Controversies relating to Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh PDF Print E-mail Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh is outspoken in both his faith and his politics and controversies surrounding him have sometimes made the headlines. Controversial views The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has called Ginsburg "a well known radical on his views on Israel Arab public", referencing his "prosecution in the past for incitement to racism after having published a book insisting that there is no place for Arabs in the state of Israel". In 1989, Ginsburg was quoted in New York Times his views concerning recent attacks against Palestinians and the rise of racism in Israel: Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg had offered biblical justification for the view that the spilling of non-Jewish blood was a lesser offense than the spilling of Jewish blood. Any trial based on the assumption that Jews and goyim are equal is a total travesty of justice, he said. In 1994, Ginsburgh received much publicity on account of an article "Baruch Hagever" in which he praised Baruch Goldstein who had massacred 29 Arab worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Rabbi Ginsburgh wrote that it is possible to view Baruch Goldstein's act as following five Halachic principles, namely "sanctification of God's name", "saving life" (referring to testimonies that he had allegedly received regarding a planned Arab massacre of Jews), "revenge", "eradication of the seed of Amalek" and "war". Motti Inbari commented on this: In his writings, Ginzburg gives prominence to Halachic and kabbalistic approaches that emphasize the distinction between Jew and non-Jew (Gentile), imposing a clear separation and hierarchy in this respect. He claims that while the Jews are the Chosen People and were created in God's image, the Gentiles do not have this status, and are effectively considered subhuman. Accordingly, for example, the commandment "Thou shall not murder does not apply to the killing of a Gentile, since "You shall not murder" relates to the murder of a human, while for him the Gentiles do not constitute humans. Similarly, Ginzburg stated that, on the theoretical level, if a Jew requires a liver transplant to survive, it would be permissible to seize a Gentile and take their liver forcefully. From this point only a small further step is required to actively encourage and support the killing of non-Jews, as Ginzburg did in the case of Goldstein. Ro'ee Sharon, correspondent for Israeli newspaper, Maariv, wrote the following in his summary to an article reviewing Rabbi Ginsburgh and his work, The scope of his teachings is far greater than merely nationalist ideology. In the dozens of books the Rabbi has written, he exhibits a rare command of the exact sciences, music, Chassidut, philosophy, psychology, and Kabbalah. His closest students are unwilling to address the topic of racial prejudice in his writings separately from the rest of his teachings. One of them noted that these teachings are on just one floor out of a skyscraper of thought, and it is meaningless to treat one small apartment separately from the rest of the building. Most recently, in July 2010, Ginsburgh was detained by Israeli police for questioning regarding a book "The King's Torah", which he had suggested that his disciples read. According to a report by the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the book says "It is permissible to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation... if we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder"
What's your point? There are extremists in the world. Like nobody knows that? Is there a reason you chose a Jew? Why not a Muslim or a Christian extremist? There are plenty of those, too. Whenever someone talks about extremists, then zeroes in on one group only, the agenda is clear.
The point is that there are extremist thinkers, and followers in every "ism" in the world. Why not choose a Jew? How many posts do we see about Jewish extremist thinkers? So you have something against illustrating extremism is not unique to one race, one religion, one political party, etc.?
If your point was to illustrate that extremism is not unique to any one race, religion or political party, why not give examples from each category? Instead, you chose only one group which gives the appearance that you believe only Jews are extremist. Was that your intention?
It is called balance. How many threads/posts do we see in which a Jew is shown for their extremist thinking? Compare that to threads rightly showing Islamic extremism. I'm not denying extremism wherever it exists, and clearly it has been shown to exist in the Jewish community, as well as the Christian community, Islamic community, etc. It is/was your error to think I am suggesting that extremism is limited to one party, one religion, one "ism." But your defensiveness, and more strawmam fallacy attempts are duly noted.
How is it balanced to pick out one group for an example of extremism? Balance would imply giving varying examples representing different points of view. You can call "straw man" all you want, but it won't work. Name calling is only effective on the playground.
More logical fallacy. I did not pick out a group, I picked out one person. Please, try using a thinking cap.
You're the one who used the the word "balanced," not me. What is "balanced" about quoting one person from one group? Anyone in possesion of a thinking cap knows that presenting one person's point of view is "unbalanced." That is your logical fallacy. You have presented an unbalanced point of view and labeled it balanced, but that does not make it so.
Yes, in the contexts of all the posts in this forum, an example of a Jewish extremist helps to balance the equation, showing that not every group is immune from extremism, not matter how much the focus goes to one group where there are extremists. Balance. Sorry that your skewed thinking doesn't see the bigger picture which is the ET P&R Forum...