Thoughts on Va'etchanan - by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

[muman613]

Shalom,

I think this article which is posted at IsraelNationalNews is very pertinent to us today.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8175

Va'etchanan: The Chosen People
12 Av 5768, 13 August 08 02:16
by Rabbi Dr. Shlomo Riskin
(IsraelNN.com)
"You are a holy nation to the Lord your G-d... a treasured nation from amongst all the nations.... It was not because you were more numerous than all the nations... that G-d chose you since you are the smallest of all nations. It is rather because G-d loves you and because of His keeping of the oath which He swore to your ancestors...." (Deuteronomy 7:6-8)

What is the real meaning of the "election" of Israel? It cannot be because we are better than all other nations; to dispel that notion one need only turn again to the prophetic sections we've been reading these past three Sabbaths from Jeremiah and Isaiah, railing and thundering against the Israelites because of their immorality and hypocrisy.

Nor is it because the nation of Israel was a paragon of virtue in the early days of its formation. On the contrary, during the early chapters of Deuteronomy Moses actually recounts the backsliding of our people from the wanton worship of the Golden Calf just forty days after the Revelation at Sinai, to all of the petty complaints and serious rebellions against Moses (and G-d!) throughout the Book of Numbers. G-d could not possibly have been under any illusions about the superior moral quality of this family-nation that He had "chosen."

Were we then elected because we were "the least among nations," the fewest in number and the weakest in power, as the above quoted text would suggest? Is that a reason for being chosen? What is the source of this "love" for us of which our Bible speaks? Can it be that the Creator of the Universe fell prey to a totally arbitrary and irrational love, which is the Achilles' heel, the tragic undoing, of so many of His mortal creatures, when love is merely an expression of emotion to the total exclusion of logic?

Furthermore, why refer to this particular Sabbath as Shabbat Nahamu, the Sabbath of comfort? Historically, the Israelites continued to fast in memory of the destruction of the First Temple throughout the period of the rebuilt Second Temple and renewed Jewish sovereignty in Jerusalem. We know this from a variety of sources, including Zechariah 7, from Josephus, the Second Commonwealth historian, as well as from the legalist-philosopher Maimonides (Interpretations of the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 18). After all, even our miraculous survival and subsequent rebuilding cannot begin to remove the pain of the righteous adults and innocent children who lost their lives in the period of destruction, or erase the force of the agonizing question: Eicha?

Can our generation's remarkable return to our promised homeland provide any kind of reasonable response to the piercing question mark which arises from the smoke-stacks of Auschwitz and Buchenwald? So, whence comes our comfort?

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, in his masterful work Faith After the Holocaust, cites a bold and startling passage of the Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 69b) which sheds light on this issue:

"Said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi [a survivor of the Second Temple devastation]: Why was our judicial synod called the Men of the Great Assembly? Because they restored the [Divine] crown to its pristine glory. Moses came and countered, 'the great, powerful and awesome G-d' (Deuteronomy 10), Jeremiah came and declared, 'The Gentiles have undermined the infrastructure of His Temple; where is His awesomeness?' And he [Jeremiah] deleted [the word] awesome [from G-d's praises in the Amidah]. Daniel came and cried out, 'The Gentiles are subjugating His children; where is His power?' And he [Daniel] deleted [the word] powerful [from G-d's praises in the Amidah]. They [the Men of the Great Assembly, who formulated our prayers] came and restored, saying, 'The very opposite is the truth! Herein lies the power behind G-d's power: that He conquers His instinct [to set evil off at the pass before it wreaks its damage] and has patience for the wicked [to wait for them to repent and repair the world]. And herein lies His awesomeness: were it not for the awesomeness of the Holy One Blessed be He, how could one [paltry] nation withstand and survive the [powerful] nations roundabout?'"

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's message is indubitably clear. G-d has created an imperfect world of freedom of choice, a seemingly absurd and lawless world in which individuals will do even that which the Almighty would not want them to do (the Kabbalistic notion of tzimtzum, the willful "contraction" of the goodness and justice of the Creator of the Universe, as it were, in order to leave room for a world of free choice). As the prophet Isaiah (45:7) declares, "Creator of light and Maker of darkness, Doer of peace and Maker of evil, I am the Lord, the Doer of all these things." G-d has confidence - and even guarantees - that eventually the wicked will repent, that human beings will eventually succeed in repairing and perfecting this world in the Kingship of the Divine, that there will eventually be a messianic period of world peace and well-being (Isaiah 2, Micah 4, Zechariah 7-9). Hence, G-d allows the world to proceed in accordance "with its customary way," without preventing stolen seed from taking root in the ground, or withering the hand uplifted to smite an innocent human.

"There is not reward for commandments in this world," only in the other, eternal world of souls and spirituality will there be proper rewards for deeds well done (Babylonian Talmud, Kidushin 39).

Israel plays a pivotal role in this drama. We are G-d's "holy nation and priest-teachers" to the world (S'forno, ad loc), the descendants of Abraham who chose G-d before G-d chose him (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, "Laws of Idolatry" 1:1-3), guaranteed by G-d of eternal progeny who would eventually live in the Land of Israel and teach ethical monotheism to the entire world (Genesis 12:1-3).

Those who opposed ethical monotheism, relying on might rather than right, brute violent power rather than love and morality, have all too often ruled the world - from Pharaoh, the totalitarian despot of Egypt, to the Nazi Hitler to radical Wahabi Islam. The very survival of Israel, our miraculous ability to remain alive despite Egyptian enslavement and Holocaust conflagration, with horrific exiles and persecutions in between (regardless of the fact that we are the most paltry in number and the weakest in power of all nations of the world; indeed, for almost 2,000 years we were completely stateless and army-less) makes us G-d's witnesses, adat HaShem, testifying that G-d is indeed a G-d of love and morality, a G-d of right over might, a G-d of morality over brute force.

This is G-d's power, this is G-d's awesomeness, and this is the source of our great comfort: G-d chose you "since you are the smallest (weakest) of all nations, because G-d loves you" - not because you are perfect, but because you are morally better than your enemies; and because your very survival testifies to the existence and eventual triumph of a G-d of justice, morality and peace.

http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com

[/size]

This article relates an idea I was discussing with a good friend the other day.

[DownwithIslam]

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin is not exactly a rabbi worth quoting. This individual said that he is ok with land surrenders as long as he himself does not loose his home. That means that all he cares about is himself. He is a rabbi like I am an Imam.

[muman613]

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin is not exactly a rabbi worth quoting. This individual said that he is ok with land surrenders as long as he himself does not loose his home. That means that all he cares about is himself. He is a rabbi like I am an Imam.

Hello,

I do not see that sentiment in this article. It seems that the Rabbi is very concerned with the land of Israel. Maybe I havent read the article you are referring to. In general I agree with all the Rabbis who have written for IsraelNationalNews.

I object to your belittling a Rabbi in this fashion. Rabbi Riskin has smichut {ordination} by Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik. He is the city Rabbi for Efrat, Israel and  is Rosh Yeshiva for Ohr Torah.

From looking at his quotes he is very Zionistic and a strong supporter of Israel.

    * "Judaism is an optimistic religion, and we believe the Jews are a light unto the nations. If we speak of truth and peace, peace must be predicated on truth... The Bible has three covenants:

   1. Abraham established the Jews as a people with an eternal relationship between the land and the people which equals a divine promise (Genesis 15).
   2. In Sinai Judaism was established as a religion with 613 commandments - thus the Jews are a holy nation (Exodus 20).
   3. In Shechem (Nablus) when the Jews first entered the Land of Israel with Joshua, a covenant of responsibility was established, making Jerusalem the city of this third covenant (Deuteronomy 26/27)."

    * "G-d’s message is of absolute peace. Thou shall not murder, and this should be the Jews' message. The Jews must obliterate the following lies:

   1. 'We are occupiers'. Wrong! "Settlers" in Hebrew means "inheritors". At the conclusion of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles provided for establishing eighteen Arab and one Jewish state in the Middle East. From 1918 to 1949, twenty-two Arab states were established. In 1948 Israel was established on 20% of the mandate territory, and the refugee problem began. From 1948 to 1967, Israel won land that was to have been the Jews' by treaty and by right.

   2. 'Suicide bombers are freedom fighters'. Wrong! They are not, they are murderers. After Oslo Israel pulled out of Palestinian Arab areas, which led to Arab violence, and showed us what they really were and what they really wanted. Israel's destruction is their goal. We must show them they can't get away with aggression. Islamic fundamentalism has turned 'G-d' into 'Satan'. Only those with a vision of peace have a right to a state."

If you wish to disrespect the Rabbis then please at least provide a link which proves your Lashon Hara.

Thank you,
muman613

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Riskin
http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/rabi1.htm
http://www.ou.org/torah/riskin/yomkippur58.htm

PS: He did make a mistake by defending President Clintons pardon of Marc Rich. That is very questionable in my book. Apparently he was friends with Marc Rich {who is Jewish}.

 
It appears he is on the list of To Far Right Rabbis on a San Francisco Jewish site.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/1699/edition_id/26/format/html/displaystory.html
Well, not quite. As those who follow the unfolding story of settler civil disobedience in Israel know, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin has become one of the noisier chauvinist protesters. In his early years as rabbi of Efrat, a village between Bethlehem and Hebron -- meaning, of course, a village in the West Bank -- Riskin saw himself as a moderate, reaching out in kindness to Efrat's Arab neighbors. But now that there's momentum to the prospect of a "redeployment" of Israel's troops, and the area where Efrat is situated seems likely to be included in a Palestinian state, it's no more Mr. Nice Guy for Riskin.

I haven't spoken to Riskin in some years. I imagine, were I to refer him to his own Passover Haggadah language, he'd focus on the "life-cycle" to which he alludes, and assert that this is a time for chauvinism. And perhaps, notwithstanding his emphatic view that Prime Minister Rabin is a "radical," he'd assert that with regret, just as he seemed to regret his inability to regard the bag ladies just outside his New York synagogue as "his" bag ladies.

But lest we be seduced by the evidence of Riskin's internal conflict, concluding that he's surely no wild-eyed extremist, that he is a settler with soul, we should bear in mind that the issue here (as Riskin himself would surely agree) is not the soulfulness of the actor but the wisdom of the action. The "but he's such a nice person, so sensitive" argument is relevant only to the sorrow with which the observer must view the rabbi's actions.

The rabbi's civil disobedience is not the issue, not at all. It's jarring to encounter civil disobedience in Israel. But all of us who celebrate a free society, all of us who applauded civil disobedience when it happened here on behalf of civil rights, must not only accept that "it can happen there," but that the fact of its happening is a healthy development.

No, it's not Riskin's civil disobedience that saddens, and angers. It is, instead, the absolutism that informs it. Extremism in defense of virtue may not be a vice, but it is not a virtue to prefer land to peace, and that is what the Riskin position -- shared, alas, by many others -- comes down to.

Riskin is fond of calling attention to the vacuity of Israel's secular culture, and he's not entirely wrong in so doing, even though his exaggerations are, at best, unbecoming. The alternative he proposes is not vacuous; it is ominous. For when he says, as he does in the August issue of Moment, that the 1947 United Nations decision in favor of an independent Jewish state is essentially irrelevant, that the Jewish claim to Israel comes from "our Bible and history," he treads on exceedingly dangerous ground. In the context of international affairs, that is an extremist's claim; if the issue between Israel and its neighbors comes down to one people's bible against another's, then the end is inevitably about which people has the power to enforce its bible.

Riskin says, and means, that Israel's destiny is not to be a nation like all other nations, a "normal" nation, but to be a light unto the nations, a "holy" nation. The tension between normalcy and holiness is a healthy tension, but whatever we may mean by "holiness," it is entirely an internal affair; it is not to be dragged into our relations with others. To drag it in, to act on the conviction that we are holier than they, means to will for a Bosnian denouement. And, in any case, it is not holding on to Hebron -- or Efrat -- that will make us holy. Holiness is, among other things, about peacemaking; it is not, not ever, about acreage.

Rabbi Riskin Ripping Abbas a New one

http://www.ourjerusalem.com/documents/story/quotables20010913.html
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin of Efrat, speaking from Manhattan: “Yesterday morning, I was sitting in a NY office, explaining that the evils of this century - first Nazi fascism, then Stalinist Communism - began against the Jews, and then continued against the rest of the world. I had just said that the third scourge of the century is Islamic fundamentalism - which today is against Israel and tomorrow will be against the entire free world - and then, as if on queue, someone opened the door and told us about the explosions in the World Trade Center, and then a few minutes later about the Pentagon, and that was the end of our meeting… There is a tremendous sense of American vulnerability. Americans, and the Jews here as well, have always thought of the U.S. as being invulnerable. Just as the shofar is a wake-up call, this was too - and to the American government as well. I don’t think that we’ll hear anymore about even-handedness or [Israel’s] overreacting and the like; I think that this will wake everyone up to realize that we must destroy terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head, whatever it takes to do so - otherwise the world will be overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, by the core of the most evil thing imaginable.

[Muck DeFuslims]

Riskin might appear on a list of 'too far right Rabbis compiled by a San Francisco Jewish site, so what ??  Those morons operate under the assumption that surrendering land will bring peace.

As far as this quote (regarding 9/11) goes: "Just as the shofar is a wake-up call, this was too - and to the American government as well. I don’t think that we’ll hear anymore about even-handedness or [Israel’s] overreacting and the like; I think that this will wake everyone up to realize that we must destroy terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head, whatever it takes to do so - otherwise the world will be overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, by the core of the most evil thing imaginable"...Well, Riskin has definitely been proven wrong about "not hearing about even-handedness or Israel overreacting". Totally wrong.

Here's something else Riskin is wrong about: Riskin says "Only those (referring to 'Palestinian' Arabs) with a vision of peace have a right to a state."

Sorry Rabbi, even peaceful Arabs dont have a right to a state on Jewish land. With all due respect, Riskin is wrong again.

[muman613]

Riskin might appear on a list of 'too far right Rabbis compiled by a San Francisco Jewish site, so what ??  Those morons operate under the assumption that surrendering land will bring peace.

As far as this quote (regarding 9/11) goes: "Just as the shofar is a wake-up call, this was too - and to the American government as well. I don’t think that we’ll hear anymore about even-handedness or [Israel’s] overreacting and the like; I think that this will wake everyone up to realize that we must destroy terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head, whatever it takes to do so - otherwise the world will be overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, by the core of the most evil thing imaginable"...Well, Riskin has definitely been proven wrong about "not hearing about even-handedness or Israel overreacting". Totally wrong.

Here's something else Riskin is wrong about: Riskin says "Only those (referring to 'Palestinian' Arabs) with a vision of peace have a right to a state."

Sorry Rabbi, even peaceful Arabs dont have a right to a state on Jewish land. With all due respect, Riskin is wrong again.

The quote about 9/11 was made the day after the Terrorists attacked. I also thought that this would be a wake-up call to America, but apparently losing my brother was not enough. America has a short memory and it is very sad. But I agree with this Rabbi on many points.

Also the quote about the Phalistinkians is not offensive to me. If there are peaceful Arabs then I think they should have a state of their own, but not on Jewish land. I dont know the context of the quote you are making.

I dont want to quarrel with you on this topic. I just ran across his articles on IsraelNationalNew. But I get tired of so many people disparaging Rabbis simply because they dont fully agree with their approach.

All I ask is for some respect for a rabbi who received Shmicha from a knowledgeable Rav.

muman613

PS: According to this Orthodox Ex-Israeli Rabbi Riskin is far to the right of Kahane.

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/04/shlomo-riskin-bad-moral-luck.html
Well, it is not exactly the bad moral luck of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Rabbi of the West Bank settlement of Efrat, to be deeply implicated in the immorality of the settlement enterprise. After all, he chose to leave the United States to lead Efrat – arguably one of the most harmful, and certainly the most hypocritical, of the West Bank settlements. (See my "There are no kosher settlements.") Still, had Rabbi Riskin stayed in the United States, he may have had a pretty decent career as a liberal orthodox rabbi. Riskin was never an intellectual or for that matter, much of a talmid hakham. But he was very good at presenting a liberal version of traditional Judaism back in the late sixties and early seventies, and he was a bridge-builder between various communities, Jewish and non-Jewish, in New York.

But seduced by the dark side of religious Zionism, and driven by the dream of empire-building on cheap land, he emigrated to Israel and founded (with Moshe Moshkowitz) the town of Efrat, a sprawling settlement built entirely on Palestinian private and public land that never ceases to expand into, and pollute, the surrounding region. Through this his life-project, Riskin has caused more tragedy and pain to more Palestinians than any other rabbi of modern times, certainly more than Meir Kahane and his ilk.

PS: Sounds like our kind of guy, wouldnt you say?

[TorahZionist]

http://www.mizrachi.org/ideas/recent.asp?id=197

The Observant Soldier and Disengagement


Harav Shlomo Riskin

...
I am not one of those settlers who believes in Greater Israel or who maintains that the Landof Israelis not ours to give away. Israelhas the right to arrive at decisions regarding borders. After all, did not King Solomon give up 20 cities in the Galileeto King Hiram of Tyre? Did not Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai give up Jerusalemin order to secure from Vespatian the city of Yavnehand its Sanhedrin? Hence, great religio-legal authorities like Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Hakham Ovadia have accepted the halachic possibility of the government ceding parts of the Landof Israel.


Moreover, I even believe in a two-state solution. In the Greater Israel model, we would have to give the Palestinians the right to vote, for we could not treat a minority in our state any differently than the way that we wished to be treated when we were a stateless minority. If that were to happen, demography would soon turn Greater Israel into Greater Palestine.
...

[muman613]

http://www.mizrachi.org/ideas/recent.asp?id=197

The Observant Soldier and Disengagement


Harav Shlomo Riskin

...
I am not one of those settlers who believes in Greater Israel or who maintains that the Landof Israelis not ours to give away. Israelhas the right to arrive at decisions regarding borders. After all, did not King Solomon give up 20 cities in the Galileeto King Hiram of Tyre? Did not Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai give up Jerusalemin order to secure from Vespatian the city of Yavnehand its Sanhedrin? Hence, great religio-legal authorities like Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Hakham Ovadia have accepted the halachic possibility of the government ceding parts of the Landof Israel.


Moreover, I even believe in a two-state solution. In the Greater Israel model, we would have to give the Palestinians the right to vote, for we could not treat a minority in our state any differently than the way that we wished to be treated when we were a stateless minority. If that were to happen, demography would soon turn Greater Israel into Greater Palestine.
...

Hi TorahZionist,

I read what you are saying and it seems as if he has been slowly moving more and more to the right. I dont really know much about him and maybe he has offended some by some of his earlier statements.

I do still respect him because I too am one whos position has shifted over time. I am a Baal Teshuva who had strayed pretty far from the derech. If you had spoken with me six or seven years ago it would be an entirely different {and confrontational} story. People who knew me back then dont even recognize my political leanings. I am willing to look at what a person is doing now, not what they did before.

I am one who will give the Rabbi the benefit of the doubt. I am even inclined to pick up the phone and ask him point blank where he stands on this issue. My feeling is he is with us in our desire for a strong and Torah observant Israel. If I am wrong I will surely apologize.

Thank you,
muman613

[Muck DeFuslims]

Riskin might appear on a list of 'too far right Rabbis compiled by a San Francisco Jewish site, so what ??  Those morons operate under the assumption that surrendering land will bring peace.

As far as this quote (regarding 9/11) goes: "Just as the shofar is a wake-up call, this was too - and to the American government as well. I don’t think that we’ll hear anymore about even-handedness or [Israel’s] overreacting and the like; I think that this will wake everyone up to realize that we must destroy terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head, whatever it takes to do so - otherwise the world will be overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, by the core of the most evil thing imaginable"...Well, Riskin has definitely been proven wrong about "not hearing about even-handedness or Israel overreacting". Totally wrong.

Here's something else Riskin is wrong about: Riskin says "Only those (referring to 'Palestinian' Arabs) with a vision of peace have a right to a state."

Sorry Rabbi, even peaceful Arabs dont have a right to a state on Jewish land. With all due respect, Riskin is wrong again.

The quote about 9/11 was made the day after the Terrorists attacked. I also thought that this would be a wake-up call to America, but apparently losing my brother was not enough. America has a short memory and it is very sad. But I agree with this Rabbi on many points.

Also the quote about the Phalistinkians is not offensive to me. If there are peaceful Arabs then I think they should have a state of their own, but not on Jewish land. I dont know the context of the quote you are making.

I dont want to quarrel with you on this topic. I just ran across his articles on IsraelNationalNew. But I get tired of so many people disparaging Rabbis simply because they dont fully agree with their approach.

All I ask is for some respect for a rabbi who received Shmicha from a knowledgeable Rav.

muman613

PS: According to this Orthodox Ex-Israeli Rabbi Riskin is far to the right of Kahane.

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/04/shlomo-riskin-bad-moral-luck.html
Well, it is not exactly the bad moral luck of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Rabbi of the West Bank settlement of Efrat, to be deeply implicated in the immorality of the settlement enterprise. After all, he chose to leave the United States to lead Efrat – arguably one of the most harmful, and certainly the most hypocritical, of the West Bank settlements. (See my "There are no kosher settlements.") Still, had Rabbi Riskin stayed in the United States, he may have had a pretty decent career as a liberal orthodox rabbi. Riskin was never an intellectual or for that matter, much of a talmid hakham. But he was very good at presenting a liberal version of traditional Judaism back in the late sixties and early seventies, and he was a bridge-builder between various communities, Jewish and non-Jewish, in New York.

But seduced by the dark side of religious Zionism, and driven by the dream of empire-building on cheap land, he emigrated to Israel and founded (with Moshe Moshkowitz) the town of Efrat, a sprawling settlement built entirely on Palestinian private and public land that never ceases to expand into, and pollute, the surrounding region. Through this his life-project, Riskin has caused more tragedy and pain to more Palestinians than any other rabbi of modern times, certainly more than Meir Kahane and his ilk.

PS: Sounds like our kind of guy, wouldnt you say?

Maybe, but it certainly sounds like the author of this last quote, is a deranged Peace Now, self hating Jew of the worst magnitude. Listen to his language:

"the dark side of religious Zionism" ?
"empire-building on cheap land" ?
"the immorality of the settlement enterprise" ?
"There are no kosher settlements." ?
"built entirely on Palestinian private and public land that never ceases to expand into, and pollute, the surrounding region" ?
"Meir Kahane and his ilk" ?

This is a Rabbi ?

You'll have to excuse me, but this sounds like it was written by a mooozie, and not by a Jew. NK perhaps ? Or Yossi Beilin, or Noam Chomsky ?

You can't take people like this seriously, or use their criticism of Riskin, or opinions of Riskin, as some sort of endorsement that a Kahanist (or any self-respecting) Jew would put any credence into.

Consider the source.

[muman613]

Riskin might appear on a list of 'too far right Rabbis compiled by a San Francisco Jewish site, so what ??  Those morons operate under the assumption that surrendering land will bring peace.

As far as this quote (regarding 9/11) goes: "Just as the shofar is a wake-up call, this was too - and to the American government as well. I don’t think that we’ll hear anymore about even-handedness or [Israel’s] overreacting and the like; I think that this will wake everyone up to realize that we must destroy terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head, whatever it takes to do so - otherwise the world will be overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, by the core of the most evil thing imaginable"...Well, Riskin has definitely been proven wrong about "not hearing about even-handedness or Israel overreacting". Totally wrong.

Here's something else Riskin is wrong about: Riskin says "Only those (referring to 'Palestinian' Arabs) with a vision of peace have a right to a state."

Sorry Rabbi, even peaceful Arabs dont have a right to a state on Jewish land. With all due respect, Riskin is wrong again.

The quote about 9/11 was made the day after the Terrorists attacked. I also thought that this would be a wake-up call to America, but apparently losing my brother was not enough. America has a short memory and it is very sad. But I agree with this Rabbi on many points.

Also the quote about the Phalistinkians is not offensive to me. If there are peaceful Arabs then I think they should have a state of their own, but not on Jewish land. I dont know the context of the quote you are making.

I dont want to quarrel with you on this topic. I just ran across his articles on IsraelNationalNew. But I get tired of so many people disparaging Rabbis simply because they dont fully agree with their approach.

All I ask is for some respect for a rabbi who received Shmicha from a knowledgeable Rav.

muman613

PS: According to this Orthodox Ex-Israeli Rabbi Riskin is far to the right of Kahane.

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/04/shlomo-riskin-bad-moral-luck.html
Well, it is not exactly the bad moral luck of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Rabbi of the West Bank settlement of Efrat, to be deeply implicated in the immorality of the settlement enterprise. After all, he chose to leave the United States to lead Efrat – arguably one of the most harmful, and certainly the most hypocritical, of the West Bank settlements. (See my "There are no kosher settlements.") Still, had Rabbi Riskin stayed in the United States, he may have had a pretty decent career as a liberal orthodox rabbi. Riskin was never an intellectual or for that matter, much of a talmid hakham. But he was very good at presenting a liberal version of traditional Judaism back in the late sixties and early seventies, and he was a bridge-builder between various communities, Jewish and non-Jewish, in New York.

But seduced by the dark side of religious Zionism, and driven by the dream of empire-building on cheap land, he emigrated to Israel and founded (with Moshe Moshkowitz) the town of Efrat, a sprawling settlement built entirely on Palestinian private and public land that never ceases to expand into, and pollute, the surrounding region. Through this his life-project, Riskin has caused more tragedy and pain to more Palestinians than any other rabbi of modern times, certainly more than Meir Kahane and his ilk.

PS: Sounds like our kind of guy, wouldnt you say?

Maybe, but it certainly sounds like the author of this last quote, is a deranged Peace Now, self hating Jew of the worst magnitude. Listen to his language:

"the dark side of religious Zionism" ?
"empire-building on cheap land" ?
"the immorality of the settlement enterprise" ?
"There are no kosher settlements." ?
"built entirely on Palestinian private and public land that never ceases to expand into, and pollute, the surrounding region" ?
"Meir Kahane and his ilk" ?

This is a Rabbi ?

You'll have to excuse me, but this sounds like it was written by a mooozie, and not by a Jew. NK perhaps ? Or Yossi Beilin, or Noam Chomsky ?

You can't take people like this seriously, or use their criticism of Riskin, or opinions of Riskin, as some sort of endorsement that a Kahanist (or any self-respecting) Jew would put any credence into.

Consider the source.

Muck,

Yes, that quote is from a Peace Now kinda Jew, not Rabbi Riskin... See the link @ http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/04/shlomo-riskin-bad-moral-luck.html . This is a quote from an opponent of Rabbi Riskin...

I quoted it to prove my point that Rabbi Riskin is strong enough to stand up and settle the land in spite of the negative opinion of settlers.

Thank you,
muman613

[Muck DeFuslims]

Yes muman, I know the quote was from a peace now type of Jew.

My point is that you shouldn't read too much into it.

That type of Jew is likely to think Olmert is a hard-liner.

It can't be taken seriously as an endorsement of Riskin's right wing credentials.

Like I said, consider the source.

It is Riskin's own statement concerning peaceful 'Palestinians' having a right to a state that causes me to have concerns about his belief system.

In fairness, even if Riskin believes 'Palestinians' have a right to a state, that doesn't change the fact that he should be credited for whatever good he did in expanding the Jewish presence anywhere in Israel. But that doesn't mean that he should be above criticism if criticism is due.