherwise refers to the name “Jacob”. As is known, God had earlier changed Jacob’s name to “Israel” after Jacob’s confrontation with the angel on the east bank of the Jordan River. As the Torah relates: “He [the angel] said, ‘No longer will it be said that your name is Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with the Divine and with Man and have overcome.'” (Gen. 32:29). After the massacre, God reaffirmed this transformation: “Then God said to him, ‘Your name is Jacob. Your name shall not always be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.’ Thus, He called his name Israel.” (Gen. 35:10). Clearly then, Scripture is making a distinction between the individual known as Jacob, father of Dina, and the nation of Israel which is named after, and led by, Jacob. As the text thereby reveals through its employment of the phrase “outrage in Israel”, in God’s Eyes Prince Shechem’s crime was not primarily directed against Dina or even against the Patriarch Jacob, as individuals, but rather against the embryonic Jewish nation and, by extension, against the God of Israel, as Protector of the Jewish nation. This created a situation of national Chillul Hashem (desecration of God’s Name) requiring the Jewish nation to take immediate revenge against the City of Shechem in order to blot out the Chillul HaShem and thereby replace it with a Kiddush HaShem (sanctification of God’s Name). This is similar to the later Exodus era revenge that God would order the Israelites to take against the nation of Midian, resulting in the killing of the entire population (save for prepubescent women) as punishment for luring Israel into idol worship and thereby creating a national Chillul Hashem (see Num. 25:16-18 and 31:1-20). This latter event explicitly established the principle that Israel’s enemies are God’s enemies, for: “HaShem spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Take vengeance for the Children of Israel against the Midianites …'”, but: “Moses spoke to the people, saying, ‘… inflict HaShem’s Vengeance against Midian.'” (Num. 31:2-3). Read more:JUDAISM’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANGER, REVENGE AND COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT
You make it sound like Jacob is to be viewed as the moral authority in the Sh’khem massacre.
Oh, please. His silence could indicate any number of things, Yamit, including (and more likely than anything else) extreme and prolonged shock. What’s more, what you call the brothers’ “moral position” was less reflective of their concern for their sister’s victimization than of their own sense of possession befouled, notwithstanding the Prince’s apparently genuine wish to be married to her and to do right by her.
You’ll find nobody in this world, boychik, who is less patient with the feminist line, but everything about the She’khem affair — from the “date rape” of the initial incident, to the use of circumcision as a ploy & weakening device, to the murder of the city’s entire male population, to the self-serving remarks of Shimon & Levi — has the earmarks of male ego splashed all over it.
I once raised a litter of dogs, mostly male, which behaved in pretty much the same way with other dogs who strayed onto their territory & tried to “make time” with the bitches [sorry, I’m being quite literal here] that were part of their turf. Oh, yeah: They went after the interlopers’ genitals too.
I’m glad the hilltoppers will have patrols, but you can’t use the Sh’khem story in support of it, Yamit.
Revenge and collective punishment is mandated in Judaism not demanding that the government or IDF be the instruments of either. The people must rise up and exact vengeance collectively on the murderers. For every Jew murdered a hundred of theirs or a thousand.
“The righteous man shall rejoice when he sees Vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the Wicked. And Mankind shall say, ‘Truly there is a reward for the Righteous. Truly there is a God Who judges on Earth.'” (Psalms 58:11-12).
The Rape of Dina: Dina the daughter of Jacob was kidnapped by the King of Shechem’s son and her brothers freed her. Shimon and Levi slaughtered all of the adult men of the city and freed Dina from Prince Shechem’s house. They then captured the city’s women and children, confiscated all of the people’s possessions, and departed.
Upon learning of the massacre, Jacob stridently rebuked Shimon and Levi. As the Torah relates: “Jacob said to Shimon and Levi, ‘You have gotten me into trouble and caused me to be repulsive to the Canaanites and Perrizites who live in the land. I am few in number, and should they band together and attack me, I will be annihilated — I and my household.'” (Gen. 34:30). Please note carefully Jacob’s exact words; he does not question the morality of his sons’ actions, but only its practical consequences, namely, the fact that it might cause the surrounding nations to retaliate against him and his family. But his sons’ next words silenced him, and these are the last human words recorded by the Torah on the subject: “And they said, ‘Should anyone be permitted to treat our sister like a prostitute? ‘” (Gen. 34:31). Jacob’s silence in the face of his sons’ harsh response indicated his acknowledgment that their moral position was, indeed, correct.
This is exactly how Jews should respond to enemies. If only we had more of these kind of Jews. Instead we have so many more of the Thomas Friedman types.
Do Jews speak a different English from Americans? In America, a “stone” is something about an inch across, a “rock” is a few inches across, and anything much more than brick-size is called a “boulder”. What was thrown at the car, to my knowledge, was bigger than a brick — a deadly weapon when so used. Also, I never heard of “militants” killing people until the Moslems started being called that; and I never used to hear issuing building permits called “genocide”. Where did this “New English” come from?