Character Suicide

Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, an arbiter of Jewish law who wields influence among the national-religious public, was recently asked how we should regard Baruch Goldstein. Is he a "righteous man of blessed memory," or is what he did in the Tomb of the Patriarchs - massacring 29 Arab worshipers in 1994 - a despicable act of murder?

The rabbi replied that this was a complex matter: On the one hand, we should remember that Goldstein saved many Jews in his capacity as a physician and that he acted in a period of brutal terrorist attacks. On the other hand, no one has the right to take matters into his own hands with regard to security.

"Clearly Baruch Goldstein did not act from personal feelings of revenge. Precisely because of this, he should have asked for the nation's permission, because the entire nation then had to bear the burden of responsibility. If he had asked us, we would have told him not to do it. This is not the right way. But he did not ask us. And he was killed. After all, he knew that what he was doing was dangerous, so it is certain that he is a righteous man of blessed memory, a holy man of blessed memory. But the act was not right."

It is hard and depressing to read this, the more so because Aviner is not one of the fire-breathing extremist Kahanist rabbis, who justify what Goldstein did as well as similar acts of murder. Rabbi Aviner is a person of elevated status and authority from the mainstream religious right. It cannot be said that he justifies the massacre; on the contrary, he dissociates himself from it, citing reasons of state discipline, good order and proper administration. On matters of discipline, the distinguished rabbi is strict - but on matters of murder, far less.

On the face of it, it should not difficult for any man of religion to find the right words to condemn murder as such. But in practice, it is no secret that many clerics in the Middle East find it extremely difficult to do so. Rabbi Aviner is capable of calling a murderer a righteous and holy man, but he is incapable of condemning in the simplest, clearest language the deliberate mass murder of innocent people. This is a kind of moral disability. How can one explain to someone who suffers from such a disability how ugly and indecent his words are? Let us imagine that someone would describe as righteous and holy a person who, heaven forbid, were to murder Rabbi Aviner's children (while noting that the act itself is unacceptable, because it did not have the necessary authorization of the authorities). Would we not say that anyone who said this really believes the lives of Rabbi Aviner's children are of no value? And if so, how can we avoid the conclusion that the lives of the people who were murdered by Goldstein are of no value to Rabbi Aviner?

State discipline and obedience to the law are important values, and it is not superfluous to emphasize their importance among Rabbi Aviner's students, as in other groups. But state authority is not the reason for the prohibition on murdering people, because of their origin or their religion.

Rabbi Aviner does not represent the entire right or the entire national-religious population, but there is no doubt that he represents a considerable public. It has been justly said that it is wrong, even in the midst of a bitter argument, to subject an entire public to character assassination. But it has to be said that a public that allows such remarks from its leaders to pass without protest is committing character suicide.