Dem
47
GOP
53
There is little question, at this point, that in some MAGA/Republican circles, the Iran War has taken on the character of a holy war, or a crusade, or some other such religious conflict between "righteous" Christians (and Jews in Israel) and evil infidels. Heck, have you seen the AI-generated video posted by notorious Islamophobe Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN)?
We pointed out last week that Hegseth has also become fond of referencing the Crusades in his sermons to Pentagon staffers. We don't know how Marco Rubio feels about being lumped in with these two fanatics, though.
Last week, we also posed this query, specifically in response to the fact that 62 of 120 members of the Knesset had not only voted to re-instate the death penalty (but only for Palestinians), but that some of those members, like Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, were actually celebrating with champagne:
Beyond being members of different Abrahamic traditions, is there really all that much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir and, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? At best, they embrace extremely violent, grossly corrupted versions of the religions they claim to profess. At worst, they don't really believe at all, and are merely using their religion as a cloak to advance their political agenda.
We invited readers to tell us if we were on the right track with this, or if we were out in left field. And... we got a lot of responses.
As we noted this weekend, there were actually too many responses to do justice to them all in the Sunday mailbag, particularly since we also had all the responses to the Edsall piece. So, we said we'd share some of them during the regular week. Given that the U.S. might be about to launch a "Crusade" that is violent on a scale that Baldwin IV or Richard I could never have dreamed of, it is a particularly opportune time to have made that promise. Let's start with this, from reader S.S.R. in San Jose, CA:
Wow—I can only imagine the responses you're going to get for this inarguably true statement. Along these lines: As an American Jew who grew up in an extremely assimilated family in the 1970s, I understand why a Jewish State needed to be created but have no clue why we thought sticking it in the Middle East would be a good idea. Sure, centuries ago a group of folks believe they were given that land, but "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."
Israel is a fait accompli today, so I don't propose moving it any more than I'd kick everyone off Manhattan island to give it back to the Native Americans who lived there.
I'll be fascinated to see how the comments break for this article.
We weren't sure what the response would be, either. We thought it possible they would break 50/50, or that the majority would be critical, especially given the responses to many of our Israel/Gaza pieces. As it turns out, though, nearly everyone who wrote in agreed with us. In particular, we heard from a sizable number of Jewish readers, so we thought we'd run some of those today:
M.R. in San Diego, CA, writes: Forgive the length, but this is something I feel strongly about.
By their actions, the folks now running Israel are showing themselves to be what we would call in Hebrew a chilul haShem (a "desecration of the Name of God"). Not only are they undermining the democratic character of the country, but they are corroding whatever claim Israel has had to being a state of Jewish values. Indiscriminate killings of civilians; restricting food, clean water, and healthcare; desecration of dead bodies; creating two sets of laws, one for Jews and one for non-Jews—all of these are clear violations of Torah obligations we call mitzvot.
Of course, the far-right proponents of these policies are called "religious." The "grossly corrupted" language you use for their brand of religion is right on the money. One can be exacting in religious ritual (refusing to touch a pen on Shabbat, lest you violate the prohibition of writing, say, or refusing to eat a blueberry because a tiny non-kosher bug may be hiding under its calyx), but also commit profoundly immoral acts. The Hebrew prophets speak at length about those who pray and offer sacrifices but then act corruptly. Isaiah, to cite one of countless examples, derides Israelites who use a fast day to be obsessed with their businesses and oppress their workers.
There was once agreement about the far-right parties in Israel. The followers of Jewish terrorist Meir Kahane were once prohibited from running for Knesset. The Netanyahu government changed all that. To the shame of diaspora Judaism, those of us who raised red flags about the inclusion of terrorist organizations in the coalition were scolded not to dissent; Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich weren't in charge of anything important, the "adults in the room" were setting policy, and the most important thing was to support Israel. All of our worst nightmares are now coming to pass, while too many establishment Jewish organizations in the U.S. look the other way.
Besides the human costs, the tragedy of these developments are the irreparable damage they've done to Jewish morality and identity. Jewish civilization is supposed to be immune to the ugliness of secular power, the fetishization of money, force and guns. Yes, Jews were subject to physical abuse and torture, but we always had the comfort of knowing that we had our insistence that all human beings were divine, our love of the stranger, our passion for justice, all the moral teachings at the core of Torah, what Nietzsche derisively called our "slave morality." Now the Israeli government commits atrocities while Trump's court Jew, Stephen Miller, declares that the "real world" is governed by strength, force, and power, and that "these are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time"—in the process, spitting on the laws of his own Torah. The heartbreak of these awful days is that we are now learning that, for some Jews, there is (as you wrote) "not really all that much difference" between the victims of Inquisition, Crusade, and Cossack and their tormentors.
J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: In the interests of full disclosure, I am Jewish. Furthermore, I am 75 years old, and, for the first time in my life, the recent activities of Israel in the Middle East (Gaza and now Iran), have resulted in me being embarrassed by that country. The October 7, 2023, attack on Israel left most of the world sympathetic to them. It took Israel a matter of days to switch that sympathy to contempt. I have written to the Israeli embassy registering my embarrassment and dissatisfaction and, of course, have received no answer.
While I identify as Jewish, I am not terribly religious and very unconvinced about the existence of a deity. I have tried to follow the Golden Rule in my life but not because I feared offending said deity. I did it because that seemed to be the right way to live my life and the right way to treat other people, even those with whom I disagree.
In my time on this planet, I have observed that the people of the three Abrahamic religions (and probably others) have exhibited an inverse relationship between how religious they are or claim to be and their demonstrated decency as human beings. Ultraorthodox Jews in Israel indiscriminately kill Palestinians in their fields. The more orthodox Muslims carry out atrocities like 9/11. The orthodox Christians frequently act uncharitably to immigrants, even immigrants who are also Christian. It has become clear to me that as a general rule, those who trumpet their adherence to any of these religions the most and the loudest, follow the tenets of those religions the least. They seem to have learned nothing from the principles of the religions to which they claim they adhere. This has led me to believe that these religions do not effectively do what they should for society and what they claim to do. I realize that there are exceptions to this general rule, and I applaud them, but the religions fail to do their job all too often. Hence, their value to society is limited, and they are undeserving of the place they hold and the importance they wish to claim.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: The most stark differences between the beliefs held by the male members* of almost all religious fundamentalist movements is generally found in what they say their G-d (etc.) told them to hit women with, how hard they say He commanded them to hit women with it, and which of the common sins women are wont to commit are valid reasons to go ahead and hit them.
S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, writes: On the day before Passover you requested answers to the question "is there really all that much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir and, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?" While I don't like Itamar Ben-Gvir's politics, I choose to answer in the affirmative.
For starters, let's recall the definition of Godwin's law of Nazi analogies: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." We are headed in that direction when any Israeli trying to defend himself from the continuous threats posed by Israel's neighbors since the Jewish National Homeland declared independence in 1948 is compared to people like the Ayatollahs of Iran.
The Ayatollahs of Iran, and the Khamenei family in particular, have loudly and proudly advertised the fact that they want all Jews out of the Middle East, and that if the Jews don't find homes away from their National Homeland then Iran will, with joyful violence, rectify the problem. And their actions fit their words.
All Israelis I have ever heard of, Ben-Gvir and his allies included, are only asking for an end to the incoming missiles that threaten lives of all Israelis. Stop the missiles and the Israeli leaders will be satisfied. Satisfaction of Arab leaders merely requires "death to the Jews" and the Great Satan that supports them (you and me).
Yes, I see a difference there.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: I was a strong supporter of Israel in the war that Hamas started. You didn't run several of the letters I sent in about it. That was unfortunate because I definitely tore many of the anti-Israel/anti-Jew arguments that others were making to shreds. That was then, this is now.
I have long been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. It is not that I think that there are never cases in which someone deserves it (though I'm not completely sure about that). My absolute objection is that if the death penalty is allowed in any cases, we know that it will be applied very unevenly and unfairly against disfavored minorities. As such, it is not justice, it is just another form of violent oppression.
If Israel's new law authorizing capital punishment only for Palestinians stands... that is beyond the pale. They will have lost me.
We'll have some more thoughts on this subject tomorrow. (Z)