Showing posts with label Arab-Israeli. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arab-Israeli. Show all posts

Friday, August 8, 2014

Words that Insult, Humiliate, Agitate, or Inspire Togetherness

Introduction: Dear Friends,

I am thinking about the importance of words at this time.  A lot of angry words are being spoken, many motivated by altruistic, passionate concern for the innocent and outrage over the loss of life and the violence. Some have been simply abusive words by ignorant and even drunk individuals. A man screamed “Allah Akbar” at me in the middle of Bankstown.

I write these words with the threat of renewed hostilities in the air. There are very small things I can do to try to prevent the on-going killing in the Middle East. I am doing these quietly. As Joe Wakim of the Arab Council said about another bridge builder, this “role is to prevent this kind of stone throwing, not engage in it”. This is a small meditation regarding words and people of different backgrounds getting along in Australia.

All the very best,

Zalman


An example of the power of positive words.
The wonderful Paul Benett's book that I
launched. A real example of living
with light. 
http://thecrankyguru.net/
We saw a victory this week for collaborative efforts between communities. The Australian government accepted their joint calls against the humiliation of people on the basis of ethnicity or “race”.  

Yet a dark cloud hangs over community harmony in Australia. Yes, there is an elephant in the room that is a matter of life and death.  The burning question is how to stop the killing, violence and the suffering? This is a vital question that I care passionately about. Our tradition teaches that “to kill” is to diminish the “image” of the King, namely God, in whose image ALL humans are created (1). This question must be answered, in certain contexts, not by me in this public context. This is because I sincerely believe I might do more harm than good.  Every blame claim, justification, refutation and counter argument that  I can imagine, has already been shouted endlessly, motivated by a mix of anger, hatred, as well as sincere desires for justice and to protect the innocent.

Here is another question: What will be the impact of all this death and conflict here in Australia, where we Australians of Jewish, Arabic, Muslim, Sunni, Shia, Ukrainian and other backgrounds live?

An old Rabbi was attacked in Perth this week. School children were terrorized in Sydney. Shia Muslims have been copping it for many months, Muslims generally, for years. Less significantly, yesterday, I walked through a state school playground filled with Arabic teenagers. When they saw me, an identifiable Jew, they chanted at me: “Free, free, Palestine”.  A sheikh, who had been working with me and a group of students at the school, walked alongside me to support me as I walked quickly to my car. 

Students in Australia should be encouraged to care about the world they live in and engage with the pursuit of justice.  However, chanting at a Jewish man reflects a generalized hostility to the “Jewish people”, rather than advocacy for aggrieved Palestinians.  I don’t blame the kids. The distinction is not an easy one.  A Muslim who works with me, made the point that what I felt in that playground is very similar to how she feels when people shout out “terrorist” to her. “It has nothing to do with me,” she said.

Perhaps, of equal importance, was the raising of this very painful and difficult topic in our group that has been working together regularly from the beginning of this year. The question about the current situation was raised by a student in one word, “Palestine?” It was a useful conversation to have. At the same time it reflects a growing tendency to talk and think in slogans rather than fully developed ideas with any nuance. A lot of the “dialogue” about Gaza and Israel has been via Facebook and Twitter - images of dead children, other images with captions or slogans. 

I accept that, in some cases, one may insult, provoke, polarize, simplify and ridicule as part of agitating for change. The Biblical prophets resorted to exaggeration, simile and ridicule to argue for change. On the other hand, we need to get along in Australia. If we can’t do it here, where our lives are not under direct threat, how can the people who have lost relatives and their sense of security, not lose hope?! To some extent, hope has been another casualty of this terrible situation. It must be restored.

Words matter. According to the Jewish sages, humiliating another person to the point where the colour drains from his face is equivalent to spilling his blood. I think that is hyperbolic, but reflects the seriousness of the harm caused by denigrating speech, suggesting a psychological death. Perhaps, more to the point, if people with authority engage excessively in denigrating groups, younger people and less educated people will take that as a licence for violence and a signal that they have a right to be “bigots”.

I don’t have a formula for preventing murder, killing or war, but I know that listening from the heart, goodwill and nuanced conversation are part of the answer. Polarization is usually less helpful. We cannot banish darkness by beating it with sticks. We can only overcome it with light. I pray for the preservation of life, dignity, justice and peace. 

1      1) Mechilta 

Friday, December 9, 2011

Appeasement

I hate confrontation.

I have no desire to argue with the airline that left my suitcase in Perth two days ago, now containing stinking spoiled Kosher hotdogs and “off” yoghurt that I bought for a Chabad Rabbi living in Adelaide. Or course, I should pluck up the courage and demand compensation for the damage caused by their incompetence.  It is surely problematic, in the grand scheme of things, to support the fight against the most evil but be too squeamish to fight ourselves[1]. I wonder what our tradition teaches us about appeasement vs. standing up and fighting. Some Jewish teachings for and against appeasement can be found in the case of Jacob’s humble or humiliating approach to his brother Esau[2], twenty years after having tricked their father to give him the blessings originally intended for Esau[3].

The Scene
Jacob had escaped to Haran when Easu’s thoughts turned to murdering him as soon as Isaac died[4]. Despite twenty years passing. Jacob was still afraid of Esau’s anger. He send messengers telling them exactly what to say to my master Esau. He is so keen to flatter Esau’s ego that he models subservience to his messengers[5], to be sure that the posture is absolutely clear to them[6]. By custom the first born was treated almost like a parent, when Jacob repeatedly refers to Esau as “my master” he implies that he completely relinquishes his claims to the right of the first born that Esau had sold him for a pot of lentils[7]. It brings to mind a snide comment about Jewish-Palestinian dialogue, “they accuse, we apologise”. My limited observations and experience of this dialogue is that it is about seeking to understand each others stories and experiences, yet the comment reflects the reluctance to give any ground in pursuit of positive relationships.

One View. “God: Jacob was wrong”
One classic source has God saying to Jacob “you lowered yourself by referring to Esau as my master eight times, by your life!, I will raise up 8 kings among the descendents of Esaue before your children will have any kings[8]. In another source[9]
 God is upset about Jacob’s submissiveness, because “I said the older will serve the younger”[10].  

Long Term Damage of Appeasement or Is that of Assertiveness?
A later commentary sees a sign of things to come in Jacobs’ deference to Esau for what would happen in subsequent generations. We began our own defeat by the Edom/Rome because of the Hasmonean kings seeking a pact with the Romans[11].

While seeking the favour of the Romans might have started our defeat. It was in fact the reckless, extremist, pedantic standing up to
Rome that sealer our fate. One case related to the custom that when a boy was born they would plant a cedar tree and when a girl was born to plant a pine tree, and when they married, the tree was cut down and a canopy made of the branches. One day the daughter of the Emperor was passing when the shaft of her litter broke, so they lopped some branches off a cedar tree and brought it to her. The Jews thereupon fell upon them and beat them[12]. In another case, a sacrifice offering from the emperor was rejected on a technicality. In the end when the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem the guidance of the sage Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai was ignored, instead a desperate and futile battle was fought by tiny Judea against Rome[13].  

Alternative View
The same source that  brings us critical views of Jacob also offers an opposite perspective[14]. Rabbi Judah the President[15], said to his secretary Rabbi Efes, “write a letter from me to the master, the King Antoninus (Pius?[16]). So Efes wrote a letter and signed it from Judah the President to the Master King Antoninus. Rabbi Judah took the letter, read it and tore it up. “Write to the master, King Antoninus from Judah your servant”. Effes replied ,but Rabbi, why are you degrading your honour. Rabbi Judah told him, “how am I better than my grandfather (Jacob) who said so shall you say to my master Esau. Another source also praised Jacob’s humility[17].

The Argument continues in the Aftermath of a Bloodbath
The merits of assertiveness and even aggression vs. appeasement plays out even more dramatically after Jacob’s sons kill the whole city of Shchem in revenge for the rape of their sister Dina. Jacob is concerned about the repercussions of this violence, but his sons assert, “Should they make our sister into a prostitute?![18]”  Jacob is silent in the face of this emotive, battle cry retort. What was he supposed to say, “yes, I think it doesn’t matter that my daughter and your sister was raped”. Only years later at the end of Jacobs life does he curse their anger and show disapproval again about this episode[19].

Conclusion
The wisdom of the ages tells us that there are pitfalls with appeasement, yet there is also great wisdom in it. Neville Chamberlain’s portrait can hang on the walls of all war enthusiasts because of his role in discrediting appeasement. Yet, I would argue that not every trigger happy, evil, despotic nut-job is a Hitler. I guess, I should fight with the airline for my money, but more broadly, careful consideration of the pros and cons of each choice is needed.

“Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven… A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build… a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing... a time to keep and a time to cast away… a time to be silent and a time to speak…A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace[20].


[1] Judah L Magnes, a leading Pacifist during WWI. Wrote to Ghandi in 1939, “ I know I would pray with all my heart for the defeat of the Hitler inhumanity; and am I then to stand aside and let others do the fighting? During the last war I prayed for a peace without defeat or victory. The answer given by Romain Rolland in his little book Par la revolution la paix (1935), seems to be, that while he himself as an individual continues to refuse to bear arms, he will do everything he can to help his side (in this case, Russia) to win the war. That is hardly a satisfying answer.” http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/writings_online/articles/gandhi_jews_palestine.html#Letter from Judah L. Magnes to Gandhi, February 26, 1939
[2] Genesis 32:4-33:15
[3] Genesis 27
[4] Genesis 27:41, Esau either delayed his plan to kill Jacob out of his respect for his father, or perhaps did not want to repeat the mistake of Cain, who still had to split his inheritance despite the murder of Abel because their father had another son Seth. (Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel)
[5] Ramban
[6] Ibn Ezra
[7] Ramban
[8] Beresheet Rabba 75:2
[9] Daat Zekainim Mebaalei Hatosafot
[10] Genesis 25:23
[11] Ramban
[12] Talmud Gittin 57a
[14] Beresheet Rabba 75
[15] often referred to as Rabbi Judah the prince, in Hebrew it is Rabbi Judah Hanasi, probably better translated as president than prince.
[16] “A. Mischcon, Abodah Zara, p.10a Soncino, 1988. Mischcon cites various sources, "SJ Rappaport... is of opinion that our Antoninus is Antoninus Pius." Other opinions cited suggest "Antoninus" was Caracalla, Lucius Verus or Alexander Severus”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoninus_Pius#cite_note-30
[17] Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer parsha 10, 182
[18] Genesis 34
[19] Genesis 49:5
[20] Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Gratitude and Faith and my friend the Palestinian Imam at NSLF


As I write these words, I am sitting in Canberra airport feeling very blessed.  I am reflecting on the fact that I can do better at being grateful. I was talking to a friend a few days earlier who asked if I was traveling these days. I initially said no. Then I casually remembered that the next morning I was flying to Canberra (Australia’s capital) to be a co-keynote speaker with a Palestinian Australian Imam/Sheik Ahmad Abu Ghazaleh at the National Students Leadership Forum[i] dinner.  What a delightful privilege it was to be speaking to spiritually switched on, sincere student leaders grappling with the essential questions of life, values, faith and leadership and their hosts; members of Australia’s parliament.

I talked to them about faith as a choice rather than a by-product of certainty, and of the experiences Ahmad and I had in doing our work together[ii].  I told them my story of being an awkward kid from Brooklyn, who is now privileged to work with profoundly good people in deeply rewarding work. This is on top of the magnificent gift of being surrounded by a loving family. I should “come into His gates with thanks, (into) His courtyard with praises”[iii].

First Fruits and Gratitude
I recited a verse in Hebrew from the Torah about faith and gratitude from our weekly reading about how a farmer must bring his first fruit to Jerusalem[iv] and recite a pre-prepared speech or declaration of gratitude. And you shall come to the kohen (Priest) who will be in those days, and say to him, "I declare this day to the Lord, your God, that I have come to the land which the Lord swore to our forefathers to give us..." The speech then recounts the slavery and “our affliction, our toil, and our oppression” in Egypt, the Exodus and the divine gift of the holy land.  

Enlarge the “Good” we are grateful for
It is instructive that the farmer does not merely thank God for some figs, or grapes. The fruit came from a good land which he sees as a gift from God. The fact that he is not a slave in Egypt suffering oppression and affliction is also somehow rolled into the gratitude relating to the little basket of fruit. There is a temptation to minimize some of the good that is done for us. Perhaps we don’t want to be too indebted. People says things like can you “just do this little thing for me?” The impact of this is to decrease gratitude. Instead we are taught to be like the good guest, and we should maximize the significance of what is done for us[v].

Talking Land with a Palestinian Sheik
As we were preparing our joint speech, Sheik Ahmad expressed some surprise about the way that I planned to talk about the holy land. In his speech he shared some of his own feelings about the holy land that he calls Palestine. He expressed his sadness about the time his son asked him to show him where he comes from on the world map, but there was no Palestine on the map. How to explain this to a child? 

Of course, we both want to see a just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. This does not mean that we have developed a shared position on the politics of it, we have not. Instead it is about listening to each other with respect, empathy and curiosity. This is less than the full agreement that many people on either side want but it enables us to see each other as human beings and work together to ensure that people of many groups including Jews, Muslims and Arabs are viewed as people not political objects. Following the lesson relating to the first fruit, I assert emphatically that is no small thing to be grateful for. 

Contrast with being verbally abused
It helps to consider the possibility of not having something to appreciate what we do have. At the dinner, I contrasted the love and friendship I enjoy with Sheik Ahmad with my experience last week in Lakemba (a part of Sydney with a high Arabic population). Two young Arabic men saw me across the street and asked each other in Arabic, Yahudi? Is that a Jew? Yeah, I am a Yahudi, I shouted to them across the street and waved. Most of what they said in reply is not fit for print. It was rounded off with heil Hitler and included the words Zionist, Palestinian and 1948 among the profanities and abuse.

What were you thinking? My choice
At the conference a young Arabic Muslim man asked the following question. He said he lived in one of the Muslim areas that I described. “What were you thinking when you chose to walk down these streets (looking like I do, a clearly identifiable Jew?)? I explained that in spite of being well aware of all the arguments against trying to bridge the divides between Muslims and others generally and especially with Jews, I choose to focus on the positive I have a choice between focusing on the men who abused me or to focus on people like Sheik Ahmad and many other Muslims and Arabs of good will. I choose to act and think with good faith toward the possibilities of the human family.

Faith as choice rather than certainty
For some, faith in God or religion might be about expressing what they have discovered to be certainly true. For me, faith is more about choosing to prioritize one set of ideas and facts over another. Not everything in my religion resonates for me and fits comfortable with my ideas about how things should be.  There are certainly aspects of the behavior of some adherents of Judaism that make me want to cry out (almost) like the Prophet Jeremiah  “O who would give (make it happen) that I had a guesthouse in the desert, that I might leave my people and go away from them! For they are all adulterers…[vi]!  Yet, in spite of my reservations, I stick by my tradition. Like the choice I make to remain faithful to my work, this is a choice of faith, of being faithful to a path that carries in it great truths, guidance and sanctity alongside the other things I struggle with.

Gratitude to the Enemy?
Some might find it odd for a Jew to be expressing gratitude for a friendship with a Palestinian. Yet in our tradition we find Kind David expressing gratitude toward prince Hanun [vii] a member of the Amonite people who have the distinction of being one of the groups about whom it is written “do not seek their peace or good, forever[viii]”. These were the descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot who was cared for and even rescued by him from the sword and captivity. Instead of returning the favor to Abraham’s descendants these ingrates[ix] “did not greet you with bread and water on the way, when you left Egypt” and passed near their territory.  David’s gratitude is justified creatively; it is only seeking the good of Amon that is a problem, not reciprocating it[x].    

A harsh thought about Gratitude
There is a confronting teaching that failure to appreciate the gifts we are given can result in these being taken away.  The passage about the first fruit follows the one that refers to the attack on the Israelites by Amalek[xi]. This juxtaposition hints at the idea that Amalek’s attack was a consequence of the Israelites being ingrates[xii], with their complaint “why did he bring us up from Egypt to kill us and our children by thirst?!”  There is some poetic justice in the fact that the attackers themselves, the Amalek, who were descendants of Esau were also ingrates.  Because Abraham was told that his children will experience a difficult exile, either the children of Jacob or Esau would have to fulfill the prophecy. With the Israelites suffering Egyptian slavery, Amalek was freed of this burden. God says let the Amalekites who are ingrates and pay back the Israelites who were also Ingrates.

I find this a bit harsh. I would be inclined to think that a compassionate God will forgive me my inadequate gratitude and whingeing. Yet, there is a strong message here about working on developing an attitude of gratitude. I choose to keep faith with the guidance here and put my discomfort on the back burner. This is not to say, I deny the difficult bits. My blog has confronted some of these even when I don’t have a neat resolution but also side-stepped other issue. 

This dual approach plays out in the portion of the first fruit, we talk about our gratitude, we mention the ugly times in Egypt, yet there is a letter Yud (equivalent to the number 10) missing from the word וַיְבִאֵנוּ and he brought us[xiii] to signify the 10 tests Jews challenged God with[xiv]. Not mentioned, but not completely ignored either, just de-emphasised. This, I think, is the challenge of faith and gratitude, with eyes wide open, seeing cups both half empty and half full but choosing to give greater important to the good, the instructive and the promising.  


[iii] Psalms 104:3
[iv] Deuteronomy  26:1-15
[v] Yalkut Meam Loez, Rabbi Yaakov Cooli/Rabbi Yitzchak of Agriso & Rabbi Yitzchak Arguiti
[vi] Jeremiah 9:1
[vii] Chronicles I, 19:1-2… Nahash the king of Ammon died, and his son reigned in his stead. David said, "I shall show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, because his father showed me kindness." And David sent emissaries to comfort him concerning his father, and David's servants came to the land of the children of Ammon, to Hanun to comfort him.
[viii] Deuteronomy  23:4-7
[ix] Ramban
[x] Meam Loez
[xi] Deuteronomy 25:17-19
[xii] Tzemach David, quoted in Yalkut Meam Loez,
[xiii] Deuteronomy  26:9
[xiv] Baal Haturim

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Blood and its uses- killing for ritual retribution or redemption

Two weeks ago Mehdi Mohammed Zeyo (49) blew himself up at the entrance of a Libyan Army base, enabling the rebels to follow and take it over[1]. This is also the time of year Jews start reading the book of Leviticus with all its sacrifices. This got me thinking about ‘blood’ in the Jewish tradition, particularly when it is shed for some purpose or cause, such as retribution or redemption. 

We Jews think of ourselves as people who solve problems with words, rather than the sword[2]. A concern I have is that one of the features of the prejudicial mindset is to have an idealized vision of ones own group along with a negative view of the other[3]. In our case, this can be expressed in the view that Arabs are all or mostly blood thirsty killers but Jews are essentially gentle, non-violent accountants. It is perfectly appropriate for Jews to celebrate our strong emphasis on the sanctity of life, and even to argue for the merits of killing in certain circumstances as long as we don’t adopt a sanitized, “koombayah” view of our tradition, which in many cases does in fact condone or even mandate the killing of both people and animals. 

A Jewish high school girl is upset after an activity at an interfaith program. They were told to look at images and write their gut reactions. A young Muslim man, helping on the day, wrote “brutal killers” about an image of Israeli Soldiers holding big guns and prayer shawls. He said, he thought anyone who killed was brutal. “But they don’t want to kill anyone, they are just protecting us[4]”.

Unpacking both sides of this exchange is beyond the scope of this post. Suffice it to say that while the intention of Israeli soldiers is protecting Israelis, they very likely want to kill when they think they must. For this student the idea that they would ideally want to have their land and safety without resorting to violence, equates to not wanting to kill. If she thinks the same way about Arab violence then her opinions reflect a generous view of people. If she doesn’t, she has a mindset that is conducive to perpetuation of conflict.

Life- an absolute value?
The sources seem to tell a more balanced story. It is not correct that Judaism values life over every other priority. Yes, the murder of Abel is condemned by God's telling Cain, the “Voice of your brothers bloods, are screaming to me from the earth”[5]. On the other hand, it must be said that “Do not kill” is not one of the Ten Commandments. The Hebrew word for killing is Horeg, do not kill would be Lo Taharog לא תהרוג. The actual commandment is Lo Tirtzach, לא תרצח do not murder. Killing is often condoned, eg. when killing in self defence, it states “he has no blood[6]”. 

Shedding blood to address the shedding of blood
Another example is capital punishment. God tells Noah that “one who spills the blood of a man, by man his blood shall be spilled[7]”. It seems to be a way or making things right again, at least in part.

An old man from the inhabitants of Jerusalem told me that in this valley Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard (of Nebuchadnezar) killed 2,110,000 people… He (had) noticed the blood of Zechariah bubbling up warm, and asked what it was. They said: It is the blood of the sacrifices which has been poured there. He had some blood brought, but it was different from the other. He then said to them: If you tell me [the truth], well and good, but if not, I will tear your flesh with combs of iron. They said: What can we say to you? There was a prophet among us who used to reprove us for our irreligion, and we rose up against him and killed him, and for many years his blood has not rested. He said to them: I will appease him. He brought the great Sanhedrin and the small Sanhedrin and killed them over him, but the blood did not cease. He then slaughtered young men and women, but the blood did not cease. He brought school-children and slaughtered them over it, but the blood did not cease. So he said; Zechariah, Zechariah. I have slain the best of them; do you want me to destroy them all? When he said this to him, it stopped[8].

This seems to relate to the idea of the “Redeemer of the blood[9]”. When someone is killed (or murdered), the relatives of the deceased are called the “Redeemer of blood” and it is proper for them to kill the murderer after he is convicted and sentenced[10].

Animal’s blood and its use for atonement
When a man seeks closeness to God, or atonement for sins, the process in the Torah is to bring an animal sacrifice, and the sons of Aaron will bring close the blood, and sprinkle the blood on the altar, around[11]. Judaism contains a range of views about sacrifices, here are a few.

Vicarious
Even today in the lead up to our day of atonement some Jews rotate a live chicken above our heads, (Many Jews use money instead) while we recite this is my atonement, this is my exchange…this chicken will go to death while I go on to good life[12].  This echoes the idea that sacrifices are an “exchange for his soul, and through this he will be saved from the decree that has been decreed about him in heaven…[13]

Educational
There are views that see the sacrifices as serving educative, spiritual or psychological purposes. One argument is that it was just to help the Jews get over sacrifice centred idol worship[14], (A bit like a ritualistic nicotine patch, to deal with animal sacrifice addiction). There is discussion of the unusual sequence of words that introduce the sacrifices. “A man, who will bring close, from amongst you, an offering to God[15]”, this suggests that the sacrifice is really about man sacrificing his inner animal. It can be a violent or aggressive nature like that of a bull, or docile but self centred character like that of a sheep, these need to be brought close to God[16].

The use of blood is explained by pointing out that “the blood is the soul/spirit[17]”, “The blood,… is the visible messenger of the soul, which is also present throughout the body and controls the body but cannot be seen. It is indeed fitting, therefore, that the blood as the visible substance representing the soul, should be used in the offerings to symbolize the elevation and devotion of the soul to G-d, and the soul’s steadfast adherence to Him[18]”.

Mystical
There is a strong mystical tradition about what the offerings achieved. Perhaps linked to the phrase “my offering, my bread[19]” there is an interpretation that “the connection between the divine presence and the Israelite nation was (maintained) through the means of the offerings…just as the thinking soul will be found with the body through food[20]”.

Further clues can be found in other practices that are equated to sacrifices, from prayer[21], repentance[22], humility, and even suffering “afflictions are precious, just as sacrifices reconcile (a person with God), so do afflictions, not only that but in fact afflictions are most precious because sacrifices are with money while afflictions are in the body[23]”.  All of these suggest a deeply moral purpose to the sacrifices[24].

I have more work to do to figure all this out. However, what is clear to me is that there is more to it than it seems. I think this is true of so many things. I object strongly to the racist idea that Arabs simply love death, while Jews simply love life. The fact that an utter creep of a man, a savage murderer who happens to be an Arab and considers himself a Muslim told an interviewer after 9/11: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us”[25] does not make it true for anyone except him and his fellow evil savages. 
In spite of the need to kill animals and even people in particular circumstances, the sanctity of life is a very important principle in Judaism, but it is not an absolute. The notion that life is sacred, is a view that is embraced by people of many faiths and none. Every bereaved mother has a massive hole in her heart, even while many nations honour those who killed and died to protect them. As king Solomon said, “Everything has an appointed season… A time to kill and a time to heal....A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace[26].

(Artwork, a team effort between Nachman and his dad :)

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022805873.html
[2] Midrash on Genesis 27:22 on the voice is the voice of Jacob and the hands are those of Esau, that the way of Jacob and his descendent is to use their voices in prayer, as opposed to Esau who is seen as the one who resorts to the sword. 
[3] In data gathered by Together For Humanity Foundation, we found that students would expressed far more positive views about others as well as slightly more negative views about their own group after they interacted with the “out” group. For example one group of Muslims students who spent 4 days with Jewish students, had the following shifts in attitude. Before the interaction, 68% of responses associated Jews with “Friendly” and “kind and caring”, afterward it was 80%.  In relation to their own group, Muslims. before the interaction,  100% of responses associated Muslims with the “Friendly” and “kind and caring”, afterwards it was 92% and 76% respectively.  
[4] Heard by the Author.
[5] Genesis, 4:10
[6] Exodus 22:1
[7] Genesis 9:6
[8] Talmud Gittin 57b, translation from http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#57b_1, the story has another twist. “Straightway Nebuzaradan felt remorse. He said to himself: If such is the penalty for slaying one soul, what will happen to me who have slain such multitudes? So he fled   , and sent a deed to his house disposing of his effects and became a convert.”
[9] Numbers 35:19
[10] Maimonide, Yad Hachazakah, Book of Nezikin, Laws of a Murderer and protecting souls. 1:2
[11] Leviticus 1:5
[12] Machzor
[13] Rema, Torat HaOla, chapter 1, cited in Torah Shlaima, volume 25, p265
[14] Maimonides, in the guide for the perplexed, this view is hotly contested and mostly rejected based on the great emphasis on sacrifices in the Torah and the fact that sacrifices were offered by Abel before idol worship was an issue (Ramban and others).
[15] Leviticus 1:2
[16] Likutei Torah, Vayikra, Adam Ki Yakriv
[17] Tanchuma 96:14
[18] Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, cited in Rabbi Aharon Tendler, http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbis-notebook/5766/vayikra.html
[19] Numbers 28:2
[20] Kuzari, cited in Kasher  M (1992/5752), Torah Shlaima, volume 25, p265, He argues that “just as we cannot understand the reason for the sustenance of the soul with physical food, yet we see their use, similarly we will now know the reason for the need of divine presence for these offerings, yet we find the attachment of the divine presence with us, through them”.
[21] Talmud Brachot 26a
[22] Vayikra Rabba 87:2
[23] Shocher Tov 94, Torah Shlaima, volume 25, p270
[24] less obvious, but relating to giving is the idea “that filling the throats of priests with wine is like pouring wine on the altar (Talmud Yoma 71)
[26]  Ecclesiastes – 3:1-8