Robert Spencer


Pamela Geller


Bat Ye'or


Brigitte Gabriel


Daniel Pipes


Debbie Schlussel


Walid Shoebat


Joe Kaufman


Wafa Sultan


Geert Wilders


The Nuclear Card

Yossi Gurvitz: IDF Colonel-Rabbi Implies Rape is Permitted in War

Posted on 29 March 2012 by Emperor


Rabbi Colonel Eyal Karim

Israeli journalist Yossi Gurvitz describes himself as a former Orthodox Jew who claims to have seen the “light” and turned atheist at the age of 17. We are unfamiliar with his work but received this tip from a reader regarding one of his recent articles.

It is titled, IDF Colonel-rabbi implies: Rape is permitted in war. Colonel Eyal Qarim was questioned, (seemingly while not in uniform) about whether rape is permitted in war, and his answer implied that it was allowed.

Now I am unfamiliar with halacha or Jewish law, but my guess is it is a system as varied and expansive as Sharia’. Most likely you can find any opinion under the sun within halacha and so I am sure many will insist that the opinion proffered by the IDF Rabbi is not the only one, and is not the position of the IDF.

However, looking at the question and answer it exposes a troubling indication that an IDF Colonel Rabbi who was once being considered for the position of Chief Rabbi held the view that “rape is permitted in war.” More over it is not the first time that extremely problematic views have been expressed by influential IDF Rabbis.

It also brings us back to the question, “what if they were Muslim?”  If a prominent Muslim scholar had offered such an opinion one can be assured that it would be all over MEMRI.

Gurvitz omitted the whole question from the reader to the Rabbi, but we provide an approximate translation via. Google for context:

There have been various wars between nations, such as the First World War, for example, different nations fought each other, and no one was particularly good for the Jews or bad for the Jews…

But if they had captured a village and there were Jews and Jewish girls were raped, it is considered, rightly, a disaster and tragedy to the girl and family.

If yes, rape in war is considered a shocker. How, then was I told that a long, beautiful woman is allowed, according to some authorities, even before the process described in the Torah, I mean, surrender and lay with it created, and only then take her home, etc.?

This seems contradictory. After all, if rape is considered a civil war and not something shocking, why, apparently, Jews allowed?

Is it allowed in our days [sic] for an IDF soldier, for example, to rape girls during a fight, or is such a thing forbidden?

Now it’s very clear that the questioner is asking whether or not rape is allowed in war time. This is the answer that Rabbi Qarim gave (translation via. Gorvitz):

“The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations wage among themselves. Since, essentially, a war is not an individual matter, but rather nations wage war as a whole, there are cases in which the personality of the individual is “erased” for the benefit of the whole. And vice versa: sometimes you risk a large unit for the saving of an individual, when it is essential for purposes of morale. One of the important and critical values during war is maintaining the army’s fighting ability […]

As in war the prohibition against risking your life is broken for the benefit of others, so are the prohibitions against immorality and of kashrut. Wine touched by gentiles, consumption of which is prohibited in peacetime, is allowed at war, to maintain the good spirit of the warriors. Consumption of prohibited foods is permitted at war (and some say, even when kosher food is available), to maintain the fitness of the warriors, even though they are prohibited during peacetime. Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot in the original – YZG), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra in the original  -YZG), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.”

Gorvitz comments on this:

Wow. Herein lies a hornet’s nest. The first is that according to Qarim, the rape of female prisoners is not just permitted, it is also essential to war; the success of the whole at war relies on it.


Another problem is that Qarim invokes here the usual apologetics of those who speak of “Jewish morality”: he claims war is a conflict between nations, not individuals, and that the individual has no importance at war. The raped woman is not a woman, is not a person, has no feelings and if she feels pain it is unimportant: she is not a woman or a person, just an individual of an enemy tribe whose misfortune was to be captured. Furthermore, Qarim says that rape during wartime is immoral if carried out by a rival tribe – but all Jewish wars are, by definition, mitzvah wars. If the rape of the defenseless is part and parcel of “Jewish morality,” it’s not hard to reach the conclusion it is inferior to all modern morality systems. It is also worth noting (Hebrew) that “Jewish morality” is a by-product of German blood and iron romanticism.

Yet a third problem is that, essentially, Qarim says there is nothing which may be prohibited in war, if it is done “for the success of the whole.” We know that the killing of armed combatants is permitted (this is, after all, the essence of war), and we now learn that, for His Blessed Name, the rape of women is also permitted. Then we must ask ourselves whether it is also permitted, for the sake of victory, to also kill unarmed people. Children, for instance, who we have good reason to think may seek one day vengeance for the death of their fathers and brothers and the torturing of their mothers and sisters. The notorious book “Torat Ha’Melekh” answered in the affirmative; it would be interesting to know what Qarim thinks, and whether there is anything he thinks a Jewish soldier ought not to do for victory.

But the real problem here is that Eyal Qarim is an IDF colonel (Aluf Mishneh), and is a senior officer in the Military Rabbinate, i.e. is in a senior position in the IDF religious edicts apparatus. I’ve sent the following questions to the IDF Spokesman:

  1. Is the rape of women during wartime agreeable to the IDF Ethics Code?
  2. If not, why does a prominent military rabbi promote it?
  3. If not, does the IDF intend to end the service of Col. Qarim, or bring charges against him?
  4. How does the IDF Spokesman intend to deal with the anticipated damage to its image in the international arena, resulting from Col. Qarim’s ruling?

Frankly, I did not expect an answer, but surprisingly enough an enraged officer from IDF Spokesman New Media Unit called me. His official response was that Qarim was not an officer in active service when he wrote that ruling, and furthermore that my question “disrespects the IDF, the State of Israel and the Jewish religion,” and hence his unit will no longer answer my questions.

I told him that, as an Israeli citizen, I considered Col. Qarim to be a ticking time bomb, which will blow up in the IDF’s face should a soldier rape an enemy woman: it would automatically be seen as official policy. I told him this happened in the past. He vehemently denied it, and wouldn’t listen.

I think that the fact that Qarim was on hiatus at the time – earlier he was the religious officer of a crack unit, Sayeret Matkal (commando unit) – is unimportant. What is important is that the Military Rabbinate chose to re-call an officer who wrote such a ruling to active service. Qarim was briefly considered a candidate for the position of the Chief Military Rabbi. This is the face of the IDF in 2012, and this is the face of the rabbis it chooses to employ. There are certainly more humane rabbis than Qarim; yet somehow these are not the rabbis who are promoted.

30 Comments For This Post

  1. mjasghar Says:

    netenanyahu (sp?) has poisoned Israel.

  2. juju Says:

    When I first read the title, I couldn’t believe my eyes.

  3. Bonkerz Says:


    Seen this? (I don’t really know how old it is.)

  4. MasterQ Says:

    Just another example of the “Savage fighting the civilized Man,” isn’t it?

    p.s. If you don’t know the quote it’s from Ayn Rand, Pamela Geller’s personal hero.

  5. Just Stopping By Says:

    It’s a truly deplorable and unacceptable interpretation of halacha that should be rejected completely.

  6. Ali Says:

    Just say this on Reddit:

  7. SadbutTrue Says:

    “Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the bigot.”

    – Carolyn DiGiambattista

  8. Al Says:

    What evil!

  9. mindy1 Says:

    WTF, men like that make me ashamed to be Jewish :(

  10. BuddhaShrink Says:

    Morals do have a way of going bye bye during war. I think this happens because war itself is immoral. I really do not think that there is any such thing as a “just war.”
    War,like bigotry, racism and sexism, solves nothing and is therefore not a viable option. War, bigotry, racism and sexism are of the past.
    “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
    Martin Luther King Jr.

  11. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    The colonialist Zionist entity’s establishment seems to have quite a number of these hateful “Rabbis” advising their military. They had this thing from back when the Zionists attacked Gaza in 2009

    This “Rabbi” just straight up compared the Palestinians to the “Old Testament” Philistines and said that is how the “IDF” was to fight them today! For a taste of Old Testament “war” (genocide cough cough) see Deuteronomy 7:1-3, Deut. 20:16, 1 Samuel 15:1-3, Joshua 6:21, Numbers 31:17-18, and on could go on listing!

    And then you also have the former Chief Sephardic Rabbi of “Israel” named Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (associated with the right wing Shas party) who made a statement that non-Jews were “donkeys whose only reason for existence is to serve Jews”.

  12. Ahmed Says:

    As the author states, Halacha probably has so many different interpretations, and I am sure there are prominent Rabbis who completely disagree with the view that rape can be permissible during war. And so people rightly do not get all worried that Jews will be committing mass rape if Halacha courts are allowed to operate in a country. The Islamophobes, however, will always take the most fundamentalist and fringe view of a Muslim they can find, and try to pass it off as the mainstream view, thus scaring us all.

  13. Efi Says:

    What Loonwatch is forgetting to mention is that this Q&A took place 9 years ago! This is what Gurvitz, the great Halacha scholar, likes to do – dig stuff like this up and attack Judaism. I guess this is what seeing the “light” is according to Gurvitz.

    “This is the face of the IDF in 2012, and this is the face of the rabbis it chooses to employ.”

    What face is that exactly? The policy of the IDF and the Rabbis who advise the religious soldiers in the IDF is that rape is wrong/forbidden/prohibited (take your pick). everybody knows that. IDF soldiers never raped women during war time. I wish I could say the same about soldiers from western or Arab/Muslim countries but unfortunately I cannot.

    This is a good one:
    Gurvitz writes: “I told him that, as an Israeli citizen, I considered Col. Qarim to be a ticking time bomb, which will blow up in the IDF’s face should a soldier rape an enemy woman: it would automatically be seen as official policy. I told him this happened in the past.”

    So Gurvitz calaims that IDF soldiers raped women in the past yet he doesn’t say where and when. How convenient for him. This liar has no boundaries.

  14. GlobalAtheist Says:

    Since the Bible is not a reliable/true source, it cannot be used to justify wars in how it defines them. Israel does not define whether a war is justified or not, but rather that decision belongs to International law.

  15. Christian-friend Says:

    @GlobalAtheist, you’re saying the bible is not a reliable source to justify wars or not a reliable source at all?

  16. khushboo Says:

    He’s the Anjem Choudhry of Jews. I’m sure most Jews would vehemently disagree with him.

  17. Géji Says:

    Efi Says: “What face is that exactly? The policy of the IDF and the Rabbis who advise the religious soldiers in the IDF is that rape is wrong/forbidden/prohibited (take your pick). everybody knows that. IDF soldiers never raped women during war time. I wish I could say the same about soldiers from western or Arab/Muslim countries but unfortunately I cannot.”

    @Efi, read the article again, it’s not suggesting that the policy of the IDF, or the Rabbis that advise religious Jewish soldiers, are “permitting” to rape women in conflict zones. All it’s saying is that IDF Colonel Rabbi Qarim “interpretation” of Halacha not only “permit” such despicable act, but makes it “essential”, apparently to “win” the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians he’s engaged in, which he sees as being a “mitzvah”, I’m sure there are a lot of Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Qarim “interpretation” on this. — But the fact remain that there’s this disgusting Rabbi that suggested is “essential” for IDF soldiers to rape “gentile” women during “war” time, which is as sadistic, as it is utterly cruel and misogynistic, and the double standard bigots who’re always so quick to jump on Muslim scholars for saying things, blaming Islam and all Muslims for any deeds, are silent on this. So all we’re doing is pointing out to the mere hypocrisy that had it been a Muslim scholar who would have suggested such, the story would had been different, his “interpretation” seen as part and parcel of Islam, which then lots of Muslims had to answered for it. BTW, you yourself are showing some of that hypocrisy when you uttering, quote ~ “IDF soldiers never raped women during war time” ~ to say “never”, is simply disingenuous, and not true. — Then you added, quote: ~ “I wish I could say the same about soldiers from western or Arab/Muslim countries but unfortunately I cannot” ~ — And unfortunately you’re right, you “cannot”, and it would be utterly hypocritical if any Westerner or Arab/Muslim said “never” of their soldiers, as you yourself said of IDF soldiers, as there could be some “soldiers from western or Arab/Muslim countries” who’ve engaged in this despicable act of rape, but that would be them doing so in contrary to either Western or Islamic principals, just like those in IDF who’ve engaged such act, are doing so contrary to Judaism principals.

  18. Just Stopping By Says:

    @Géji: An excellent comment!! Same for Ahmed and khushboo, but this one went into more detail.

  19. Efi Says:


    Eshet Yefat Toar (“a comely woman”)has nothing to do with rape and the Rabbi did not explicitly say IDF soldiers can rape, He was answering the question of how the Torah can permit such an act, and that it falls under the category of things that are normally forbidden that are allowed in wartime because victory is a necessity in wartime which subsumes both individual rights and individual responsibilities. He makes clear, twice, that there are very specific conditions and laws that guide a soldier’s conduct even when he is overcome with desire in the heat of war.

    You probably don’t know this but a “Progressive” professor at a University in Israel wrote a paper a few years ago and said the reason IDF soldiers don’t rape Palestinian women is because the soldiers are supposedly “Racists” and consider Palestinian women to be sub-humans. So for “Progressives”, the Jews can’t win. if they DO rape they are bad and if they DON’T rape they are also bad.

    You wrote: “…apparently to “win” the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians he’s engaged in, which he sees as being a “mitzvah”…”

    First, The Rabbi called the wars of Israel a mitzvah, second, please stop with this lie about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. You obviously have no idea what ethnic cleansing even means. Since the Palestinian population in the west bank and gaza continues to grow at an exponential rate I have no idea where you got this lie from. The Palestinians have one of the highest birth rates in the world. If the Israelis are committing ethnic cleansing, they must be one of the most incompetent people in the world.

  20. khushboo Says:

    The Palestinians have one of the highest birth rates in the world”

    Where did you get that info??

  21. Just Stopping By Says:

    Depending on the source, the Palestinian fertility rate is measured/estimated as 26th out of 195 states and territories, 28th and 64th (Gaza / West Bank) out of 227, or 26th out of 197.

    Since I’m on this thread, @Efi: I agree that the rabbi never explicitly condoned rape in wartime, but the question was pretty explicit and the answer was of the form of “there are times when one must engage in otherwise impermissable actions during wartime.” The rabbi clearly could have, but did not, say that rape is never acceptable. And, wile you are right that the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza has grown trememdously while under Israeli control and thus is not an example of ethnic cleansing, we should be clear that that does not justify the continued occupation or any mistreatment of Palestinians.

  22. Believing Atheist Says:


    Unforunately the Jews just cannot win and show their humanity no matter what they do. A report came out from Hebrew University, which mentions why there is a lack of rape against Palestinians from the IDF soldiers.

    The report stated:

    The abstract of the paper, authored by doctoral candidate Tal Nitzan, notes that the paper shows that “the lack of organized military rape is an alternate way of realizing [particular] political goals.”

    The next sentence delineates the particular goals that are realized in this manner: “In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be seen that the lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences – just as organized military rape would have done.”

    The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers’ eyes.

    After reading this report I was like, man! The Jews just can’t win, when they show their humanity by seldom raping Palestinians they are labeled racists. If they rape, they are seen as monsters. I agree that rapists are monsters but how is not raping people racist?

    I believe this is the right conclusion as one analysist concluded:

    “It is noteworthy,” Lord concludes, “that Palestinian propaganda around the world frequently accuses Israelis of murder and rape. Such that this situation is unique: An army is found blameworthy of rape, and is also blameworthy of not raping.”

    No use in arguing with Anti-Israelis and Anti-Semites. They are fixed in their mindset and always find some excuse to dehumanize Jews.

  23. Believing Atheist Says:

    Palestinians have…

    [snipped: This comment was (1) off topic (2) linked to an anti-Muslim hate site. Ilisha]

  24. Yitzchak Goodman Says:

    The rabbi clearly could have, but did not, say that rape is never acceptable.

    He does write in a later clarification that it is forbidden. His answer is clearly in reference to the Eishes Yefas Toar, which was part of the inquiry. It’s obvious. There is nothing to talk about. Nobody would issue a ruling like that and back it up with an elaborate rationalization and no source (as if everybody agrees that is the halacha and the reasoning just needs to be understood). Eishes Yefas Toar is straight out of the Torah. Gurvitz is a loon.

  25. Géji Says:

    Efi Says: “You probably don’t know this but a “Progressive” professor at a University in Israel wrote a paper a few years ago and said the reason IDF soldiers don’t rape Palestinian women is because the soldiers are supposedly “Racists” and consider Palestinian women to be sub-humans. So for “Progressives”, the Jews can’t win. if they DO rape they are bad and if they DON’T rape they are also bad.”


    The two are not exclusive, one can hold hardcore racist ideology while at the same time in certain circumstances, having no problem with raping the women of the race he deemed “sub-human” and “inferior” to his, precisely to show his “superiority” over in humiliating them further by forcing, his proving to himself he can indeed take as he wishes, and posses as he pleases their women as the master he is, no “permission” needed, not for sexual pleasure, but as a form of punishing the “inferior” further. — It happened throughout history where racist systems were established, take the apartheid era of South Africa for example, where black Africans were deemed as inferior “sub-humans”, but still that did not stopped the racist ideologues from mingling with black women. You can see in South-African population today, that there are percentage of “mixed” blood or “mulattos”, resulting from different circumstances, some from cases of rape of black women by the white men, others from illicit but consensual random sex between the two, and others despite the odds that were against them, resulting from underground stable relations between the two, even in rare cases leading to marriages, and all this happening despite the harsh racist ideology/system in place, where white men viewed native Africans as “sub-humans”, although never enough to stopped them from mingling with their women, nor did the result of doing such changed their despicable racist ideology towards them. Another example would be the European settlers and the invaded indigenous natives. Though the European white men saw the natives as “sub-humans”, it did not stopped them to mingle with native women, with or without consent. We can say the same thing during the slavery era, where the white “masters” viewed black people as “sub-humans”, but did not stopped those “masters” from approaching black women, either by force in case of rape, or otherwise. Now of course, there are those who’s racism and contempt was so great and deeply ingrained as to never be near those whom they deemed “sub-humans”, but there are others who’ve happily combined the two.

    > “First, The Rabbi called the wars of Israel a First, The Rabbi called the wars of Israel a mitzvah”

    I Don’t really understand what you mean by – “The Rabbi called the wars of Israel a First” – “a First”? in/of what? actually you know what, never mind my question, cause whatever you may answer may be nonsensical and gibberish. But anyway, don’t “Mitzvah” means “commandment [from God]“? — So he thinks the Jewish state “wars” are “commandment from God”? fine, I guess many will agree with him on this one, but let’s use a more commonly known expression shall we, they’re “holy wars”, right? So then tell me, are we at liberty, or at least giving permission thus, since those involved are believing in it anyway, to call those IDF soldiers, the “Mitzvahists”? meaning “Jewish holy warriors”? the same way are called those Christian holy warriors “Crusader/ists”, or the same way those crazzzy Muslims claiming they’re “defending” the Muslim community, are called-(wrongly) “Jihad/ists”?. Efi, I’ll admit I haven’t looked up for it yet, but is there in Jewish scriptures a more appropriate word that describes Jewish holy warriors?

    > “second, please stop with this lie about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. You obviously have no idea what ethnic cleansing even means. Since the Palestinian population in the west bank and gaza continues to grow at an exponential rate I have no idea where you got this lie from.”

    My-my-my, again with this Zionist obsessions with Palestinian reproductive capability, it’s staggering, and that since 1948, unhealthy obsession may I add. My dear Efi, again the two are not exclusive, just because Palestinians are having sex resulting in reproduction does not mean that there “isn’t” ethnic cleansing going on, that’s silly thinking, only dare uttered by most crazy extremist Zionists, or those ignorant of the situation, or again those that choose to turn a blind eye. The ethnic cleansing dear, come from the forced push-out evictions and demolitions of their ancient homes, villages, towns, and so on, where they are deemed so inferiors and sub-humans to occupied them any longer, that they must let-go with or without permission, at gun-point, and give-up their ancient homes to make room for those that sees themselves being with no question asked, as the superiorly “Chosen” occupiers, whether based on race/ethnic or religious or both, I don’t know, and call it however you wish, but either way, the standard definition of such “activity” is called -Ethnic Cleansing- with capital E/C. — Thus dear, your bogus apologetic excuses legitimizing such atrocity endured by native Palestinians for decades, do not carry much weight, nor are they new, as they are the same old typically empty excuses of much atrocities deniers, therefore making you the utter liar here dear, either ignorantly, or purposely, but either cases you’re among those blinding themselves to the reality of the situation, maybe knowingly but never to admit, who knows. —- Anyway, the fact that the Jewish state has been said of having a deep-rooted, racist element of apartheid system that is well-engaged in ethnic cleansing, all that being reserved and applied only to the indigenous population of the land, is a fact well known and hold by a lot of the world ordinary citizens, human rights groups, activists, and leaders alike, and is only denied so by those who wants to continue this long, enduring human suffering, to further their agenda full of “ethnic/race” supremacy / fanatic religious fervor. Their “objection” to words that describes elements of the atrocity are just their tactics of denying further in order to continue the status-quo thus desperately trying to silent the condemnations, but be sure that no-one is fooled by it.

    1 – Ethnic Cleansing description: – is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas -

    2 – Apartheid description: – a system of segregation obsessed with mindset superiority practicing separation of people according to race, religion, caste, ect..

    I hope dear Efi, those two descriptions give YOU a better idea of what ethic-cleansing/apartheid “means”.

    > “The Palestinians have one of the highest birth rates in the world.”

    Efi dear, you see, this statement of yours, is in itself so steeped in deep racist Zionist ideology, once again full of contempt for the Palestinian women wombs, that I’ll rather not go further commenting on it for fear of replying wrong, so I’ll leave it at that.

    > “If the Israelis are committing ethnic cleansing, they must be one of the most incompetent people in the world.”

    Efi, in cases like this tragedy, hiding the truth never worked, for anyone, for the simple reason that it is impossible to blind all human beings, some may choose to do so, but not all, in consequence thus truth somehow is always bound to come-out, no matter how much one tries it’s best hide it, and especially in this day and age in 21st century where the world is more interconnected more than ever before in history, it’s quasi impossible to do so, so the only fooled one is none but the fool him/herself, and no other. — Thus, for a growing number of people around the world that are paying close attention to this situation, the Jewish state is not only committing ethnic-cleansing, but in fact a slow genocide as well, and says that had it not been Muslims and non-Muslims alike paying very close attention to Palestinians, and the activists around the world reporting, which are growing in number even in the West where the propaganda machine downplaying the horrific tragedy is most strong, and where bigoted “experts” are giving huge platforms, and where despicable terms such as “both side” describing this insanity are most employed, as if there were “equality” in the atrocity, thus without such, there wouldn’t be “Palestinians” living today of what’s left-(yet) of their ancestral lands. But you’re right, those you’re defending did a very poor job indeed from the get-go, for they did not successfully succeeded of completely getting rid-of the indigenous population, and now that most of world citizens-(and not just Muslims), paying very close attention more than ever before, you can bet they will never succeed.

    Here’s short few paragraphs of the letter Nelson Mandela wrote to Thomas L. Friedman-(columnist New York Times)

    — Dear Thomas …., The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel’s racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a “Jewish” state.

    Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.

    The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and an end to its apartheid policies.

    Thomas, I’m not abandoning Mideast diplomacy. But I’m not going to indulge you the way your supporters do. If you want peace and democracy, I will support you. If you want formal apartheid, we will not support you. If you want to support racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, we will oppose you. When you figure out what you’re about, give me a call. — Nelson Mandela (former President South Africa)


    Dear Efi, many South Africans leaders, who’ve lived under and experienced first hand the atrocity of forced segregation/Apartheid, have explicitly expressed seeing the parallel between what they went through and what Palestinians are going through since 1948, and recognized kinship between the policies of Israel and that of South Africa during the apartheid era. Those include: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Denis Goldberg, former South African Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils, Winnie Mandela, Arun Ghandi, Kgalema Motlanthe, and the body of anti-Apartheid Veteran of South-African Congress. Perhaps most astonishing in recognizing is Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, the then prime minister of Apartheid South-Africa and staunch supporter of the system, who’ve recognized the “natural basis in kinship” between his Apartheid white regime and that of the Zionist regime of the Jewish state. But the list of those from South-Africa-(including Jews) that have outlined and loudly expressed that indeed yes, the Jewish state is an Apartheid state representing similar features to that of past South-Africa when concerning the indigenous population, goes on and on. There are even those South-African Veterans who’ve after visiting Palestinian occupied territories, as a result explicitly expressed that the Palestinian situation as it is today, and their continuously deteriorating situation worsening by the day, are much worse than what they went through, where at least religious fanaticism, and God sanctioned atrocities from the oppressors were not part of their daily struggle, but whereas concerning Palestinians, in addition to the harsh racism they are facing, were much more abundant, at least religion was not part in South African struggle, whereas for Palestinians, it has become the main source and cause for sanctioning the daily horrors done to them. —–

    So Eli, tell me, are they “lying” too, is Nelson Mandela, the most revered leader of the struggle against racism and Apartheid in the world, “a liar” too Efi ????

    P.S, notice that it took a long time for the world to realize, to then rebuke and condemned strongly with One-Voice, and to finally dismantle the atrocity of South-Africa as well, so por-favor, always keep that in mind my dear Efi. —- And I sincerely hope that God help you one-day to open your eyes about this, Bye

  26. Aspie and Atheist Says:

    @Believing Atheist,

    How are jews being dehumanized. And sorry to tell you, but it is a fact that Israeli soldiers and settlers murder Palestinians almost on a daily basis.

    I’d like to ask a question- who are you? Why do you keep defending and justifying Israeli policies?

  27. Aspie and Atheist Says:


    I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  28. Aspie and Atheist Says:

    Words matter: A new language for peace
    Israel’s propaganda machine carefully chooses its words to assert illegal ownership over Jerusalem and Palestine.

    Israel maintains only “administrative control” over Jerusalem – illustrated by the fact that embassies, even the US embassy, are in Tel Aviv – although the government assert they “possess” the city [GALLO/GETTY]
    The words which people use, often unconsciously, can have a critical impact upon the thoughts and attitudes of those who speak and write, as well as those who listen and read. Dangerously misleading terminology remains a major obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

    It is normal practice for parties to a dispute to use terminology which favours them. In this regard, Israel has been spectacularly successful in imposing its terminology not simply on Israeli consciousness and American usage but even on many Arab parties and commentators. It has done so not simply in obvious ways like use of the terms “terrorism”, “security”, “Eretz Israel” or “Judea and Samaria” but also in more subtle ways which have had and continue to have a profound negative impact on perceptions of legal realities and other matters of substance.

    The current initiative by Palestine to upgrade its status at the United Nations from “observer entity” to member state or, temporarily failing that, “observer state” is commonly referred to, by both supporters and opponents of this initiative, as an effort to “achieve statehood” or “recognition of statehood” through the United Nations. It is nothing of the sort.

    The State of Palestine already exists in accordance with the relevant principles of international law. It meets all the conditions for sovereign statehood set forth in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, and more than two-thirds of the 193 member states of the United Nations, including 16 of the world’s 20 most populous states, now recognise the State of Palestine as a sovereign state.

    The State of Palestine has simply been under the occupation of another state for more than 44 years, as Kuwait was, without ceasing to exist, for seven months two decades ago.

    ‘Ending the occupation’

    Palestine’s UN initiative seeks to level the legal and diplomatic playing field and, thereby, to enhance the chances of finally negotiating an end to the occupation. The issue and objective are not “achieving statehood” or recognition thereof, which can only be accorded individually by other states, but “ending the occupation”. With the expiration on January 26 of a three-month diplomatic “freeze” consented at the request of the Quartet, this last-chance effort to save a “two-state solution”, if it can be saved, should resume soon.

    In this context, journalists who refer to all or parts of occupied Palestine as “lands which the Palestinians want for their future state” are, consciously or unconsciously, siding with the mostly Western minority which views Palestine as an aspiration rather than as a state under occupation. More shockingly, even some high Palestinian officials still refer thoughtlessly to “our future state”. Both under international law and in the eyes of most of the world’s other states, Palestine is not a “future state” but an existing state under occupation by another state.

    “Israel can no more ‘cede’ title to occupied Palestinian lands than a squatter can cede title to an apartment which he has illegally occupied.”

    Commentators on all sides speak of Israel’s “ceding” territory occupied in 1967 to the Palestinians. The word suggests a transfer of land by its legitimate owner. Unless there are reciprocal exchanges of territory in a final peace agreement, the issue of Israel’s “ceding” territory to Palestine does not arise. Israel can withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory, but to “cede” property one must first possess legal title to it.

    Israel can no more cede title to occupied Palestinian lands than a squatter can cede title to an apartment which he has illegally occupied. In reality, it is Israel which continues to insist that Palestine cede to Israel indisputably Palestinian lands forming part of the meager 22 per cent remnant of historical Palestine which Israel did not conquer until 1967.

    There is also much talk of “concessions” – “painful”, “far-reaching” or otherwise – being demanded from Israel. The word suggests the surrender of some legitimate right or position. In fact, while Israel demands numerous concessions from Palestine, Palestine is not seeking any concessions from Israel. What it has long insisted upon is “compliance” – compliance with agreements already signed, compliance with international law and compliance with relevant United Nations resolutions – nothing more and nothing less.

    No “concessions”, only “compliance”

    Compliance is not a concession. It is an obligation, both legally and morally, and it is essential if peace is ever to be achieved.

    The Palestinian territories conquered by Israel in 1967 are still frequently referred to as “disputed”. They are not. They are “occupied” – and illegally so, since the status of “perpetual belligerent occupation” which Israel has been seeking to impose since 1967 does not exist in international law. While sovereignty over expanded East Jerusalem, which Israel has formally annexed, is explicitly contested, no other state has recognised Israel’s sovereignty claim and Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the rest of the West Bank is, in both literal and legal senses, uncontested.

    Israel has never even purported to annex these territories, knowing that doing so would raise awkward questions about the rights (or lack of them) of the indigenous population living there. Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank in favour of the Palestinians in July 1988. While Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for 19 years, it never asserted sovereignty over it.

    “Israelis have come to believe that Israel currently possesses sovereignty over Jerusalem. It does not. It possesses only administrative control.”

    Since November 15, 1988, when Palestinian independence and statehood were formally proclaimed, the only state asserting sovereignty over those portions of historical Palestine which Israel occupied in 1967 (aside from expanded East Jerusalem) has been the State of Palestine.

    Misleading language has been particularly destructive with respect to Jerusalem. For years, Israeli politicians have repeated like a mantra that “Jerusalem must remain united under Israeli sovereignty”. Understandably, Israelis have come to believe that Israel currently possesses sovereignty over Jerusalem. It does not. It possesses only administrative control. While a country can acquire administrative control by force of arms, it can acquire sovereignty (the state-level equivalent of title or ownership) only with the consent of the international community.

    Israel does not “possess” Jerusalem

    The position of the international community regarding Jerusalem, which the 1947 UN partition plan envisioned as an internationally administered city legally separate from the two contemplated states, is clear and categorical: Israel is in belligerent occupation of East Jerusalem and has only de facto authority over West Jerusalem.

    The refusal of the international community (even including the United States) to recognise West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, evidenced by the maintenance of all embassies accredited to Israel in Tel Aviv, vividly demonstrates the refusal of the international community, pending an agreed solution to the status of Jerusalem, to concede that any part of the city is Israel’s sovereign territory.

    There can be no question of Israel relinquishing or transferring sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem for the simple reason that Israel currently possesses no such sovereignty. Indeed, the only ways that Israel might ever acquire sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem are by agreeing with Palestine on a fair basis for either sharing or dividing sovereignty over the city (or doing a bit of both) which is recognised as fair and accepted by the international community or by agreeing with the Palestinians to transform all of historical Palestine into a single, fully democratic state with equal rights for all who live there, in which case the Jerusalem conundrum, as well as most of the other perennial roadblocks to peace intrinsic to any potential “two-state solution”, would cease to pose any problem.

    This legal reality is of fundamental intellectual and psychological importance for Israeli public opinion. There is a world of difference for an Israeli leader between being perceived as the person who achieved Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem for the first time in 2,000 years and being perceived as the person who relinquished some measure of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem. It could be a life-or-death distinction.

    “Justice” in the peace process

    One word which has been too rarely used in connection with the “peace process” (and which should be invoked more often) is “justice”. For obvious reasons, it is never used by Israeli or American politicians as a component of the “peace” which they envision. Yet a true and lasting “peace”, as opposed to a mere temporary cessation of hostilities, is inconceivable unless some measure of justice is both achieved and perceived, by both sides, to have been achieved.

    It is high time for all involved to recognise and speak clearly about these fundamental realities. The clarity of thought necessary to achieve either a decent two-state solution or a democratic one-state solution would be greatly enhanced by clarity of language, by taking care to use terminology which both reflects reality and facilitates, rather than hinders, the achievement of both peace and some measure of justice.

    Source: Aljazeera English News

  29. Believing Atheist Says:


  30. Believing Atheist Says:

    One more thing I wish to say is that this Rabbi has a messed up view of halakah.

    Rabbi S. Yisraeli stated that international conventions on what is permitted and forbidden in war are halakhically valid. Rape is forbidden by Geneva Convention. Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits wartime rape and enforced prostitution. These prohibitions were reinforced by the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions


    Btw, I think you misunderstand my views. I do not justify all of Israel’s actions. I for instance, oppose the occupation, oppose the blockade, oppose settlements, etc

    However, I just wanted to make it clear that the IDF seldom rapes Palestinians as the report states and this Rabbi is just a loon/extremist for implying what he implied.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here
Advertise Here