User talk:IZAK/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IZAK (talk · contribs · count · email)

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 →

Contents

Red String

Sigh- so it's come to this. Your comments in the discussion have sank to you claiming support of creationist beliefs over evolution science. Firstly this has nothing to do with the article- so there's no point putting it on the discussion page there.

If you want to argue with the science- then bring it on. I'll wait for you and everyone else to bring forth mountains of papers published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals that support your claims. (I've been waiting for a long time now.) If however you want to attack my opinions in the same spirit that you think I've attacked yours... I haven't attacked your beliefs. I haven't denigrated your beliefs. I've repeatedly said that people's beliefs are their own right. It's only when they make pronouncements about the physical testable factual world that I will step in and ask them for proof. Please stop lecturing me about what you think of my beliefs (which you don't know). Oh- and don't insinuate that your religion is being victimized here because people are too scared of Islam. Yeah- right- Islamists are going to look up my IP address and hunt me down. Maybe you'd like to guess my religion? Maybe I'm Islamic, in which case your comments are in incredibly bad taste. Maybe I'm a 'heathen' as you put it- in which case I presumably have no right to edit religious Wikipedia pages.

The most ridiculous thing is that we actually helped put together a reasonably unbiased page. There's really little need for insulting me- telling me that I've 'trivialized' concepts etc.

I think you need to take a chill pill. I'm going to leave by thanking you for the work on the article and on Wikipedia in general.Christianjb 12:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Christianjb: Please do not misconstrue my "methodology", I just enjoy trying to look at different aspects of subjects, that's all. And I do agree with you that the Red string (Kabbalah) article is not that bad after all. I really enjoy having a top-notch dialogue with you. Thanks again. IZAK 03:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi

You made a kind of sloppy edit at Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi. I did my best to fix it to what I think was your intention, but you should have a look and see if the result is what you meant to do. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes thanks, you did the right thing. IZAK 03:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

List of political epithets

I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this; an anonymous editor is insisting on adding the term "Anti-Semite", thus claiming that is a political epithet, rather than a description of someone who hates Jews. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi, I looked, but couldn't find it. Seems it's not on the list so far. IZAK 03:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Noahide Laws

Please have a look at Noachian Law and its AFD. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I have voted to delete it. IZAK 03:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Davidic line again

Davidic line could use your input again. The BUPC section is based on a very, very poor source as outlined on the talk page, as you are probably aware. If I delete this section I'll be called partisan — even if wikipedia policies are clear. Thanks, MARussellPESE 14:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories and Get

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I will seek your input before adding categories on new articles in this area, that way you can take a look at the article itself, if you have time. With respect to the Get articles, please note my comments on those articles talk pages at Talk: Get (divorce document). Please note that the categories for Get (conflict), the categories were (and still are) International law‬ and ‪Law‬. It did not come up when I looked at the Jewish article categories. As I noted at Talk:Get (divorce document), I simply did not notice the existence of Get (conflict) and, although it is listed in the Get disambiguation page, the reference is ambiguous. I simply missed it. Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

PS please feel free to use the list of articles on my talk page for your review of categories. Joaquin Murietta 15:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Judah ben Baba

Please take a look at Judah ben Baba and feel free to edit the categories. Thanks Joaquin Murietta 16:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad you liked it

Please see the discussion re: Judea & Samaria vs. WB at Template talk:Israelis. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Right now I am working on updating the List of political parties in Israel (lot's of old parties were left out), and working to improve Category:Political parties in Israel, where I have also started Category:Defunct political parties in Israel. All this has been an outgrowth of my work on the new party Kadima, so that people can perhaps comprehend that Israeli political parties basically "mutate", they never stand still and that Israeli politicians have always been carving out and reshaping new political parties and alliances. So what Sharon and Peres are doing right now is actually an old "Israeli Middle Eastern political trick" that may surprize people not familiar with the fluidity of Israeli "party" politics, but has always been a "stock in trade" of the elite Israeli power-brokers. IZAK 10:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Great. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User Eliezer is making outrageous personal attacks and reverting articles

I am being harassed by User Eliezer, who keeps making personal attacks on me, is accusing other Wikipeida contributors of attempting to "shock" and deceive readers of our articles, is making outrageous lies about my editing, and is unilaterally reverting a consensus version of an article to one which pushes his own religious belief system. For almost a year I have tried to work with him, along with JayJg and JFW, but Eliezer shows no sign of stopping his religious tirade.

Eliezer is now trying to ban me from Wikipedia by flat-out lying. He is making outrageous baldfaced lies, such as (a) I am writing under sockpuppets, and (b) that I am making more than three reversions in a single day. In point of fact (a) I use no sock puppets, and I proudly sign the discussion page of each article, and (b) two reverts is not more than three. Eliezer has become unhinged in his outrageous dishonesty. RK 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Eliezer's latest violations of Wikipedia policy are thus:

  • Doing multiple reverts of an article that had a stable consensus state, and then flat out denies that he had done so, even though the edit history clearly shows this.
  • Making false accusations that I am editing Wikipedia under some kind of "sockpuppet", a bizarre and obviously false lie. In fact, despite using multiple computers, I take pains to sign in and use my username, RK.
  • "Outing" Wikipedia members who edit under anonymous usernames by broadcasting their real names in the article Discussion pages. This is a gross breach of Wikipedia protocol.
  • Lying about the status of an important researcher in the field of the disputed subject. (Eliezer keeps retitling Rabbi Professor David Beger and Mr. Berger, which is not only misleading, but also considered a gross and delibertae insult in the Jewish community.
  • Inserting attacks questioning academic and Orthodox Jewish authorities whose view of Chabad theology differs from his own. When discussing the new forms of theology developing within Chabad, Eliezer refuses to allow various POVs to be shown in accord with our NPOV policy. Rather, his edit censors multiple academic and Orthodox voices, and replaces all of their POvs with the slur "While the term received little attention at the time, it was later used to shock those who have no exposure to these sources." Please see the article to see the full context. Eliezer is stating that academic and Orthodox Jews who disagree with messianic Chabad beliefs are deceiving their readers by shocking them, and not letting them know that such beliefs are (in Eliezer's view) standard theology. Of course, how could anyone know, since his edits cut out many quotes and sources....all with an array of POVs that Eliezer apparently does not want our readers to be exposed to. RK

For example, Eliezer write "I would like to make a note here about the use of sockpuppets by RK to circumvent his restrictions in editing Judaism related articles. He is 66.155.200.129. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)"

Well, that's just bizarre. Please see the page in question, Chabad, which I sign with my username all the time. In fact, my name is all over that page, explaining my edits. There is simply no way that Eliezer can claim that I am trying to hide my User ID identity. He's just out of control. RK 20:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • RK: Certainly some of the points you mention are truly objectionable. He actually "outs" people? That's really disgusting. All I can say or advise, in Wikipedia parlance, is the following, (otherwise it's like chasing "ghosts" and going nowhere by "marching in place"):
  1. You are definitely having a serious problem with Eliezer' Wikipedia:Etiquette to say the least,
  2. you need to look towards Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and
  3. you can either look into Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or
  4. you can aim for Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RFC) and from there,
  5. make it a case for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (See also Wikipedia:Arbitration policy) about a "final" ruling.

It is time for you to decide to follow the above process, which will allow other people to look into this in a methodical fashion, rather than running around in circles as is happening at the present time. Sincerely, IZAK 06:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

About this subject of "outing" people. He was already "outed by himself and many others. Many times he signs his name with his username and real name. See the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Old_mediation_requests http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/006096.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/006959.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-April.txt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-December/026001.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-July/013966.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009209.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January.txt

  • Firstly, please sign any comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that it's clear to whom comments belong. Secondly, while some people may know who "RK" may be, his name should not be mentioned in full if it makes him upset, so no need to mention his name when it is obviously used as a form of personal attack. Thirdly, the question is not so much about who "RK" is, because he is quite well know on Wikipedia since he is one of the oldest and most active editors for a long time but rather is Eliezer "outing" other users on Wikipedia who do not wish to have their own names splashed around? Finally, why are things sinking to such a low level of silliness and babyishness at this time? IZAK 07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
My point was that not just many people know who he was, but he himself signed his name with his username followed by his real name. I only brought that to bring a proof from his own words about how his and everyone elses silence on the version that was sitting there for a few months that they agreed with it and that there was consensus. I have nothing personal against RK, and now that I have seen how much it has affected him, I won't "splash" it around. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

chabad

I left the following comment on Nandesuka's page. Regarding your comments to chabad. I have to admit I am not the best writer. However when speaking about reverting to a better written version you must take into account, whether this better written version is accurate and in a NPOV. I would like to ask for your help in improving the chabad article from a grammatical view. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Eliezer: I always enjoy editing the articles and trying to establish good English usage. Thanks for your confidence in me. IZAK 07:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Maalot

Sorry IZAK, unless its a regular vandalism, I won't be much help there. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the article is a mess, but I don't have any experience in the geography or politics of Israel. I'm more knowledgeable about hashkafa, halacha and Jewish texts. Yoninah 10:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks all for trying, the problem is that one-time User:Fulani made some weird changes [1] which I have reverted for now. Thanks for looking into this. IZAK 10:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I tried to tidy up that article. I moved it to Maalot-Tarshikha and moddeled it on the article Kaaba (where no odd symbols are in the article title). Please check it, as I don't know much about Israeli cities. Izehar 10:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine with me, I just wonder what User Gilgamesh will say? IZAK 10:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Gilgamesh has been pushing for "scholarly" transliterations of Hebrew names on the grounds that Hebrew is important to Christianity and Islam. Why he is renaming Israeli villages remains a mystery. The only person who would want to look up Maalot-Tarshikha is someone who is likely to visit it. They will want to know how it is pronounced, not how stuffy academics write it. You did notice that his version did not include a simple transliteration. I'd like to know what relevance Maalot-Tarshikha has to Christianity and Islam that warrants its renaming. Izehar 10:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it's not such a tough question, Gilgamesh likes the idea of a combined name "Israel-Palestine", I guess he supports the "one state idea" which would then be majority Arab (not nice for the Jews, but he would probably not lose sleep over it.) In the past he in fact tried to put all the towns and cities of Israel into a new category called "Israel-Palestine" and we had to stop him and make him put them back into Category:Geography of Israel. In fact he wrote the short article Israel-Palestine in July 2004, and you can read the debates I had with him then at Talk:Israel-Palestine about that subject. Recently, he got a new "brain-wave" and created Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations which is a way of getting his pet subjects "in through the back door" by creating pro-Arab categories (they are certainly not pro-Israeli!). Imagine if someone created Category:Arab cities with prior significant Jewish populations? He also does not like the idea that Hebrew belongs to the Jews as a language, he prefers inventions from professors' theories about Canaanite languages, see my debates with him also in July 2004 at Talk:Canaanite languages and at Talk:Modern Hebrew language#Do Gilgamesh and Mustafa "own" Hebrew on Wikipedia? and continuing at Talk:Hebrew languages. Gilgamesh is also a very proud Mormon and one wonders if that has anything to do with his desire to inject himself into every discussion that involves the holy Hebrew language of the Jews? (He in fact gets upset when the word "Mormons" is used and tells evryone to use "Latter Day Saints" -- so what if some people don't regard them as "saints"?) How would he react I wonder, if Jews got involved in every issue and reference concerning the language used by the Mormons in their religious texts, writings and utterrances? More people should become aware of this. IZAK 11:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
A Mormon? Don't they use the phrase "House of Israel" to refer to themselves (!) and claim to be descendents of the ancient Israelites? You may want to read Mormonism and Judaism#Mormonism to gain a fuller perspective. Anyway, we are having a registered straw poll on Talk:Maalot-Tarshikha#Requested move to move it to the neutral name. Please vote. Izehar 12:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
IZAK...you do not listen. I do not support the "one-state idea", because nationalist politics leave a terrible taste in my mouth. I only believe that everyone has the right and dignity to settle where they wish. Hell, Jews should have every right to settle on the East Bank if they wish, or wherever. As for "Israel-Palestine", it is a discussion term designed specifically to avoid giving preference to either idea when referring to the whole of both regions. Saying only "Israel" will offend some, and only "Palestine" will offend others, and terms like "Canaan", "Levant" and "Holy Land" are ambiguous and don't refer specifically to this area, and that's why some people say "Israel-Palestine", to avoid this whole messy, icky and fully disgusting conflict that shouldn't ever have to be to begin with, because I can never fully respect anyone's solution to a disagreement that does not include peaceful pluralistic coexistence. Personally, I have every wish in the world for Israel to survive and thrive as much as possible, in all its various cultures, especially the world's Jews and Samaritans. They are blessed human beings and, as with the rest of humanity, deserve peace and prosperity. Also, as for "proud Mormon"... I won't deny the religious affiliation, nor my tribe, but it's not a proud affiliation. For one thing, I regard pride as a vice—I am an imperfect being and I strive for humility, and to better myself, and be a kind and decent person to those around me. For another thing, I am totally gay, and I often find myself ostracized in most Mormon cultures, and I'd almost surely be lynched almost anywhere in the Arab world. But as someone who receives a huge amount of persecution and harassment myself, I find myself more addressing of people's concerns when and where they seem legitimate on the surface. And the condition of Arab citizen populations in Israel is a subject many people are interested in. As legal citizens in a state whose second official language is Arabic, they are considered significant enough for even the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics to record them in special context. And if they go to that much effort, why not we? It seems a very encyclopedic topic. As for my involvement in Jewish studies, I actually do have quite a few good Jewish friends, though most are Reform Jews, and only one lives in Israel (in Ra'anana). I also have Christian friends, Muslim friends, Buddhist friends, and even avowed atheist friends, but one thing that makes us all the same is that we're all human beings, equal to one another. When we cannot agree about everything, it is inevitably far more productive to set aside differences and cooperate and find ways to respect other people. It really does not help to make accusations against people one does not even know well. Most of the time, when people launch personal attacks at me, I ignore it, because I figure it's not worth my energy. But if it never stops, it really takes the energy and academic enthusiasm out of editing. Please...just put an end to it—I really hate getting into arguments over a person's character, and I'd still prefer not to, but this just cannot go on forever. I follow science. In an encyclopedic context, I will always follow the scientific method and established empirical scientific fact. Subjects such as the Canaanite languages are scientific orthodoxy, accepted by the scientific community worldwide, including accredited university-trained linguists in Israel itself. Now, I have a suggestion. You focus on your strengths—documenting the traditions and disciplines of your creed. And I will focus on my strengths—the collection and dissemination of scientific canon. They will all find a place here. - Gilgamesh 12:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Gilgamesh: One thing I will say though, is that you are a GOOD SPORT and unbelievabley hard-working! It seems every six months or so, maybe longer now, we bump into each other on Wikipedia, yet we are still around to keep the debates going. By the way, you may want to consider joining Reform Judaism as they seem to have adopted a totally pro-gay agenda, see Same Gender Officiation A Statement by Rabbi Eric Yoffie Greensboro, NC March 29, 2000 and Reform Head Blasts Right For 'Bigotry,' 'Blasphemy' By Jennifer Siegel November 25, 2005 Take it easy. IZAK 12:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...I do appreciate that acknowledgment. So please, won't you give me reasonable credit? I hate scuffles like this. Anyway, I'm thinking of joining Affirmation, an LDS LGBT support group that resists the Church organization's hardline stance and the prevailing culture's antipathy towards all things LGBT. As for Judaism...if I understand it, I can be simply Israel, but I cannot formally be recognized a Jew with the things I believe in. Besides, though I have a great deal of interest in Jewish studies (and read up all the time), I have a greater interest in Samaritan studies, but Samaritan academic materials are much harder to come by because of the culture's small size and obscurity. - Gilgamesh 13:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Gilgamesh: I just figured that for someone like yourself, with your vast knowledge of the Hebrew language and its intricacies, added to your in-depth knowledge of the Tanakh (in it's original language yet!), and your very obvious devotion to Jewish studies all the time, that you are only a few short steps away from becoming a Ger tzedek? However your statement that "As for Judaism...if I understand it, I can be simply Israel" is not correct. Perhaps according to your belief-system you may think of yourself as an "Israel", but according to classical Judaism, if someone is not Jewish then they ought to adhere to the Seven Noahide Laws but that does not make them into type of "Israel" in any way. IZAK 04:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I figured it might differ between Jewish sects. I don't remember the exact details. - Gilgamesh 05:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, IZAK? Look at the edit history of Ma'alot-Tarshiha and see who added the template requesting that the article be renamed. Go ahead. - Gilgamesh 13:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Gilgamesh: I did, and I know you put in some good work there. IZAK 04:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I significantly added data to the main article - please review to ensure NPOV, since it has the potential to start another Israeli-Palestinian revert war... Regarding the transliteration, I refer you to the article's talk page were I mentioned that the transliteration is not a matter of "scholarly" transliterations, but an official set of rules (set by the British during their Mandate period). Until it changes officially (together with all road signs etc., we Wikipedia should stick to the official version. Best, altmany 15:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations

IZAK, I am supporting your proposed deletion of Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations. I vote delete. I really had no idea it could be a racist issue or a political minefield, but then an autist can rarely see these things, as my theory of mind is radically different and often mutually alien from that of neurotypicals. I mean, I always regarded Arab Israeli cities and mixed cities with esteem, if they can live peacefully in Israeli society without a constant insurrection. Far from being a sign of racism, I thought their special mention would be seen as examples of peaceful coexistence worth documenting. I mean, what's seriously not to like about a multicultural and bilingual Haifa, Yafo, Lod, Tiberias? You couldn't easily say the same of areas under PA administration, where anyone rumored as or seen as a "collaborator" is bound to be lynched on the spot. If the category is racist, then it is because the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics made the approach seem inappropriately overimportant and I don't always easily read between the lines. - Gilgamesh 21:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Gilgamesh, thanks for your serious response. I know you mean well, but I hope that over the years here on Wikipedia you have become a little more sensitized to Jewish and Israeli "sensibilities" (and by this I don't mean to any type of "POV") because there are some "hot button" issues that are guaranteed to perk up their antennae if topics near and dear to their hearts and minds are mishandled. And I will say to you again, as an example, that both as a Jew and as an editor, I would not dream or dare to creep into articles devoted to Category:Mormonism which I know mean so much to you, and start potentially controversial articles and categories (even if backed up by outside scholarship) in areas that I know are very sensitive and would trigger vituperative counter-responses. Even though Wikipedia encourges the notion of "be bold" but that should never mean one check's common sense at the door the instant you log onto Wikipedia to edit and write articles in any field. IZAK 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ahh...well, autists do not have "common sense" in the way neurotypicals understand it. An autist's common sense is very different, and autists and neurotypicals cannot always intuitively understand each other's reasonings. However, since I as an autist am in the minority theory of mind in this world, I always try to figure out the neurotypical theory of mind and work with it where I can. I also try to educate neurotypicals about my theory of mind—to the best of my ability—so they can work with mine. Communication is the key. - Gilgamesh 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Judaism and Controversy

IZAK, got your note. Thanks for taking the time to write; it's appreciated. First, I'm concerned that you may be getting an unclear picture of me based on a few articles. I have an interest in Haredi Judaism and its personalities and try to keep updated of what's going on in that sector. I haven't been posting controversial stuff for muck-raking's sake, but rather out of a desire to make the articles more complete. Furthermore, I think you may have misinterpreted my intent in my added information to the Eliashiv article; all I wanted to do there was to demonstrate to people that may not have had much knowledge about Eliashiv that he had a varying range of opinions/rulings and that it was hard to "pin him down"- to this end, the (what I considered significant) tidbits about him ruling Sharon was not a rodef. Ditto for the Greenberg anecdote, which I can't decide was objectionable because it was originally private (certainly no longer, as per the link I provided), or because it could be construed as him giving him support to homosexuality (which, after all, is not what he says, either). Being a new contributor, I'm fully willing to admit that I might need more experience in determining what's worthy of being included or not. That said, I'm a little unclear on whether you're taking issue with material being controversial, untrue, or simply unflattering. Anyway, my intention is not to offend or attack, but merely to help contribute. I'd respectfully ask for your patience, and maybe a little advice. Regards, and thanks again. ShalomShlomo 10:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • ShalomShlomo: Thanks for your comments. Yes, it's smart to worry about putting in stuff that smacks of "muck-raking" but it's noticable that you are willing to contribute important information. One should weigh the kind of information and facts that are to be inserted into any article and the way that words and ideas are phrased to avoid not just "POV" but also the "appearance of POV", as in the notion of "justice should not only be done, it should appear to be done!" Please feel free to call on me. Rav Eliashiv is not a man of many words and you are putting too much into his mouth and blowing things out of proportion by attributing little disjointed scraps to him. The question with "rodef" is that you are "quoting" him for what he did not say, as if not saying something by "ommision" is worthy of a "quote", which it is not. With Greenberg, it in no way means that Rav Eliashiv condones homosexuality because he may have said something unusual in a personal discussion with Greenberg (regardless if Greenberg then goes and writes it up on the Internet -- we will never know if it's true or not because Rav Eliashiv won't tell anyone what he told Greenberg). Best wishes with your work. IZAK 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • IZAK: My intent with the rodef comment was meant to contextualize Eliashiv's "middle-ground" position in the Orthodox world; that while some others may have said Sharon was a rodef or like a rodef, it had been made public (albeit indirectly, via the interview with the other rabbi) that Eliashiv had said he was not. In other words, I was trying to quote him as saying, "Sharon is NOT a rodef", as opposed to quoting him as NOT saying Sharon was a rodef. Does that make sense? I feel that his negative ruling on Sharon's rodef status is probably something worth mentioning, but I'm interested in your thoughts. Maybe it's a question of phrasing? As far as Greenberg- I agree with your comments there. I wrote a new version of this (after checking his book for the complete text) and put it on Greenberg's page, as it makes more sense there. I also added some context to try and emphasize why I thought the anecdote, if accurate, is significant. Feel free to take a look. Thanks for the advice; it's appreciated. ShalomShlomo 11:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Shalom: Obviously, if Rav Aliashiv gave the green light for his party Degel HaTorah to support and be a part of Sharon's government he did not think of Sharon as a "rodef". For that matter, it was not rabbis from Rav Eliashiv's camp that would have called Rabin a "rodef" either because they just don't talk in those terms and they do not incite anyone to violence. On the contrary, they would hold that it is the "victims", i.e. the Haredi Jews themselves, as was the case with forbidding Haredi girls to join the army, who should sacrifice their own lives (yehareg ve'al ya'avor) rather than transgress a decree of the rabbis. It is only some rabbis from the National Religious camp that talk in those terms, in a "sermonic" fashion, but it's very doubtful they want anyone to act on those words, even though people think Amir acted on the "advice" of rabbis, he did NOT! Orthodox Judaism is very subtle, but it does not incite to violence and certainly never to kill, it's just unthinkable! It's not a case of "fanatics" running around screaming crazy things, certainly not the rabbinic leadership, and certainly not Rav Eliashiv who basically never speaks in public. One must tread with caution here. IZAK 12:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have left a note on ShalomShlomo's talk page concerning CITE. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)