« Fire Chief Threatens To Shut Down Israel’s Largest Bus Company | Main | Video: The "War" Against Purim – The Daily Show Does Dov Hikind »

February 27, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Specter of Communism

I suppose secular Israelis are so much better, all lovey and friendly to the Arab women, huh? I don't see how this disgusting behavior is a religious problem. Somehow I doubt Neturei Karta people would do something like that.

Spetz

The physical and emotional cowardice of those who claim to be Orthodox (any religion) is both legendary and certain to prevent these events from happening on a one-to-one basis.
Only in groups. Why can't I be the one to get picked on? I have no issues defending myself against 20 blood-drinkers

Shmarya

and michael has a certain definition of what is meant by: betzedeq tishpot?
let's hear it. how does it apply to our case?

Posted by: Yosef ben Matitya | February 27, 2013 at 04:45 PM

It means let honest and fair judges decide who is right. Because our pondering and and throwing sevaras around only leads to hate. Either we have people saying that Israelis hate Arabs and that israel is racist, or that Arabs are liars. It's not a good situation and only leads to stereotypes.

b'tzedek tishpot means that one should judge with absolute justice and fairness in all scenarios. It means you cannot judge the outcome of a case before a trial has even started. That's simply not fair to the legal process. Before all of the evidence is in, we have no idea who is guilty or innocent.

Posted by: Michael | February 27, 2013 at 05:17 PM

Again, you’re wrong.

B'tzedek tishpot applies strictly to DAYANIM, judges in the form you cite it.

For the rest of it, b'tzedek tishpot means that all things being equal and no one being threatened by violence or some other rash act, we should view two disputants equally until a verdict is reached by the beit din.

But when things are not equal because there is an issue of toeles, we are told to act as if the party (or parties) toeles applies to as guilty and act properly to protect our property or our lives – or the lives and property of others.

In this case, while many will choose to view the Arab woman as violence-prone (even though the eyewitness testimony does not support this), those people would also have to view the Jewish woman and her helpers as violence-prone and act accordingly until a verdict is reached or the truth is clarified in some other way.

To argue as you do that b'tzedek tishpot prohibits warning others about these people or prohibits publicizing their acts is wrong.

We are not sitting as dayanim over their case and our primary halakhic obligation is to protect ourselves, our families and civil society from erratic violent people.

So we can’t punish these people but we can and we must protect ourselves and wider society from them.

If your aunt was standing across a subway platform from your mother, and she saw a non-Jewish black woman walk up to your mother and punch your mother in the face without warning, would you be arguing that we all have to be fair and treat your mother and the black woman as innocent equals until the black woman’s trial was concluded?

Of course not.

You’d be arguing that the black woman poses a danger to others. You’d be passing out the pictures your aunt took and waring people to look out for the black woman and call police if they see her.

Halakha (and the penal code of the state in which you live) does not allow you to beat the black woman if you see her on the street. It does not allow the police or the courts to treat her as guilty (other than for toeles purposes). So in a state with a three strikes law, if the black woman had a prior conviction and then was arrested and tried for a third crime after the subway platform assault on your mother but before your mother’s case was tried, a judge would not be able to impose the three strikes penalty in the third case, because the black woman is innocent until proved guilty. But he would be allowed to remand the black woman without bail until the conclusion of her subway platform assault trial because the toeles is to protect society from a person who the preponderance of evidence shows is dangerous.

A very similar process is carried out under halakha for the same reason.

And the dayanim who make those pre-trial decisions will also eventually judge the assailant’s case. And when they do, they are commanded to view both parties equally under b'tzedek tishpot. That doesn’t mean ignoring a previous assault conviction of the assailant if she has one, however. It just means that they cannot prejudge the case. They have to hear all the testimony and honestly and carefully evaluate it – even if the pre-trial evidence overwhelmingly points to one party’s guilt, and even if that one party has been locked up in the beit din’s prison for the past two weeks awaiting trial.

Shmarya

You make good points, but they're totally worthless because of your disrespect. Remember, you're the one being immature, childlike, and name-calling here

Posted by: Michael | February 27, 2013 at 03:08 PM


Put into actual English, what you're saying is that I'm correct, but you're upset that I was rude to you.

My response is that YOU were chutzpadik, YOU were wrong, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

And that means you should be admitting that you were wrong and you should be apologizing – but you won't do it, because you're way to arrogant.

Michael

It means let honest and fair judges decide who is right. Because our pondering and and throwing sevaras around only leads to hate. Either we have people saying that Israelis hate Arabs and that israel is racist, or that Arabs are liars. It's not a good situation and only leads to stereotypes.

b'tzedek tishpot means that one should judge with absolute justice and fairness in all scenarios. It means you cannot judge the outcome of a case before a trial has even started. That's simply not fair to the legal process. Before all of the evidence is in, we have no idea who is guilty or innocent.

Yosef ben Matitya

The Torah clearly says in vayikra, btzedek tishpot. Take that to heart.

and michael has a certain definition of what is meant by: betzedeq tishpot?
let's hear it. how does it apply to our case?

Michael

You make good points, but they're totally worthless because of your disrespect. Remember, you're the one being immature, childlike, and name-calling here

jerryny

No arrests have been made in either attack.

Is this a surprise? And they wonder why they are so hated in the region.

Shmarya

Your halachic theories are just that- theories with no basis in reality. You didn't even provide a source! If you want to talk Halacha, go and actually get semicha.

The Torah clearly says in vayikra, btzedek tishpot. Take that to heart.

Posted by: Michael | February 27, 2013 at 02:40 PM


You're a fool, an arrogant child who isn't nearly as educated or smart as he thinks he is.

Look in Sefer Chofetz Chaim. You see the Chofetz Chaim makes my point several times very clearly. The whole concept of toeles is based on it.

You could also look at hilkhot batei din. You'll see that dayanim took accused criminals who they believed to be guilty but who they could not convict because there were not two kosher witnesses (or sometimes, any witnesses) and locked them up in jail. If the accused had been accused of murder, they locked him in a cell without food and water until he died. The logic was that if he was innocent, God would save him. If he's guilty, he'll die 'on his own, by the hand of God. This was done to protect the community from predators.

Think about that. And think about your arrogance, your geivah – and your profound ignorance.

Michael

Your halachic theories are just that- theories with no basis in reality. You didn't even provide a source! If you want to talk Halacha, go and actually get semicha.

The Torah clearly says in vayikra, btzedek tishpot. Take that to heart.

Shmarya

Posted by: Michael | February 27, 2013 at 02:09 PM

You're a child who has no direct knowledge of any of this and your contentions are not only wrong – they're laughable.

Process:

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct that enjoins the courts or the state from treating an accused criminal as guilty.

However, that is not an absolute.

Accused criminals though to be dangers to society, for example, are regularly imprisoned before trial without bail, sometimes for a year or more.

And the construct has no real force of law outside the criminal justice system, so if a neighbor, say, wants to treat an accused criminal who lives next door as guilty, he can do that. In fact, in some cases, he SHOULD do that.

And you don't know this why?

Perhaps because you're too busy being pedantic?

As for halakha, as I noted above, you're wrong there, too.

The Chofetz Chaim notes that people who are suspected of sinning – the term that is the halakhic equivalent to committing a crime – must be viewed as guilty under certain circumstances, even though they have not been convicted.

Now how could that be if these suspected sinners are innocent until proved guilty? Surely you must have an answer? Sure ly you must know!

But you don't.

Go learn,and then come back and apologize.

Michael

For someone as experienced and veteran as you, you do a great job of avoiding discussion of the real issues, and instead resorting to baseless ad hominem attacks.

You made no counter-points and cited no sources except for the insults that came to you at that moment.

Perhaps you should actually try to create interesting and meaningful dialogue here instead of simply demeaning and harassing commenters who disagree.

You have absolutely no sense of decency per your angry insults directed at someone you don't know.

I should add that your knowledge of Halacha is worthless given your terrible track record of hurt and hate. And by the way, I quoted a legitimate halachic concept to back me up- you did not.

Just Curious

I don't really understand how anyone could legitimately impugn Shmarya's (or Ynet's) reporting of this incident.

In neither article did a reporter "pass judgement on suspected criminals"; in fact, both articles responsibly specify that the assault was "alleged".

Also, as Shmarya accurately pointed out, Garnel (based upon the text he quoted in his initial post) seemed to be objecting to opinion offered by an eyewitness quoted in the story, not to an assertion or "judgment" made by either reporter.

The questionable reliability of eyewitnesses in general is entirely irrelevent to whether this story was reported responsibly. The role of the honest journalist is to accurately report the data he gathers (which, obviously, usually includes the testimony of witnesses who are available and willing to be quoted).

Clearly, Shmarya (and Yaron Doron on Ynet) did so.

Surely, anyone is free to disagree with the content of statements made by witnesses (as reported by responsible journalists). But are certain people above trying to imply that simply because human memory is inherently flawed, witnesses' testimoney should not be recorded/reported at all?

Shmarya

Posted by: Michael | February 27, 2013 at 01:07 PM

You have no idea what you're talking about – which isn't surprising because of your age.

Nonetheless, you're wrong.

Perhaps you should wait until, say, you get to college before you tell someone older than you, more experienced than you and more skilled than you that you know better than he does – because you do not.

I should also add that for a person who is in an Orthodox school, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of how halakha deals with these issues, either.

Dov

Do we know what the Arab might have done to provoke the attack? -
-----------------------

Wow. So when a Jew is attacked, do you ask that same question?

Michael

Shmarya, innocent until proven guilty is an incredibly powerful legal concept. It is why everyone has access to a trial if accused of a crime. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. The Arab woman must prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was attacked. Before that happens, please stop jumping to conclusions based on one witness. This is Halacha as well- hamotzi mechaveiro alav hara'ayah.

(The Other) Eli

Orthopinionated:
You're an idiot. These weren't the same Arabs who attack Jews in Paris. These individuals didn't do anything to deserve being beaten, nor does this bring justice to Jews who were beaten by Arabs elsewhere. This just breeds more hatred.

Shmarya

that's simply how moral legal systems work. Innocent until proven guilty.

Perhaps after you spend some time in a university you'll learn that innocent until proved guilty is a legal construct meant for use by the country's legal system.

It is not and never has been a requirement for any citizen to believe an accused criminal is innocent.

In fact, even US law and halakha regular treat accused criminals as guilty before trial.

Accused criminals deemed to be dangerous are regularly jailed under US law, for example, even though they have not yet been convicted.

You of all people should know that, shouldn't you?

Shmarya

But YOU, Shmarya are the one who started name calling, bashing, and escalating the argument. Garnel raised a good point that we shouldn't pass judgement and accuse others based on one witness's statement. That's not moronic, that's simply how moral legal systems work. Innocent until proven guilty.

With your background, for you to disagree here is bizarre.

Posted by: Michael | February 27, 2013 at 11:20 AM


Please.

This is what Garnel wrote: The attack was nationalistically motivated; you don't need to be a genius to see that -

Yes, articles like this are great because they show where cost savings are to be had. Clearly Israel no longer needs courts because reporters can pass judgement on suspected criminals in the field without any delay.
Do we know the other side of the story? Do we know what the Arab might have done to provoke the attack? Do we even care when it's a chance for FM to slag someone?
Again, the Jewish woman walked up to the Arab, who had no idea what was coming, and punched her. The witness said she believes the attack was xenophobic in nature.

That's the witness testimony.

You can argue over the Jewish woman's motivation and intent if you want, but she still approached an older Arab woman who was unsuspecting and hit her in the face.

The law is pretty clear about that type of behavior.

As for Garnel, he's a dishonest person who has trolled here for years.

He's no more concerned with the truth than he is with having a root canal.

Michael

But YOU, Shmarya are the one who started name calling, bashing, and escalating the argument. Garnel raised a good point that we shouldn't pass judgement and accuse others based on one witness's statement. That's not moronic, that's simply how moral legal systems work. Innocent until proven guilty.

With your background, for you to disagree here is bizarre.

Shmarya

…No really, who's the moron?

Posted by: Garnel Ironheart | February 27, 2013 at 09:14 AM


You are.

The eyewitness is a Jewish woman who saw an unprovoked attack against he Arab woman and its aftermath, much of which she captured on film.

So, yeah, YOU are the idiot.

Garnel Ironheart

> You're complaining about a QUOTE from an eyewitness to the attack, idiot.

Sure thing Jabba. A quote from an eye witness. How silly of me. Of course a quote from an eye witness should be enough to condemn the Jews in this case. After all, there were plenty of eye witnesses to the Muhammed Dura case and there were plenty of eye witnesses to the Jenin massacre so yes you're right, eye witness testimony is so pure and sacred and no one would ever lie, would they? So I guess I can accept what happened just like the eye witness said.
No really, who's the moron?

Ben

"Police opened an investigation even though the Arab woman did not file a complaint, and police have not located her"

There is a single eye witness and there is no complaint from the other side. Is it at all possible in your mind the the witness have not seen entire episode? It is happening thousands of times a day that the witness reports are incomplete and unreliable.

Shmarya

> The attack was nationalistically motivated; you don't need to be a genius to see that -

Yes, articles like this are great because they show where cost savings are to be had. Clearly Israel no longer needs courts because reporters can pass judgement on suspected criminals in the field without any delay.
Do we know the other side of the story? Do we know what the Arab might have done to provoke the attack? Do we even care when it's a chance for FM to slag someone?

Posted by: Garnel Ironheart | February 27, 2013 at 07:36 AM


What a moron you are. You're complaining about a QUOTE from an eyewitness to the attack, idiot.

Garnel Ironheart

> The attack was nationalistically motivated; you don't need to be a genius to see that -

Yes, articles like this are great because they show where cost savings are to be had. Clearly Israel no longer needs courts because reporters can pass judgement on suspected criminals in the field without any delay.
Do we know the other side of the story? Do we know what the Arab might have done to provoke the attack? Do we even care when it's a chance for FM to slag someone?

Yosef ben Matitya

orthopinionated

maybe ortho.. doesn't read the papers, or follow the news, being tzniusdik and what not. but we have been doing it shamelessly throughout the conflict. either thru our military or our thugs. just check the numbers of our casualties and that of theirs. I am not complaining, just want to show things in an honest perspective. I am afraid we may end up less gracefully than white SA.

Dov

Is it nice to finally be the one who is whippin' their butt?

---------------------------
Does that mean you think it's cool when Christians whip out butts?

Levi Keller

Posted by: orthopinionated | February 27, 2013 at 06:03 AM

minuvel

orthopinionated

Is it nice to finally be the one who is whippin' their butt?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Failed messiah was established and run in 2004 by Mr. Shmarya (Scott)Rosenberg. The site was acquired by Diversified Holdings, Feb 2016.
.
We thank Mr. Rosenberg for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish Community

.

Comment Rules

  1. No anonymous comments.
  2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.
  3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.
  4. Do not sockpuppet.
  5. Try to argue using facts and logic.
  6. Do not lie.
  7. No name-calling, please.
  8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.
***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Search this site with Google:

6a00d83451b71f69e201b8d1656462970c-250wi

FailedMessiah.com in the Media