Moral, legal issues with Israel’s terrorist death penalty - opinion

Let’s start with the Talmud’s attitude to the death penalty. As I wrote, the Torah unequivocally states that the proper punishment for murder is the death penalty. The rabbis concluded, however, that the Jewish principle of the sanctity of life had been established. Therefore, it was time to reduce the death penalty even for murderers in order to increase reverence for life.

The rabbis set about restricting the death penalty. They were so thorough, though, that carrying it out became extremely rare – just once in seven years (according to another report, only once in 70 years).

They set it up so that every death penalty had to be approved and executed by the Great Sanhedrin. But if a Sanhedrin actually executed a murderer (once in 7 or 70 years), it became known as a “destructive Sanhedrin.” Two of the greatest rabbinic luminaries, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon, said that if they sat on the Sanhedrin, they would never allow an actual execution (Tractate Makkot 7a).

This clearly rules that murdering a Jew is a more serious crime than murdering a non-Jew, meaning that a Jewish life is worth more than a non-Jewish life.

This is a direct violation of the Torah’s fundamental principle that every human being is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) and that every image of God is to be treated as equal to every other image of God (Sanhedrin 37a). Ben-Gvir’s law is a violation of the image-of-God principle, which is the fundamental principle of the Torah and of the whole tradition (Talmud Yerushalmi, Nedarim ch. 9, h. 4).

He further besmirches Israel by pressuring the police not to arrest or punish fringe settlers who assault Palestinians and attack their homes and property. This immoral violation of human rights and non-Jews’ equality before the law upsets even Israel’s strongest supporters in America.

Finally, Ben-Gvir shows his contempt for non-Jewish lives by standing by the wave of killings in the Arab sector of Israel, which has grown more and more every year under his tenure. This is a national crisis for the democratic state of Israel. Yet he has failed to respond with a comprehensive plan or develop a cooperative strategy with Arab Israeli leaders to fight organized crime.

Nor has he increased police presence in Arab communities, nor recruited more minority police members. He literally violates the law of the Torah that says, “Do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow is being spilled.” (Leviticus 19:16).

Sternberg and Levine try to defend the law by suggesting that it is a desperate last resort to stop hostage taking in order to free terrorists. But the noose pin worn by Ben-Gvir shows that he is celebrating and macho proud that Jews can put enemies to death.

Far from preaching Christian “turn the other cheek” theology, I strongly support Israel’s right to pursue war in self-defense, or to kill those who come to kill us. But this argument is about what you do after the war.

I acknowledge that Hamas takes advantage of our non-death penalty by taking hostages. But the majority of Israelis support freeing captives despite the costs because our reverence for life is our strength. And our soldiers and civilians fight harder knowing that they will never be left behind.

Israel’s moral grandeur was shown to the world in its restriction of the death penalty to one evil monster, the architect of the Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann. Ben-Gvir squandered this moral capital by advocating the use of starvation against Palestinians, by degrading the treatment of terrorist prisoners in prison, and by defending outright abuse of prisoners as in the Sde Teiman episode. He played to his morally immature base by boasting publicly of his prisoner crackdown – even though security officials told him that his comments stimulated Hamas cruelty against the hostages.

Among the Western law-abiding democratic cultures that have been the main support of the State of Israel in its first 77 years, the equality of human beings and equal value of life is a fundamental principle, which they got from Judaism. Therefore, officially treating non-Jews’ lives as unequal is repugnant. Ben-Gvir’s practices and proclamations of inequality have severely damaged Israel’s standing among independents and Democratic voters in America, as well as Zionism’s moral standing among those who favor equality before the law everywhere.

Ben-Gvir (and his fellow traveler, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich) have done more damage to Israel’s standing in the world than our leading enemies. This is the equivalent of chillul Hashem – desecration of God’s name – presenting a view that disgusts people and makes them distance themselves from God. Ben-Gvir’s sayings disgust people and distance them from the Jewish people and the State of Israel. The Talmud says that chillul Hashem is an unforgivable sin.

Footnote: Levine and Sternberg try to undermine my credibility by stating that I actually supported a two-state solution in debating Rabbi Meir Kahane. As a devoted practitioner of Zionism, I uphold its central contention that every nation is entitled to sovereignty and self-presentation. I supported two states at a time when 80% of Israelis supported a two-state solution.

It is a Palestinian tragedy that instead of building a second state, they sought to undermine the Jewish state. Yassir Arafat pursued terrorism behind the scenes. They generated Hamas, a movement pledged to destroy the State of Israel and to kill Jews worldwide. They forfeited the trust of Israelites that, if given a state, they would live in peace.

And, yes, I did say that for the sake of a full, true and lasting peace, I was ready to share Jerusalem by allowing a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem (albeit the Palestinians acknowledged they were ready to accept Abu Dis and a marginal neighborhood as representing Jerusalem, leaving even the bulk of east Jerusalem in Jewish hands.) This is a fulfillment of the Torah/Psalmist’s call that for the sake of life, one should “seek peace and pursue it” (Psalm 34:13-14). It is also a fulfillment of the tradition’s presentation of Jerusalem as the city of peace, where all nations come together.

This is not a naïve position, because the Palestinians would have to convince us and offer concrete, dependable steps to assure that they would keep the peace. The point is to offer your enemy a chance to turn to peace and life. Peace would bring greater security and quality of life to Israel. That the Palestinians failedto seize  the opportunity is their own self-inflicted tragedy.

Kahane’s tragedy is that, frustrated by his political failure in Israel, he became more extremist, more anti-Arab racist, supported the transfer, etc. That betrayal of Jewish values is why principled Likud leaders like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir used to walk out of the Knesset when he would speak and preach his hateful values.