An eye for an eye, and forgiveness
I keep noticing references to “an eye for an eye,” but I’ve also noticed a lot of misunderstanding around the phrase.
It was actually meant not literally but as a corrective to previous much harsher codes of justice. See this. It was not about Hatfield-McCoy vengeance, tit for tat; it was about a legal code and setting the proper compensation – which was NOT in kind. There actually weren’t eyes for eyes as far as the Jews were concerned. And yet the phrase is often contrasted with later legal developments and sometimes with Christianity, the idea being that Christian forgiveness replaced Jewish vengeance. No, it did not, because vengeance is not what “an eye for an eye” was about.
However, it is indeed true that Jewish guidance on forgiveness is somewhat different than Christian ideals. Please see this former post of mine for a discussion, but here’s an excerpt:
I’m not sure when the following distinctions began, but in ancient traditional Judaism there have been at least three different words for forgiveness, only two of which are interpersonal and the last of which (kapparah) is the realm of God only. Of the two human ones, the first is “mekhilah,” required only if the offender has taken steps to correct the wrong: “The principle that mekhilah ought to be granted only if deserved is the core to the Jewish view of forgiveness.” Another Jewish word for (and type of) forgiveness is selikhah, which is basically empathy with the transgressor. In Judiasm, it is considered wrong to withhold forgiveness (mekhilah) if the person has asked for it, shown remorse, and demonstrated the desire to act differently in the future. Short of that, forgiveness is not required, although it is certainly permitted (selikhah). The idea is that mekhilah without the person showing remorse and change just encourages further bad behavior.
Makes sense to me.
Roundup
(1) Here’s an interesting briefing on developments in Gaza.
(2) And here’s a DeSantis speech that’s worth watching.
(3) Erdogan does some saber-rattling.
(4) As predicted, the Democrats go after Mike Johnson. Blah blah blah.
(5) One Israeli hostage freed by the IDF. Good.
(6) The Arabs have given tons of money over the years to the Ivies to set up propagandist Middle East programs. Not a surprise.
Savagery is contagious
Mob violence has been part of human behavior for a long long time, and that hasn’t changed in any fundamental way. Anyone who studies the reality of human history rather than some sanitized or woke version is aware of that. Sacked cities, Indian (native American) raids, the Rwandan genocide, and so often the massacre of Jews, all part of a long sorrowful and savage story. The Nazis were extremely brutal, but because they had been part of modern Western civilization they for the most part tried to keep their brutality somewhat hidden from the German people, because they were afraid that they might protest.
What Palestinians did on October 7 in Israel shocked much of the world, but it inspired many people. I believe that such inspiration was part of the calculation Hamas made before unleashing such barbaric violence: that it would terrify the right people (the non-Left West) and motivate others with the lust for imitation. We saw that latter group rejoice all around the world almost as soon as the violence happened. And since then we have seen mobs screaming for the death of Jews and even going around to airports trying to find some Jews to kill.
As far as I know, there have been no copycat massacres – yet. But don’t be at all surprised if they occur. For example, it is my belief that Hamas wanted the Arab population of Israel, which is two million strong, to rise up in more violence within Israel itself. That hasn’t happened yet and perhaps it won’t; I hope that’s the case, anyway.
Kurt Schlichter has written a related column entitled, “Accept That Savagery Is the True Nature of the World – and Deal With It.” An excerpt:
The true nature of the world is savagery.
The world’s true nature is that good is forever pitted against evil.
That has never changed. What happened over the last 70 years or so was an interregnum of peace in the West, created by violence against barbarians and facilitated by people willfully looking away from the butchery still continuing at the fringes of the map. The West managed to build a civilization that was – for the first time in history since perhaps the Pax Romana – generally internally peaceful. And the West convinced itself that this was normal.
However, those first two sentences contradict each other. The true nature of the world is that savagery is a big part of human nature’s potential, and that peace must be earned and guarded and at times requires war for its defense. But when Schlicter says that good is forever pitted against evil, he is also saying that good is another part of human nature. Societies can emphasize and foster one part at the expense of another. And one of the drawbacks of a long peace is that we forget – especially, our younger generations forget – that savagery is always possible and we sometimes must fight fiercely against it, and that we must be able to tell good from bad. We’ve fallen down on that vital latter ability, as well.
When the October 7 massacre happened, I quickly published a post that quoted Kipling’s The Gods of the Copybook Headings. Kipling himself was quite aware of these harsh truths, and here are two verses of that poem again [emphasis mine]:
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.” …And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
But in addition to the poem itself we should pay attention to the concept of copybook headings, which were maxims schoolchildren used to be taught by making them copy them over and over in penmanship lessons:
A copybook was used to teach penmanship in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries because it was considered an important business skill. A student’s copybook had a different, perfectly handwritten phrase or statement at the top of each blank, lined page–thus, copybook headings. The student was required to copy the heading down through the lines on the page, attempting to reproduce it faithfully.
Inasmuch as moral education and citizenship were features of education at that time, the copybook headings often reflected that focus. Instead of isolated words or random phrases, the copybook headings were more often proverbs or maxims. Kipling included examples in the poem. Every teacher and parent surely expected that, by the time a child had written, “A stitch in time saves nine,” down the entire page, they would have internalized the lesson.
Thus, the “gods” of the copybook headings were the dictates of a culture attempting to live in peace with itself, knowing one of the requisites of educating children was to explain the realities of getting along with others and thinking of more than oneself, whether one had faith or not.
We don’t teach penmanship anymore as far as I know. But that’s the least of it. Our attempts at “moral education and citizenship” are either feeble or counterproductive. And as Kipling knew, that won’t teach us the necessary lesson of how to keep the forces of savagery at bay, or how to recognize and fight them when they do appear.
Open thread 10/30/23
Sharing food: do you care?
Here’s someone who does not enjoy sharing his food at a restaurant:
When I accept an invite to eat out, I’m not cuffing myself to my dinner or lunch or brunch companion(s). I’m simply saying sure, I’ll go to the restaurant, eat with you and enjoy each other’s company. Yet, once seated, I’m routinely asked to share.
Quelle horreur!
To friends, family, and colleagues — past, present, and future — I don’t want to be rude. In fact, assuming that we’ll each order what we’d personally like for ourselves and that we’ll pay for those things on our own is the polite thing to do. On the other hand, putting me in the uncomfortable position of potentially having to say, “No, I don’t want to split the raw ground beef you’ve just referred to as ‘steak tartare’”— well, that may require some self-reflecting on your part.
I am puzzled by this person and his seeming inability to Just Say No.
There is apparently some widely held belief that agreeing to dine out with others comes with the expectation that splitting different things is part of the fun — the experience. Someone tell me where exactly that is written.
For some people, it is fun. But actually there is apparently some widely held belief that a question is a question, and an answer in the negative is perfectly all right.
If someone asks me to share food, it’s a negotiation. Sometimes it’s great, especially when I’m having trouble deciding between two dishes, and each of us orders one of them and we share. But if we don’t agree on whatever it is we might be sharing, I don’t have a moment’s hesitation to say no to the whole idea. I have no problem if the other person says no, and I’ve never known anyone else who gets upset by that, either.
I once knew a man who did not like to share food, even in a Chinese restaurant when dining out with a group at one of those round tables. He announced at the outset that he was ordering a certain dish and would not share it, nor would he take some of anyone else’s dish. It was a bit odd – he sat there and guarded his food, looking around suspiciously as though we were a pack of dogs about to grab it. But it’s not as though anyone stopped being his friend because of it.
I cannot imagine getting bent out of shape about this, and yet apparently some people do.
Roundup
(1) The worse-than-worthless UN is heard from:
A resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which made no mention of Hamas, was overwhelmingly passed by the United Nations General Assembly on Friday, drawing praise from the Islamist terror group and condemnation from Israel.
The UN has been part of the problem for decades.
(2) Robert Card, the Lewiston mass murderer, has been found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. It is not at all unusual for mass shooters to kill themselves, so this was the most likely ending to his rampage. The community endured about two days of uncertainty, though, until he was found – by a dumpster near a recycling plant where he had once worked in Lisbon Falls, Maine.
(3) Denmark is tackling its problem of lack of assimilation of immigrants. The approach sounds both intriguing and very controversial:
Denmark’s new policy mandates integration in low-income neighborhoods inhabited by mostly “non-western” immigrants through reeducation, demolition, and policing.
The goal: a massive social engineering project to dismantle immigrant enclaves and force integration into Danish society. The policy will require young children from these neighborhoods to spend 25 hours a week in preschools to learn the Danish language and values.
In practice, the policy will look an awful lot like gentrification in the US, only driven by the government. Residents of low-income neighborhoods, where at least half the population is of non-Western descent, will be forced to leave their homes, and thousands of apartments will be sold to private investors and demolished. In their wake, housing catering to wealthier residents will be built to incentivize social mixing.
Critics are calling the policy ethnic discrimination and say it is unnecessary in a country where the generous welfare system minimizes income inequality, crime, and poverty. Nevertheless, it has broad support across the political spectrum.
With the welfare state comes more central control of people’s lives. I am actually quite surprised that this intervention has “broad support across the political spectrum,” but I think that desperation is the reason. Something must be done to improve things, and this is the plan Denmark has devised.
(4) Jonathan Turley on the AP’s absurd, offensive, and obscenely amoral refusal to call Hamas terrorists.
(5) John Kirby manages to get something right:
Heroes
I find I can’t look very long at videos in which Hamas’ atrocities are shown or even described in much detail. I’ve seen some, but they are so profoundly disturbing that I’ve turned them off after a short while. And I’m no stranger to descriptions of horrific violence from Holocaust literature or other historic massacres.
I’ve also noticed that the journalists who’ve watched the presentation by the Israeli government of videos from the terrorists’ own cameras have a haunted look on their faces. Even articles such as this one, featuring photos in happier times of some of the young children taken as hostages by Hamas, are nearly unbearable and truly heartbreaking.
And so in this post I have chosen to present a selection of videos that focus on heroes and the people they rescued:
In this one, when the father is talking at around 3:36 and says “I feel like I’m in some sort of … “, I think he means one of those hypothetical ethical dilemmas. Only this one wasn’t hypothetical:
This is a different sort of video. I suppose you might call it a political change story. I think this man’s a hero, too:
Hamas depends on ignorance and lies
Commenter “J.J.” asks some questions of those who blame Israel and support Hamas:
Has the history of Israel since 1948 been erased from these peoples’ minds?
Have they forgotten about Pallywood? Or did they ever know?
Have they forgotten about the amount of aid Gaza receives each year?
Have these people asked why the Hamas government and Palestinians don’t try to build a country that can stand on its own two feet? Or what’s stopping them?
Basically, Hamas and the Palestinians live only to destroy Israel. It’s been their goal since they fled the war in 1948.
The level of ignorance among supporters of Palestine whom I know personally is fairly high. I think sometimes of a acquaintance of mine with whom I was discussing the topic back during the Second Intifada in the first years of this century. I made a reference to the fact that Palestine had been partitioned in 1947 into an Arab part and an Israeli part, and that the Arabs rejected the partition and then declared war on Israel. This person was a few years older than I and highly educated, and yet she knew nothing about it – and I mean that literally. Nothing. She asked me, “What partition? What war?”
I was utterly stunned. I tried to briefly explain, and then I said I’d said her a link to an article about it. I was just too taken aback by the depth of her ignorance. I sent her the link and never heard from her again on the subject. And since that time, in all the conversations I’ve had with friends on Israel and Palestine, I’ve not yet found anyone whom I’d call particularly knowledgeable about it, although I’ve never since encountered anyone with that first friend’s level of ignorance.
I don’t think I have an especially unusual group of acquaintances. As I’ve said many times before, few of them are especially interested in politics, and although they read the news and listen to it they don’t give it a great deal of time and effort. I think they are quite average in that respect. Even now, after the October 7 massacre, when most of them are stunned, shocked, and upset by Hamas’ savagery, when discussing the larger picture they almost all fall back on a “cycle of violence” point of view. Quite a few times I’ve heard “It’s so complicated,” and “It’s hard to figure out what’s true and what’s false,” as well as “It’s been going on for thousands of years.”
Actually, I think all three of those statements are incorrect, and yet I understand why my well-meaning friends say those things because I used to believe them myself long ago when I relied only on the MSM for news. The more I’ve learned, though, the less complicated the situation has seemed. The more I’ve learned, the easier it has been to tell who is telling the truth. Plus, Muslims haven’t even existed for “thousands of years.” and the present issues regarding Palestine only began to arise in the 20th century, after the Ottoman Empire was defeated.
I wonder if any of you have had a similar experience in trying to talk about this to friends and family – what’s their level of knowledge?
I’ll close with this video, which is very brief and shows an interview with a guy from Hamas who’s lying so blatantly it’s astounding. However, here the BBC reporter actually surprises me by challenging him. Note what happens as a result of the challenge. I think the Hamas official was very surprised at getting any pushback from the BBC. And if the murderers hadn’t gleefully made their snuff videos, he probably would have gotten away with the lies, as usual:
Open thread 10/28/23
I continue to be gobsmacked by these routines:
Mike Johnson: so far, so good
So far I like what I see.
I said at the beginning of the McCarthy ouster that there was a chance this would end up with someone better, and if that happened I would be pleased. The risks were high, but at the moment I’m cautiously optimistic about Mike Johnson. Time will tell if he can last in the role.
You know that hospital that supposedly was hit by Israeli fire, but it was actually a Palestinian rocket gone awry?
To refresh your memory, in case it needs refreshing: the hospital was not hit by Israeli fire, it was a Palestinian rocket that malfunctioned. It hit the hospital parking lot and not the hospital. And it killed far fewer people than the 500 alleged by Hamas.
None of that stopped the MSM from taking Hamas’ word for it and running with the story. The Big Lie got more than halfway round the world, and the correction still has not caught up because the MSM doesn’t want it to.
We still don’t know the true number who were killed in the parking lot. We also don’t know their identities. The original and and at least somewhat logical assumption is that they were patients and patients’ families and/or other civilians who had taken refuge there. But we also know that Hamas regularly uses schools and hospitals and mosques as locations to place its underground headquarters and from which to fire its rockets at Israel. In that manner, Hamas uses its own citizens as human shields, hoping to maximize its own civilian casualties in order to be able to accuse Israel and activate virtue-signalers all over the world to support the Hamas cause.
I think “diabolical” is the correct descriptive.
And now we learn that this was almost certainly true of another hospital:
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) provided more proof that Hamas placed its headquarters literally underneath the main hospital:
Moreover, he [IDF Spokesman Daniel Hagari] added, in Al-Shifa specifically, Hamas runs parts of its command and control center in different departments, carrying out rocket attacks against Israel and other terror activities.
“Hamas also has an entrance to its terror tunnels from inside hospital wards,” he said. “From different places inside the hospital, you can enter underground tunnels.
“Right now, terrorists move freely in Al-Shifa hospital,” Hagari continued. “Hundreds [of terrorists] fled to the hospital to hide after the massacre on October 7.
This is extraordinary, and it deepens the lies that have been presented and disseminated so widely. Tunnel entrances within a hospital? Hundreds of terrorists fleeing to this hospital to hide after October 7? It makes me wonder if the same was true of Al-Ahli, the hospital hit by the Palestinian rocket. I don’t think we’ll ever know the figures or the truth.
[ADDENDUM: I had originally confused the name of the hospital whose parking lot was hit by the rocket – Al-Ahli – with the one described as a Hamas headquarters, Al-Shifa. I’ve corrected that now. I wonder how many hospitals in Gaza aren’t built over terrorist tunnels and used as a location from which to fire rockets.]