Talk:Israel Shahak/Archive 5

Anti-Judaism category
The Anti-Judaism category is there because Shahak wrote Anti-Judaism works. He may have claimed to dislike all religions, but he didn't write any anti-Catholic, anti-Islam, anti-Hinduism, anti-Sikh, anti-Ba'hai etc. works. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Abu ali, could you please comment here? Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Abu ali, I'm still waiting for some discussion here. Jayjg (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with any of this name-calling, eg. anti-judaic, anti-semitic... Unfortunately many jews apply these perjorative labels to people they don't like, simply in an attempt to discredit what they have to say. What this article should say about Shahak is that he was intimately familiar with the jewish religion, and was against those aspects of the faith that he believed were racist or non-humanitarian. This article devotes too much space trying to denigrate Shahak, and does not adequately cover the important issues that he was trying to open up for discussion. Why is that people cannot talk about those issues without having nasty labels applied to them? Logicman1966 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but given the man wrote what the man wrote (an enormous amount of lies, largely) that is going to be the issue. It's one thing to have an opinion of Talmudic Judaism, etc...  it's another thing to actively lie about the subject as he did with the "phone case" and others ("praying to satan").  I've known Ultra-Orthodox Jews to do some pretty rotton things, but a) you don't need to create things and b) that doesn't mean they are acting in accordance to Jewish law at all.  Hassids can be just as ignorant of Jewish law as anyone else.

Shahak is being very badly treated by this article
Shahak believed that he witnessed this incident with the telephone. I'm less convinced that a religious court later backed the "religious POV", since Shahak doesn't seem to have documented this. Perhaps he invented that part, or at least, personal differences led him to come away with a very negative impression.

But it's simply malicious to call it an "alleged incident". He reported what he thinks he saw, he felt that the response was bullying and unsympathetic, and ended up in serious conflict with his religion.

All of that is perfectly normal - we report fairly people who were brought up as Muslims and later become bitterly critical of their religion. Why do we not extend the same consideration to Shahak? PalestineRemembered 20:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the incident happened is disputed; there is no reason in Jewish law for someone to forbid him to use the phone, so the whole thing sounds fishy, and he made up other stuff about Judaism as well. Given that the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth said in a lengthy article published in 1966 that he made the whole thing up, and given that Shahak never sued him for libel or tried to force him to retract it, it's not unreasonable to say that the incident is alleged. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then there is the question of undue weight given to this incident. Jewish Partisan publication make much of this question, but it is not mentioned in reliable sources such as the obituries in the english guardain and indipendent. The purpose the undue weight of these allegations is to slander Shahak as an antisemite and thus delegitimize his devestating criticism of Israel's actions. This is a common Zionist approach to criticism. But it is applied with the most venom against Jewish critics. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This was uncivil. Take your apologia and generalizations elsewhere. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a few thing to say about this. First of all, the Chief Rabbi doesn't cite his sources (if Shahak "admitted" that he made up, where did he admit it, and to whom?). Secondly, whether there is technically any reason in Jewish law for any particular form of behaviour isn't helpful in establishing whether or not anyone behaved in that way. Shahak's point about the incident is more about what he claims, IIRC, the legal reasoning was based on: ie. the interests of the Jewish people rather than the interests of human beings generally. Shahak never admitted to having made it up, and nobody has ever proved that it was made up. It's possible, of course, that it didn't happen, and that Shahak used an invented incident to draw out the opinions he needed for his point about religion and ethics.   Jakobovits cites an opinion which permits Sabbath-violation to save lives if Jewish people would be threatened by the refusal. Shahak, you can imagine, would regard that as his point exactly.  I would observe, therefore, that it is the response to the alleged incident which is at the core of what Shahak was trying to do, not the incident itself. The article unbalances itself at several points because it overlooks Shahak's actual argument in favour of other debates. It may be necessary to reflect those other debates, but it's absolutely essential in this article to objectively describe Shahak's stated position. --Dannyno 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was only one of the possible reasons provided, and Shahak's dismissal of that reason is provided. Also, that reason is not what it appears on the surface, but in any event that is beyond the purview of this article. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

antisemitism cat deleted
WP:CAT item 8 states: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." This guideline clearly indicates that this category is inappropriate here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Category:Antisemitism actually has a clear annotation, at the top of the page. It says:
 * "Note: This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic."
 * That couldn't be clearer, and the article itself discusses antisemitism, in a remarkably neutral way. The antisemitism category is not the Category:Antisemitic people, which was deleted, but rather a category for articles which discuss antisemitism. It includes such people as Alan Berg, Richard J. Green, Tuvia Grossman, John M. Oesterreicher, Joseph Seligman, Benjamin Zuskin etc. This topic has been discussed at great length on this page, and the consensus is to keep this obviously appropriate category. Do not attempt to remove without getting consensus. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Abu ali, I wish you would read the article. Your claim that Shahak was labeled an antisemite "to deflect his devestating attacks on Zionism" is a complete fabrication. As the article and associated references make clear, he was labeled an antisemite because of his inventions regarding Judaism and the Talmud. Jayjg (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This category is dishonest, which is probably why there is so much revert-warring over it. If it was actually named "articles discussing or referring to antisemitism" (or something very similar), I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, its appearance at the bottom of any article is likely to be taken as a categorical assertion (pun unintended, but appropriate) that its subject is anti-Semitic. This is reinforced in the Shahak article by its inclusion next to the categories Anti-Judaism and Anti-Zionists (both probably justified in his case) asserting that Shahak is anti-Judaism and anti-Zionist, and therefore by extension anti-Semitic (which definitely isn't justified).
 * --NSH001 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The category is hardly dishonest; it simply groups articles that discuss antisemitism. I've listed a bunch of biographical articles above that have the tag but are clearly not about alleged antisemites. There are also many articles in the category about groups that fight antisemitism, or various other aspects of the topics. As for anti-Judaism, Shahak wrote anti-Judaism books, which is why he is included in that category as well. By the way, though that's not why the category is on the article, I doubt Shahak would have objected to the statement that he was against Judaism; on the contrary, he would have embraced it. Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the naming of the category is indeed dishonest: its name does not reflect its claimed purpose as stated in your bolded text above. Most casual browsers of Wikpedia will take the "antisemitism" at the bottom of the page as asserting that Shahak is anti-Semitic (they probably aren't even aware that it might be worth clicking the cat link, or can't be bothered to). Unfortunately many people will regard it as a dishonest attempt to smear people as anti-Semitic.
 * --NSH001 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The bolded, large text above is right on the Category page, and the fact that there's a section titled "Accusations of antisemitism" will surely give the reader the understanding that this is an article that discusses the topic. Furthermore, the section itself it remarkably good; it lists the accusations itself, and the reason given for them (Shahak's inventions about Judaism and the Talmud). It then lists the common defence made, that he is merely anti-Zionist, and that he is being smeared. The article also shows Shahak's co-author's statement that antisemites made undue and out of context use of his work, and finally gives the view that even if he wasn't antisemitic, he acted as an enabler for them. All-in-all a rousing and interesting discussion of the topic; the reader is left to decide for him or her self which accusation or explanation they find most convincing. And again, the category isn't "antisemites" or "antisemitic people", which would indeed be a claim on the part of Wikipedia; there's a clear difference here. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Abu ali, could you please comment here? Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree all the points made by NHS01. The bolded text in the category is an attempt to get round the WP policy prohibiting defamatory use of categories. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What specific policy are you Talking about? Can you quote it please? As explained many times, the category simply lists articles that discuss antisemitism, and includes many people who have never been accused of antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CAT item 8 states

"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you now claiming that the article does not discuss antisemitism? Are you arguing that we should have an article called List of Wikipedia articles that discuss antisemitism, and do away with the category? Jayjg (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am simply claiming that Shahak is not an antisemite. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is interesting, but that has nothing to do with the discussion or category. The category "Antisemitic people" no longer exists; this is a category that includes articles that discuss antisemitism. Are you claiming that this category does not discuss antisemitism? Are you arguing that we should have an article called List of Wikipedia articles that discuss antisemitism, and do away with the category? Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need for such a category. Just press "What links here" in Antisemitism. Including Shahak in the antisemitism category alongside Hitler and the like is in my opinion intended to delegitimize his criticisms of Israeli policy. The text at the top of the category which |you yourself added is a get out clause, for anyone who examines the issue in depth. It is like saying, "We put the antisemitism lable on him, but we did not 'really' mean that he is actually antisemitic." This manner of defamation is not serious, not an honest method of discussion and not worthy of an enclopedia. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By that rationale there's no need for any category. In any event, simply using the term "Antisemitism" is not enough to qualify for the category, the article actually has to discuss it - and this article has a rather extensive and well written discussion of it. Your arguments for removing the category are an objection to the category itself, not to Israel Shahak's inclusion in it. If you want to get the category deleted, then try CFD. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No I am not arguing for the deletion of the category, only that it should not be used in a defamatory manner. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Does inclusion of the category defame Alan Berg, Richard J. Green, Tuvia Grossman, John M. Oesterreicher, Joseph Seligman or Benjamin Zuskin? Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Abu, if we apply this category to persons, following your request, who are only "Actual" antisemites then this category effectively replaces the deleted antisemitic people category. I would argue (and have been arguing) that the wider this category is, the better, precisely so that no one can claim that there is an implied slur at being included in the category. As for some casual users being perhaps too dim to click a blue link and read what's written there, well, I don't think we can or should dumb Wikipedia down to that standard. This is a serious encyclopedia, and a potentially invaluable research tool. This category is useful. IronDuke 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shahak.jpg
Image:Shahak.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Irfan Khawaja quote
The Irfan Khawaja quote ss much too long and is quite ignorant. It is well documented that Shahak has quoted the Talmud out of context in order to portray Judaism as racist. That is inherently Anti-Semitic. That there have been those who abuse the term “Anti-Semitism” to attack Anti-Zionists does not mean that the charge is never accurate. He does not refute the substance of the charges against Shahak because he can't, so instead he attacks the very notion of ever calling an Anti-Zionist an Anti-Semite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.98.223 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, the Khawaja is a rather poor defense of Shahak, since it simply repeats the usual "they called him an antisemite because he was anti-Zionist" meme (often found on Wikipedia as well, see Abu ali's regular reverts), without bothering to examine the charges against him, which had nothing to do with Zionism, and everything to do with his statements regarding the Talmud and Judaism. However, as poor as the defense is, it's rather typical of the extremely poor defenses made of Shahak, and you're not likely to find anything better. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All of which misses the point: isn't is possible for a Jewish atheist to criticise Judaism in pretty much the same way as atheists criticise other religions (i.e. as alleged sources of oppression)? Quoting allegedly "out of context" in pursuit of an argument may be laying yourself open to accusations of quoting "out of context", but it is not obviously *racist*. Shahak's basic line is that racism in Israel grows out of (or is influenced by) certain elements of particular forms Judaism. This thesis may or may not be true, but it's not clear that it's anti-semitic.  I'd like to see attention paid to criticism of (or support for) Shahak's stated position without all the abuse. --Dannyno 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But the issue is not criticism of Judaism; the issue was and is his many inventions regarding Judaism and the Talmud, combined with polemical mis-representation of Judaism. His claims differ little from David Duke's, both in substance and in accuracy. The fact that he was a Jewish Holocaust survivor gives one pause, but it certainly doesn't give him a pass. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shahak’s central contention is that the underlying cause of the undeniable evil committed by Israel is the Jewish religion, which has so corrupted the Jewish People that even the most anti-religious Jews have been affect by it. To support that Anti-Jewish claim he takes Talmudic statements out of context to support the view that Judaism is racist. Furthermore, there are other Anti-Jewish statements he makes which have no conceivable source whatsoever, so Shahak doesn’t even attempt to provide them. The one I personally find most offensive is the claim that Judaism worships Satan. Such attacks on Judaism are themselves anti-Semitic.

To paint a religion and all its supposed adherents (whether they are religious or not) as evil based on fabrications and distortions is to be engaged in the worst from of hatemongering. No Talmudic scholar has ever defended Shahak’s claims, for they are utterly without basis.

If you are willing to take statements “out of context”, you can make any legal system or religion seem evil. Imagine an author who describes a case in America in which an obviously guilty white man charged in the death of a black man had his case dismissed, and uses it to prove the American legal system is racist. You look up the case and find the real reason, which that the judge ruled the police search was illegal, and so had no choice but to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. The author never mentioned that fact, and certainly never gave you sufficient the background in American law to appreciate the internal logic of such a ruling. For the lack of the true explanation, which is evident to any familiar with American law, is essential to his contention that racism is the real reason. Wouldn’t it be fair to say the author is biased against America? That is precisely what Shahak does with his “accurate” yet “out of context” quotes from the Talmud. He hides the inner Talmudic logic to make Judaism appear to be racist and evil. His fabricated out of thin air claims are even more offensive. His defenders have never once tried to defend those claims, because they can’t. Instead they attack his detractors as Khawaja does.

However, even if someone finds a support for Khawaja’s argument, the quote is much too long. To take up so many lines for such a weak argument is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.218.25 (talk • contribs)

I just counted, and the Khawaja quote is 143 words, which is several times longer than any other quote in the article. Furthermore, unlike the other quotes in the wiki article, the Khawaja quote was not about Shahak in particular. It was a defesne of every Anti-Zionist who was ever called an Anti-Semite. Khawaja makes no attempt to rebut the substance of the charges against Shahak, such as his outrageous claim that Jews worship Satan. Instead he asserts that there are those who falsely accuse all Anti-Zionists of being Anti-Semites. Even if that is true, it doesn’t mean that an Anti-Zionists can never be an Anti-Semite.

How can you give so much to a quote which doesn’t directly deal with Shahak and doesn’t rebut the substance of the charges against him, and instead weakly claims that some of his attackers are misguided and biased. Even if true, it odesn’t mean that all of them are.

I think we cann all agree that a better quote to find Shahak must be found. Unfortunately, no one with any knowledge of Talmud has found any defense of the man whatsoever. The lack of a valid defense speaks volumes about the man, but is no excuse to allow a long and misleading defense which purposely ignores the real issues to be inculded in the article.

I also find it annoying that more space is not given to the substance of the attacks against Shahak. The outrageous Satan worship quote should be in the article itself, for it shows the extent of his fabrications, and shouldn’t be buried in a footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.218.25 (talk • contribs)

Khawaja said "Where the evidence is simply too thin to support a straightforward accusation, insinuate that anti-Semitism is at work without actually making an assertion that it is." With Shahak there have been many straightforward accusations, and none of his defenders have ever managed to rebut any of them. This quote is clearly not applicable to Shahak, even if Khawaja mistakenly mentioned his name among those he hoped to defend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.218.25 (talk • contribs)

Shahak's defenders
It speaks very poorly of Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky and Edward Said that they praised “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight Of Three Thousand Years” despite the obvious Anti-Semitic canards in it. Said would have brutally attacked anyone who defamed Islam that way, and rightfully so. That he accepted such outrageous charges against Judaism without investigating the quotes and seeing them in context is most upsetting and should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.98.223 (talk • contribs)
 * It's entirely unsurprising that Vidal, Chomsky and Said praised the book. Little we could say would be more damning than their own words. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The wiki article must mention that none of Shahak's defenders have ever attempted to rebut the substance of his more outrageous claims, such that Jews worship Satan. To leave that implies there can be reasonable debate among those informed about the issues, while that clearly is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.218.25 (talk • contribs)


 * But Shahak does not say that "the Jews worship Satan". What he claims is that


 * "Other prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the cabbalists, are designed to deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities with a measure of independence) or to propitiate Satan. This is supposed to be a means for tricking the angels who operate the gates through which prayers enter heaven and who have the power to block the prayers of the pious. The angels only understand Hebrew and are baffled by the Aramaic verses; being somewhat dull-witted (presumably they are far less clever than the cabbalists) they open the gates, and at this moment all the prayers, including those in Hebrew, get through. Or take another example: both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God, by promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshiping Satan, who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter. Indeed, the cabbalists believe that some of the sacrifices burnt in the Temple were intended for Satan."


 * The point of all this is that in this chapter Shahak is attacking the idea (which he argues is a "popular delusion") that the Jewish religion was always monotheistic. In discussing this, he is emphasising the influence of cabbalistic mysticism - opposed by the Jewish enlightenment but, he argues, still influential in modern Orthodoxy.


 * Now, Shahak may be correct or incorrect in his statements about cabbalistic interpretations in the time of Classical Judaism, but what this is absolutely not is a claim that "the Jews worship Satan". It might be helpful to have some cited scholarly opinion on the question of whether the cabbalists did interpret their blessings/prayers in this way. --Dannyno 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a few google searches on "mayim acharonim" and Satan, and found various discussions of the issue, one of which specifically mentioned the Kabbalah interpretation. The notion of "confusing Satan" is also widely discussed. --Dannyno 09:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide those links please? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Torah Research Community is the one where the "esoteric explanation" of the kabbalists is mentioned. Other mentions of Satan and ritual practice in other contexts (usually re: "fooling" him): here and here, and a rather curious "reasons other than those above" hint here.--Dannyno 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of those, looking at them again, the Kabbalaonline one is perhaps the most explicit. A quote:

Rinsing the remains of the meal off the fingertips is seen as "throwing the dog a bone." Evil possesses no intrinsic power; it derives its power solely by virtue of man's misdeeds. However, it must be present to at least some minimal extent in order for there to be free choice. If evil receives this minimal sustenance, it is satisfied, and, realizing that it has nothing more to expect from this meal, departs."

I presume slightly different interpretations would be offered by other commentators, but this one is the best confirmation yet that something along the lines mentioned by Shahak does indeed exist in Kabbalistic thinking. --Dannyno 19:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Worshipping Satan"??? Nothing I see in there describes anything like "Worshipping Satan". Fooling him, confusing him, diverting him, "throwing the dog a bone" - how does that become "worship"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Most people understand "worship" to mean something stronger than "propitiate", which is one of the words Shahak uses early in that section (along with "deceive"). We're assuming we know what it meant to Shahak, but it looks to me like perfectly ordinary atheist rhetoric.   --Dannyno 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that it's inaccurate and deceptive. If that were the only mistake he made it might be something you would let pass; however, the book is riddled with these kinds of issues, where he attributes to Judaism beliefs that the practitioners themselves do not hold, and often have never heard of, based on interpretations of primary materials that are unique to Shahak. Shahak sets up a straw man religion, then says that Israeli society (which, for the most part, didn't even practice real Judaism, much less Shahak's straw man version) is fundamentally racist as a result. This goes beyond bad research, or "perfectly ordinary atheist rhetoric". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. We have here a particular section of the book, focussed on undermining the notion that Judaism has always been monotheistic, which observes that according to a kabbalistic interpretation of a particular ritual, "Satan" is propitiated. This is true, there is such an interpretation.  In summarising his discussion, he doesn't mention the "worshipping Satan" thing, so it's not a central part of his argument at all.  It seems we're reduced to a debate over whether or not "worship" is the best word to use. Maybe its not, but it's hardly something to go to the wall over.  If there are inaccuracies, all we need to do here is point to cited sources which discuss those alleged inaccuracies.  Your particular POV is not particularly relevant or interesting.   Nor is it particularly shocking to find a writer arguing that a particular society is "fundamentally racist" (if that is what he is doing). Racism is pretty universal in human society, and lots of people have argued that their particular country is "fundamentally racist".  It would be surprising if racism did not exist in Israel, it would be extraordinary if people did not connect that racism to the political and national controversies of the region, and it wouldn't be exceptional to try to trace the origins of elements of racism to religious ideas.  People have done it for Christianity and Islam, why not Judaism?    I say again, who cares whether you happen to think that Shahak is particularly inaccurate?  What matters is whether we can cite any reliable sources which make the same claim. Some people have claimed the the alleged inaccuracy of Shahak is evidence of anti-semitism, rather than anti-Judaism. I find the claim illogical, but my view doesn't matter.  What matters is what the cited sources say. --Dannyno 09:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard to understand how you could try to support the claim that when someone says that a particular ritual in Judaism involves worshipping Satan, it's no big deal. It's also worth noting that the basis for that ritual precedes the Zohar's first publication (the source of the kabbalistic interpretation) by approximately 1,000 years, so to claim the basis for it lies in that kabbalistic explanation is curious. Shahak played fast and loose with Judaism in a way that would never be accepted from a serious author; he found tiny statements here and there among Judaism's voluminous writings, then misinterpreted them to suit his agenda, and then further attributed his misinterpreted beliefs to practitioners of Judaism (and through some mystical process into atheist secular Zionists), most of whom had never even heard of the passages in question, much less Shahak's novel interpretations of them. These kinds of mendacious polemics are, in fact, not common in scholarly works. Regarding rebuttals of some of Shahak's claims, here is one source. Finally, it's a little bit late to suddenly be saying "who cares whether you happen to think that Shahak is particularly inaccurate?", when you're the one who started this thread in the first place by giving your own opinions about Shahak's claims and accuracy. If that's the route you want to go, then please state exactly which parts of the article you wish to change, on what basis, and what the sources are that support your suggested changes. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm puzzled. My first post in this thread (which actually you started) merely quoted what Shahak actually said. I think that when you want to discuss what someone wrote it is always worth beginning with what they wrote rather than what someone claims they wrote. I passed no particular judgement on Shahak's accuracy (I said "Shahak may be correct or incorrect"), but instead appealed for some actual citations confirming or undermining his specific claims about Kabbalistic interpretation.   We still lack proper citations, but we have found independent opinion which backs up Shahak's comment that on one interpretation a particular ritual involves propitiating "Satan".  We seem to be agreed that "worship" is putting it strongly, but if that's the substance of the criticism of Shahak on this point then it's not very exciting. Nevertheless, if we can find a scholarly citation disputing the use of the word "worship" instead of "propitiate" (perhaps Shahak was groping for a suitable synonym, having used "propitiate" one already in near proximity - however we can't know that), then that can certainly be included in the article.  When I say, to paraphrase, "who cares what you think", I am also saying "who cares what *I* think" (indeed, I specifically said "my view doesn't matter").  What matters is what proper sources say.  Hence my puzzlement at your contributions here. --Dannyno 09:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very puzzled too. Compare Shahak's treatment in his article with the article Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
 * Hirsi Ali's article is a platform to attack Islam in the most lurid terms. She is quoted as saying: "Violence is inherent in Islam—it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder." (and lots more that can only be intended to incite fear and likely hatred of Muslims). These attacks are based on personal experiences we know she's lied about (nearly lost her Dutch citizenship as a result). But there is no attempt at "balancing opinions" from Muslims who are bound to be very offended. That defense (credible knowledgeably and calm as far as I can tell) is buried in links, they're not even labelled "Criticism" in the index, they're amongst "Articles".
 * In comparison, Shahak's message (to expose fundamentalism within the religion he continued to practise) is pretty much buried in his article. Of course there are those who dispute Shahak's understanding and conclusions about fundamentalism, but the opinion of those who differ should be of almost no significance to us. If they need to be included, then they should be labelled as "coming from fundamentalists" (or at least "supporters of fundmantalism"). It's particularily outrageous to re-publish personal attacks on Shahak such as "Like the Nazis before him, Shahak specialized in defaming the Talmud." and "made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism." (this last to an Israeli Professor of Chemistry at Hebrew University in Jerusalem!). There are lots more of these attacks in our article, clearly aimed at Shahak himself and not at his arguments. It's not as if we're in any doubt that these fundamentalists exist, see Baruch Goldstein.
 * These two article make it appear that the encyclopedia has aligned itself with those followers of Judaism who cannot tolerate even measured criticism of fundamentalism from within their own ranks (since as far as I can tell, that's all that Israel Shahak was ever doing). And/or make it seem as if the encyclopaedia has aligned itself with those who glorify hatred of Islam. PalestineRemembered 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about; what religion did Shahak "continue to practice"? I believe he was an atheist. Regarding your other comments, the specific criticisms are indeed about Shahak's claims regarding the Talmud and Judaism. Also, why on earth would you claim that the criticisms come from "fundamentalists"? Fundamentalist whats? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish to disassociate myself from the above attack on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The above writer confuses Hirsi Ali's 'lies' about who she was and where she came from when seeking asylum with lying about her experiences, as such. But this is not the place to rehearse all of that. --Dannyno 14:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also find it hard to square your assertion about Shahak's attitude to secular Jews with the opinion he stated in a letter to the Jerusalem Post on 14 July 1997 (p.6):

"No doubt, human rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion - which includes freedom from religion - guarantee the right of everybody to express abominable views and to worship in any way he chooses. But the secular Jews have the same right to express their view that historical Judaism (like other religions or nationalities) contains statements which they regard as abominable and they will continue to exercise this right." Take that alongside his clear statement that the Halacha contains statements, "regarded by the Orthodox and Conservative Jews as both sacred and obligatory", which "many (perhaps most) secular Jews regard as abominable and immoral." This seems clear enough. --Dannyno 09:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not understanding which parts of the article you think should be changed, and why. Can you make that more explicit please? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, I wasn't proposing any changes. You were. Perhaps I will, however. --Dannyno 15:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, no, I haven't proposed any changes. I'm not sure why you think I have. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it was the bit above saying "The wiki article must mention...", which I took to be your comment. I see now it's attributed to "unsigned", which must be a recent fix. So, cool, neither of us had a change in mind.  --Dannyno 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this article gives far too much credit to Israel Shahak, when hardly any of his claims can be taken seriously by people who know much about judaism, and the way he presents the jewish religion and history is completely one-sided and skewed. Shahak has made claims about judaism in his books which are quite simply false and seem desigend to fit in with traditional antisemitic prejudice about jews hating everyone else in the world. I think the article should give examples of some of the more outlandish things he said, for instance that the dreadful chmielniki pogroms of the sixteenth century were comparable to the french revolution and the haiti slave rebelion, because the people who slaughtered the jews were fighting against their opressors (he says so in his most famous book: The weight of three thousand years).


 * "You think"? And why should wikipedia reflect your particular point of view? I missed your explanation of that. As for Chmielniki, Shahak cites John Stoye's "Europe Unfolding": "The unprivileged, the subjects, the Ukranians, the Orthodox, were rising against their Catholic Polish masters, particularly against their masters' bailiffs, clergy and Jews" (p.46). It doesn't seem automatically implausible. But it doesn't matter what we think, what counts is what we can cite. --Dannyno 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I note that the trashy article (there is no other adjective for it) by Werner Cohen cited here, says this:-


 * For his part, Gore Vidal tells us that an (unnamed) "American Zionist" brought Harry Truman two million dollars in cash in 1948 and that as a result US recognition of Israel went through very fast. Nevertheless, says Vidal, he himself is not an anti-Semite. Somewhat later, he finds that Shahak is particularly "...a joy to read on the great Gentile-hating Dr. Maimonides."


 * 'The association of these men with this little booklet was meant to lend credence to Dr. Shahak. I think that, on the contrary, it brings dishonor -- further dishonor -- to Chomsky and Vidal.'</BR>


 * The actual passage in Vidal's preface runs:--


 * Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. ‘That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.’ As neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics.</BR>


 * I.e. Vidal's language carefully consciously and openly undermines the utility of his own report for historical study. He could well have written, damagingly, 'Jack Kennedy assured me that . .'' . .etc. he didn't. He called what he reported 'gossip', and gossip it remains.

Remarks
There seem to be an overlarge number of advocacy groups quoted here. We surely do not need the names of two editorialists in a non-reliable source (FPM), CAMERA (another non-RS) and a couple of random homepages? Surely, if the ADL has said something, that is sufficient to make it notable; but is the rest appropriate? Should we not merely mention that some marginal voices have said something about antisemitism and move on? About the critical comments, can we get some from notable individuals or organisations, please, not everyone whose ever written anything. Ditto with the praise, though at least some of those names are notable. I understand a lot of work has gone into this article, but that doesn't mean its not crap. Relata refero (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Relata refero; how surprising that you seem to have followed me to yet another article. The material seems well and reliably enough sourced; I'm restoring it for now, please explain specific issues with specific material. Also, I'm removing a POV description ("Many conservative activists have made similar accusations") - try to avoid poisoning the well in the future. In addition, an IP editor seems to have inserted the claim that Shahak was liberated from the Warsaw Ghetto by a "Home Army platoon". This seems highly implausible, considering that the ghetto was liquidated by the Nazis in 1943, a full year before the British landed in France, so I've removed it - it would have been helpful if you had removed it yourself. Also, you seem to have introduced some original research when you stated that Mezvinsky was referring to Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Jew Watch, etc. in his introduction to his book. Please take care not to introduce WP:NOR again, thanks. It might also be helpful to read the lengthy Talk: archives. By the way, how's that re-write of Niall Ferguson coming? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jay! Good to see you! Try and remember that I went to Niall Fergusson from BLP/N, OK? And this is the only article I've ever "followed" you to by looking at your contributions. (I do have to restrain myself sometimes, I admit.)
 * Thanks for removing the Home Army platoon thing, it didn't make a lot of sense, but I don't claim to be an expert on WWII.
 * Noting that those making the accusations are all conservative activists is not poisoning the well, I believe. Its called factual reporting. If we are going to retain them - which, actually by WP:UNDUE we should not - it is our responsibility to point out that they are not mainstream voices.
 * Thank you for pointing out that the altered text implied that Mezvinsky meant Jew Watch and company when he was talking about antisemites. I have reworded it so that that implication is not made.
 * IN other news, I see you restored FPM, CAMERA, a couple of random homepages, a non-notable non-scholar, extremist quotes, etc. This was no doubt a moment of carelessness, so I have removed them again. FPM, CAMERA, David Duke, and so on are all extremist or advocacy sources, and we don't usually quote them. If you can find reliable mainstream secondary sources discussing their response, please feel free to add those.
 * Niall Fergusson? Fine. I've kept it stubbed the degree you did for now. Made any other poor protects lately? Relata refero (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn you followed me to Israel lobby in the United Kingdom too. By the way, how's your cleanup of that monstrosity going? I recall you arguing it should be deleted. Regarding this article, please list specific issues with specific sources, rather than broadly claiming all of them are "non-notable non-scholar, extremist quotes, etc." FPM, for example, is the right wing counterpart of CounterPunch, a source which is linked to almost 1000 times on Wikipedia. Now, admittedly, many of those are on Talk: pages, but many of them are in articles too. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I still think it should be deleted, and have said so again at BLP/N recently - but I actually followed the links from Jewish lobby, which was getting a lot of attention a little while ago, I think.
 * I have no opinion on CounterPunch, and its irrelevant to this article.
 * About specific sources, I think I was fairly clear. When one cleans up a poorly sourced article like this one, its usually best if each source is brought and discussed by the person who wants to use it, rather than attacked by the person removing it. (Remember what our policies are on poorly-sourced material being removed at any time!) So, feel free yo defend these sources. Shall we start with David Duke? Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * CounterPunch is quite relevant here; the double standard displayed on sources won't wash, really - we can't say CounterPunch is acceptable for Wikipedia, but Front Page Magazine is unacceptable. And we don't use David Duke as a source; we use someone who quotes Duke, and explains the relevance to Shahak. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I didn't see that as written.
 * Please take your crusade against CounterPunch elsewhere. Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as you take your crusade against FPM elsewhere. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are indeed in the business of using unreliable sources to balance out unreliable sources. Whatever. Please note that the article as it stands has over a third of its citations sourced to CAMERA, MEMRI, WorldNetDaily, Paul Bogdanor, Rachel Neuwirth, Daniel Pipes little newsletter and the like. You might think this is acceptable to balance the one Antiwar.com citation, but it actually isn't, and I must get round to removing it in time. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See the talk pages of Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé. Same problems -> same solutions. Ceedjee (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the "same problems", since Benny Morris is a living person. Shahak is not - thus the standard for inclusion is not nearly as high. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Of course, not this low, either.
 * And I'll clean those up in due course. Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right about CAMERA. Apart from being about as reliable as the Communist Party for information on the USSR, has been rejected on the Reliable sources noticeboard, and is in big trouble right now (late Apr) for organising an attack on the NPOV of WP. That's before you actually look at their articles, which amongst other glaring faults, are often racist. We should use sources that speak of "Palestinian duplicity" when we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". PRtalk 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Useful episode
I have posted this elsewhere. Some may find it useful to work into the article.


 * 'Shahak's courageous work as a chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights deserves special comment - as does the response to it, both in Israel and here. In November 1972, some two hundred people appeared at a meeting of this small civil rights group, insisted on being registered as members, took over the meeting, and forced out the leadership. The Israeli courts, quite properly, declared the results of the meeting null and void (Judge Lovenberg, Nov.26,1972). The Labour Party (Youth Department) then circulated a leaflet headed internal, not to be published, requesting party members to join the league as a 'state duty . . .for the purpose of enabling our party to have a predominant influence in the League, offering to pay membership dues. There was no mention of civil liberties in this call. Judge Lovenberg ruled (8 April, 1973) that the League must accept mass membership organized in this fashion, while reaffirming his earlier ruling. Obviously, no organization can survive such tactics on the part of the dominant political party.


 * On the basis of these events, the New York-based International League for Human Rights, in a most astonishing decision, suspended the Israeli League. In April 1973, shahak visited the United States. In an interview with the Boston Globe (18 April), he identified himself quite accurately, as chairman of the Israeli League. This interview, dealing with topics rarely discussed here, elicited an abusive response from Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who claimed, among other falsehoods, that Shahak 'was overwhelmingly defeated for re-election' as chairman in November 1970 (sic) and that the courts had 'ruled' that the election was legal and that Shahak had been validly defeated (Globe, 29 April, 15 May). The incident illustrates again the lengths to which American Zionists will go in their efforts to silence discussion and discredit politicalopponents. Dershowitz offered no factual evidence at any point. His assertions ardirectly refuted by the court records, which are not, of course, normal reading fare here. Still more interesting was Dershowitz's reaction when the Labour Party tactics were brought to his attention. He wrote that he saw nothing wrong with the Labour Party effort to take over the League(25 May). One can imagine his reaction if the Watergate investigations were to reveal a comparable attempt by the Republican Party to take over the ACLU. Dershowitz had done admirable work in defence of civil rights in the United States, but - typically - all standards disappear when the scene shifts to Israel.' (Noam Chomsky, Peace in the Middle East, Fontana ed.London 1975 p.186)Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz appears to have done something even more false and much nastier. Not content with smearing a dead woman in a very unpleasant fashion, he tells us the evidence he has - and it's plainly quite false. He cannot be sued (because the woman is dead) - I've not worked out how to include this in an article. Note that this smear is picked up by FrontPage Magazine and twisted to be still nastier - which, IMHO, should exclude FPM from consideration as an RS. I don't agree with much that's in CounterPunch - but I've never seen it cheating like this. PRtalk 20:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear PR, a word of advice. These articles need more information on the substance of a man's life and thought, less on the susurrus of innuendo, which I think most readers can catch, which tends to flood their pages in Wiki, because editors don't read books, but follow netlinks in order to push some political advantage for a country. One reason this page has such a slew of negative comment is that Shahak is dead, and therefore fair game for slander to swamp his distinguished life in a wave of infamy. One should work hard to keep this kind of material out of wiki, rather than counterpoise it with similar material on 'pro-Israeli' figures. It's mainly wasted effort, only creates warring, and ultimately ill-serves the reader. Welcome back Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of that material is about the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, not about Shahak. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of which Israel Shahak was president, and in whose formation he played a central role. You've got a problem of intertextual coherence on your hands, if you oppose annotation of his function here. For, checking, I note the following on the Alan Dershowitz page.


 * "'In 1972, according to his critics, Dershowitz attempted to discredit Israel Shahak (1933 – 2001), then president of the Israel League for Human and Civil Rights, who had sharply criticized Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Shahak was in the process of challenging contested election results for the chairmanship of the Israel League in a legal civil action. Dershowitz claimed that Judge Lovenburg, the judge presiding in Shahak's civil suit, had ruled that Shahak was properly unseated, and Dershowitz challenged anyone to provide evidence to the contrary.  In response, Noam Chomsky argued that the court had opined that the elections had not been held properly, that no conclusions or actions were to be drawn from it, and that Shahak and his colleagues were to continue to function as 'those who now direct' the Israel League for Human and Civil Rights."


 * I.e. the information about Shahak and his Human Rights League has been sitting plump on Dershowitz's page for years, but you find it problematical to have the same information (from a different source)given on the page directing bearly on Shahak. I will, whatever, eventually give an abbreviated reference to the episode here, as it does bear on Shahak's life, unlike the large amount of smear material this article carries, smear material based on absurd fringe-polemical comments ungrounded in any knowledge of the man or his work.Nishidani (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the information has been on Dershowitz's page for years is hardly an indication that it should be included here. The Dershowitz page is a ridiculous POV magnet, where every minor tiff and letter to the editor is magnified out of all proportion. There's a good reason it had to be completely deleted at the end of 2005, and started fresh. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it is not an indication it should be used here. I didn't get that information from Dershowitz's page. I merely note that one must be editorially coherent. To question the introduction of material on one page (a critic of Israel) and leave untouched the same material on another page (a defender of Israel) is inconsistent. Personally, I think an indication of this controversy should stand on both pages. You think on neither. I'll keep my eye on the Dershowitz page out of curiosity to see how you handle this inconsistency. I would also remark however that Shahak's page has been a 'magnificent POV magnet' for antisemitic charges and innuendo that are, worse still, false and malicious. That doesn't appear to worry you.Nishidani (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight etc etc.
In reply to Jayjg, the text has extensive comments on the 1965 incident and various replies by rabbinical authorities are quoted in detail. It is noted that Shahak repeated his 'claim'. The point is: one is left with the impression Shahak made an outrageous claim and several learned authorities over the decades showed his claim was wrong in law. The least that is required is an exposition based on the relevant passage in Shahakì's works, of Shahak's position. As it stands we have the rebuttals, but not the original assertion, which means a gross violation of WP:Undue. Here for example is one of the passages in Shahak, and note, he sources it to many texts in rabbinical thought:-

Saving of Life This subject - the supreme value of human life and the obligation of every human being to do the outmost to save the life of a fellow human - is of obvious importance in itself. It is also of particular interest in a Jewish context, in view of the fact that since the second world war Jewish opinion has - in some cases justly, in others unjustly - condemned 'the whole world' or at least all Europe for standing by when Jews were being massacred. Let us therefore examine what the Halakhah has to say on this subject. According to the Halakhah, the duty to save the life of a fellow Jew is paramount. (14) It supersedes all other religious obligations and interdictions,excepting only the prohibitions against the three most heinous sins of adultery (including incest), murder and idolatry. ''As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright. The Talmud itself (15)expresses this in the maxim 'Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]'. Maimonides (16) explains"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued,for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow' (17) -but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow',''

In particular, a Jewish doctor must not treat a Gentile patient. Maimonides -himself an illustrious physician - is quite explicit on this; in another passage (18) he repeats the distinction between 'thy fellow' and a Gentile, and concludes: 'and from this learn ye, that ''it is forbidden to heal a Gentile even for payment...' However, the refusal of a Jew - particularly a Jewish doctor - to save the life of a Gentile may, if it becomes known, antagonize powerful Gentiles and so put Jews in danger. Where such danger exists, the obligation to avert it supersedes the ban on helping the Gentile. Thus Maimonides continues: ' ... but if you fear him or his hostility, cure him for payment, though you are forbidden to do so without payment'.''

In fact, Maimonides himself was Saladin's personal physician. His insistence on demanding payment - presumably in order to make sure that the act is not one of human charity but an unavoidable duty - is however not absolute. For in another passage he allows Gentile whose hostility is feared to be treated 'even gratis, if it is unavoidable'. The whole doctrine - the ban on saving a Gentile's life or healing him, and the suspension of this ban in cases where there is fear of hostility - is repeated (virtually verbatim) by other major authorities, including the 14th century Arba'ah Turim and Karo's Beyt Yosef and Shulhan 'Arukh. (19) Beyt Yosef adds, quoting Maimonides: 'And it is permissible to try out a drug on a heathen, if this serves a purpose'; and this is repeated also by the famous R. Moses Isserles. The consensus of halakhic authorities is that the term 'Gentiles' in the above doctrine refers to all non-Jews. A lone voice of dissent is that of R. Moses Rivkes, author of a minor commentary on the Shulhan Arukh, who writes. (20) Our sages only said this about heathens, who in their day worshipped idols and did not believe in the Jewish Exodus from Egypt or in the creation of the world ex nihilo. But the Gentiles in whose [protective] shade we, the people of Israel, are exiled and among whom we are scattered do believe in the creation of the world ex nihilo and in the Exodus and in several principles of our own religion and they pray to the Creator of heaven and earth ... Not only is there no interdiction against helping them, but we are even obliged to pray for their safety. This passage, dating from the second half of the 17th century, is a favorite quote of apologetic scholars. (21) Actually, it does not go nearly as far as the apologetics pretend, for it advocates removing the ban on saving a Gentile's life, rather than making it mandatory as in the case of a Jew; and even this liberality extends only to Christians and Muslims but not the majority of human beings. Rather, what it does show is that there was a way in which the harsh doctrine of the Halakhah could have been progressively liberalized. But as a matter of fact the majority of later halakhic authorities, far from extending Rivkes' leniency to other human groups, have rejected it altogether.

Desecrating the Sabbath to Save Life Desecrating the Shabbath - that is, doing work that would otherwise be banned on Saturday - becomes a duty when the need to save a Jew's life demands it. The problem of saving a Gentile's life on the sabbath is not raised in the Talmud as a main issue, since it is in any case forbidden even on a weekday; it does however enter as a complicating factor in two connections. First, there is a problem where a group of people are in danger, and it is possible (but not certain) that there is at least one Jew among them: should the sabbath be desecrated in [82] order to save them? There is an extensive discussion of such cases. Following earlier authorities, including Maimonides and the Talmud itself, the Shulhan ‘Arukh (22) decides these matters according to the weight of probabilities. For example, suppose nine Gentiles and one Jew live in the same building. One Saturday the building collapses; one of the ten - it is not known which one - is away, but the other nine are trapped under the rubble. Should the rubble be cleared, thus desecrating the Sabbath, seeing that the Jew may not be under it (he may have been the one that got away)? The Shulhan 'Arukh says that it should, presumably because the odds that the Jew is under the rubble are high (nine to one). But now suppose that nine have got away and only one - again, it is not known which one - is trapped. Then there is no duty to clear the rubble, presumably because this time there are long odds (nine to one) against the Jew being the person trapped. Similarly: 'If a boat containing some Jews is seen to be in peril upon the sea, it is a duty incumbent upon all to desecrate the sabbath in order to save it.' However, the great R. 'Aqiva Eiger (died 1837) comments that this applies only 'when it is known that there are Jews on board. But ... if nothing at all is known about the identity of those on board, [the sabbath] must not be desecrated, for one acts according to [the weight of probabilities, and] the majority of people in the world are Gentiles.’ (23) Thus, since there are very long odds against any of the passengers being Jewish, they must be allowed to drown.

Secondly, the provision that a Gentile may be saved or cared for in order to avert the danger of hostility is curtailed on the sabbath. A Jew called upon to help a Gentile on a weekday may have to comply because to admit that he is not allowed, in principle, to save the life of a non-Jew would be to invite hostility. But on Saturday the Jew can use sabbath observance as a plausible excuse. A paradigmatic case discussed at length in the Talmud (24) is that of a Jewish midwife invited to help a Gentile woman in childbirth. The upshot is that the midwife is allowed to help on a weekday 'for fear of hostility', but on the sabbath she must not do so, because she can excuse herself by saying: 'We are allowed to desecrate the sabbath only for our own, who observe the sabbath, but for your people, who do not keep the sabbath, we are not allowed to desecrate it.' Is this explanation a genuine one or merely an excuse?

Maimonides clearly thinks that it is just an excuse, which can be used even if the task that the midwife is invited to do does not actually involve any desecration of the sabbath. Presumably, the excuse will work just as well even in this case, because Gentiles are generally in the dark as to precisely which [83] kinds of work are banned for Jews on the sabbath. At any rate, he decrees: 'A Gentile woman must not be helped in childbirth on the sabbath, even for payment; nor must one fear hostility, even when [such help involves] no desecration of the sabbath.' The Shulhan 'Arukh decrees likewise. (25)

Nevertheless, this sort of excuse could not always be relied upon to do the trick and avert Gentile hostility. Therefore certain important rabbinical authorities had to relax the rules to some extent and allowed Jewish doctors to treat Gentiles on the sabbath even if this involved doing certain types of work normally banned on that day. This partial relaxation applied particularly to rich and powerful Gentile patients, who could not be fobbed off so easily and whose hostility could be dangerous. Thus, R. Yo'el Sirkis, author of Bayit Hadash and one of the greatest rabbis of his time (Poland, 17th century), decided that 'mayors, petty nobles and aristocrats' should be treated on the sabbath, because of the fear of their hostility which involves 'some danger'. But in other cases, especially when the Gentile can be fobbed off with an evasive excuse, a Jewish doctor would commit 'an unbearable sin' by treating him on the sabbath. Later in the same century, a similar verdict was given in the French city of Metz, whose two parts were connected by a pontoon bridge. Jews are not normally allowed to cross such a bridge on the sabbath, but the rabbi of Metz decided that a Jewish doctor may nevertheless do so 'if he is called to the great governor': since the doctor is known to cross the bridge for the sake of his Jewish patients, the governor's hostility could be aroused if the doctor refused to do so for his sake. Under the authoritarian rule of Louis XIV, it was evidently important to have the goodwill of his intendant; the feelings of lesser Gentiles were of little importance. (26)

Hokhmat Shlomoh, a 19th century commentary on the Shulhan 'Arukh, mentions a similarly strict interpretation of the concept 'hostility' in connection with the Karaites, a small heretical Jewish sect. According to this view, their lives must not be saved if that would involve desecration of the sabbath, 'for "hostility" applies only to the heathen, who are many against us, and we are delivered into their hands .. But the Karaites are few and we are not delivered into their hands, [so] the fear of hostility does not apply to them at all.' (27) In fact, the absolute ban on desecrating the sabbath in order to save the life of a Karaite is still in force today, as we shall see.The whole subject is extensively discussed in the responsa of R. Moshe Sofer - better known as 'Hatam Sofer' – the [84] famous rabbi of Pressburg (Bratislava) who died in 1832. His conclusions are of more than historical interest, since in 1966 one of his responsa was publicly endorsed by the then Chief Rabbi of Israel as 'a basic institution of the Halakhah'. (28) The particular question asked of Hatam Sofer concerned the situation in Turkey, where it was decreed during one of the wars that in each township or village there should be midwives on call, ready to hire themselves out to any woman in labor. Some of these midwives were Jewish; should they hire themselves out to help Gentile women on weekdays and on the sabbath?

In his responsum, (29) Hatam Sofer first concludes, after careful investigation, that the Gentiles concerned - that is, Ottoman Christians and Muslims - are not only idolators 'who definitely worship other gods and thus should "neither be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down",' but are likened by him to the Amalekites, so that the talmudic ruling 'it is forbidden to multiply the seed of Amalek' applies to them. In principle, therefore, they should not be helped even on weekdays. However, in practice it is 'permitted' to heal Gentiles and help them in labor, if they have doctors and midwives of their own, who could be called instead of the Jewish ones. For if Jewish doctors and midwives refused to attend to Gentiles, the only result would be loss of income to the former - which is of course undesirable. This applies equally on weekdays and on the sabbath, provided no desecration of the sabbath is involved.

However, in the latter case the sabbath can serve as an excuse to 'mislead the heathen woman and say that it would involve desecration of the sabbath'. In connection with cases that do actually involve desecration of the sabbath, Hatam Sofer - like other authorities - makes a distinction between two categories of work banned on the sabbath. First, there is work banned by the Torah, the biblical text (as interpreted by the Talmud); such work may only be performed in very exceptional cases, if failing to do so would cause an extreme danger of hostility towards Jews. Then there are types of work which are only banned by the sages who extended the original law of the Torah; the attitude towards breaking such bans is generally more lenient.

Another responsum of Hatam Sofer (30) deals with the question whether it is permissible for a Jewish doctor to travel by carriage on the sabbath in order to heal a Gentile. After pointing out that under certain conditions traveling by horsedrawn carriage on the sabbath only violates a ban imposed 'by the sages' rather than by the Torah, he goes on to recall [85] Maimonides' pronouncement that Gentile women in labor must not be helped on the sabbath, even if no desecration of the sabbath is involved, and states that the same principle applies to all medical practice, not just midwifery. But he then voices the fear that if this were put into practice, 'it would arouse undesirable hostility,' for 'the Gentiles would not accept the excuse of sabbath observance,' and 'would say that the blood of an idolator has little worth in our eyes'. Also, perhaps more importantly, Gentile doctors might take revenge on their Jewish patients. Better excuses must be found. He advises a Jewish doctor who is called to treat a Gentile patient out of town on the sabbath to excuse himself by saying that he is required to stay in town in order to look after his other patients, 'for he can use this in order to say, "I cannot move because of the danger to this or that patient, who needs a doctor first, and I may not desert my charge" … With such an excuse there is no fear of danger, for it is a reasonable pretext, commonly given by doctors who are late in arriving because another patient needed them first.' Only 'if it is impossible to give any excuse' is the doctor permitted to travel by carriage on the sabbath in order to treat a Gentile.

In the whole discussion, the main issue is the excuses that should be made, not the actual healing or the welfare of the patient. And throughout it is taken for granted that it is all right to deceive Gentiles rather than treat them, so long as 'hostility' can be averted. (31)

Of course, in modern times most Jewish doctors are not religious and do not even know of these rules. Moreover, it appears that even many who are religious prefer to their credit - to abide by the Hippocratic oath rather than by the precepts of their fanatic rabbis. (32) However, the rabbis' guidance cannot fail to have some influence on some doctors; and there are certainly many who, while not actually following that guidance, choose not to protest against it publicly. All this is far from being a dead issue. The most up- to-date halakhic position on these matters is contained in a recent concise and authoritative book published in English under the title Jewish Medical Law. (33) This book, which bears the imprint of the prestigious Israeli foundation Mossad Harav Kook, is based on the responsa of R. Eli'ezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Chief Justice of the Rabbinical District Court of Jerusalem. A few passages of this work deserve special mention. First, 'it is forbidden to desecrate the sabbath ... for a Karaite.' (34) This is stated bluntly, absolutely and without any further qualification. Presumably the hostility of this small sect makes no difference, so they should be allowed to die rather [86] than be treated on the sabbath.

As for Gentiles: 'According to the ruling stated in the Talmud and Codes of Jewish Law, it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath - whether violating Biblical or rabbinic law - in order to save the life of a dangerously ill gentile patient. It is also forbidden to deliver the baby of a gentile women on the Sabbath.' (35) But this is qualified by a dispensation: 'However, today it is permitted to desecrate the Sabbath on behalf of a Gentile by performing actions prohibited by rabbinic law, for by so doing one prevents ill feelings from arising between Jew and Gentile.' (36) This does not go very far, because medical treatment very often involves acts banned on the sabbath by the Torah itself, which are not covered by this dispensation. There are, we are told, 'some' halakhic authorities who extend the dispensation to such acts as well - but this is just another way of saying that most halakhic authorities, and the ones that really count, take the opposite view. However, all is not lost. Jewish Medical Law has a truly breathtaking solution to this difficulty The solution hangs upon a nice point of talmudic law. A ban imposed by the Torah on performing a given act on the sabbath is presumed to apply only when the primary intention in performing it is the actual outcome of the act. (For example, grinding wheat is presumed to be banned by the Torah only if the purpose is actually to obtain flour.) On the other hand, if the performance of the same act is merely incidental to some other purpose (melakhah seh'eynah tzrikhah legufah) then the act changes its status - it is still forbidden, to be sure, but only by the sages rather than by the Torah itself. Therefore: In order to avoid any transgression of the law, there is a legally acceptable method of rendering treatment on behalf of a gentile patient even when dealing with violation of Biblical Law. It is suggested that at the time that the physician is providing the necessary care, his intentions should not primarily be to cure the patient, but to protect himself and the Jewish people from accusations of religious discrimination and severe retaliation that may endanger him in particular and the Jewish people in general. With this intention, any act on the physician's part becomes an act whose actual outcome is not its primary purpose' ... which is forbidden on Sabbath only by rabbinic law. (37)

This hypocritical substitute for the Hippocratic oath is also proposed by a recent authoritative Hebrew book. (38) Although the facts were mentioned at least twice in the [87] Israeli press, (39) the Israeli Medical Association has remained silent. Having treated in some detail the supremely important subject of the attitude of the Halakhah to a Gentile's very life, we shall deal much more briefly with other halakhic rules which discriminate against Gentiles. Since the number of such rules is very large, we shall mention only the more important ones.' (Jewish History,Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years Pluto Press, London,1994 pp.80ff.) The scruples here were those that influenced Baruch Goldstein, though the page on him, again, only cites numerous friendly testimonies that what Arabs affirmed was not true. Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't aware that Shahak's expertise in chemistry extended to a similar expertise in Jewish law. Did he have some sort of degree or rabbinic ordination that made him qualified to do this analysis? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the point, as usual. This is Shahak's page. His books are mentioned briefly. Criticism of his books are mentioned in extenso. Therefore WP:Undue is violated by allowing the criticisms of the man and his books considerable space while holding hostage attempts to clarify exactly what he wrote in his books that aroused criticism. The objection is fatuous. Karl Popper wasn't a Greek scholar: he wrote a detailed study of Plato, that is widely read by classicists. Joseph Needham was a biochemist, his works on Chinese thought, astronomy, engineering are considered fundamental, Claude Lévi-Strauss was qualified in law: he is one of the most authoritative anthropologists of my time. I think I gave once, in the RS pages, a column of 20 scholars who have worked productively outside of their primary fields of academic competence. You've tried this with David Shulman, as with Shahak, and it doesn't hold water. I can only presume you are more familiar with the strategic uses of wiki rules than with the history of scholarship. In any case, you may have a mere semblance of wikilawyered pretext on your side when a Shahak is quoted on the subject in another article dealing with specialized learning on rabbinical topics, where he may be challenged as a RS. You have no ground to stand on in adducing the rule on Shahak's page, where the exposition of his views is wholly acceptable and indeed necessary. For one, we shall now have to edit in, citing his quotations from the relevant texts in Maimonides, why he held the opinion he is said here to be criticized for. Several of the critics mentioned by the way have no proven qualifications in rabbinical learningNishidani (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's no wonder that serious scholars such as Nishidani abandon the project in despair. The wonder is that they don't leave goodbye messages telling us how ridiculous this all is.
 * Shahak did less to Judaism (in far more measured terms) than the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali do to Islam.
 * Compare the two for reliability - Hirsi Ali is known to have lied (she's admitted it publicly) about what Islam did to her life, re-inventing great portions of it even including her name and date of birth. (That was in order to leave the perfectly safe Germany and settle in Holland). She's either chucked up or mysteriously distanced herself from the plum think-tank job she landed in Washington .... safer back in Eurabia than Washington?
 * Whereas Shahak is more respectable in every way, surviving Belsen (1943 aged 10), going to Palestine, serving in an elite regiment of the IDF. He went on to become a professor of chemistry at Hebrew University. I think it's only in 1967 he came to question his faith. Nishidani proves again (above) that Shahak's criticisms of his religion (while hard hitting) bear no resemblance to those of Hirsi Ali, they're veritable models of reason in comparison.
 * Now compare the two for the tone of our treatment - we quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali enthusiastically (as do all sorts of blatant Islamophobes and racists) seemingly delighted to have her say of Islam "Violence is inherent in Islam, it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder".
 * In Shahak's case, we ignore the points he has to make, pour scorn on his testimony, and quote his critics saying "world's most conspicuous Jewish antisemite... Like the Nazis before him".
 * Then we further defame Shahak because his words were picked up by racists - even though we know it's completely irrelevant. Moshe Sharrat, 2nd Prime Minister of Israel is also extensively quoted by the antisemitic - so? It's almost as if we're writing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. PRtalk 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PR, please note that WP:BLP applies to Ali, and please stop using article talk pages as soapboxes. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any BLP issues in the above, the one "allegation" I've made is something that she confessed to on Dutch television and was potential cause for her to lose citizenship. I have no personal problem with Ali (I don't recall ever trying to edit that article) and I applaud her courage and her speaking out as she does. I think her comments on the the Palestinians are flawed (both content and tone) - but if those are her beliefs, then of course they belong in her article.
 * Nor do I understand the problem using examples to demonstrate how people criticising their own religion can be (and usually are) treated quite properly by us in articles on their lives. As has been persuasively argued above, Shahak has potentially legitimate academic points to make, and real scholars attempting to edit these pages must consider it absurd (if not outrageous) that we muzzle the subject of the article, while giving full voice to his often extreme detractors. The statement "regaled his audience with a stream of outrageous libels, ludicrous fabrications, and transparent hoaxes. As each successive allegation was exposed and discredited, he would simply proceed to a new invention" is particularly problematical, coming from the re-publisher of this 1962 essay.
 * Could I ask you, as a very experienced administrator, for suggestions as to how to circumvent the apparent WP:OWNERSHIP going on at this article? PRtalk 09:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To begin with, regarding your ridiculous claim that "everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens", in reality, it is quite the opposite - historians don't agree on this at all, and the latest book on the subject concludes that he was a war hero who saved 12,000-18,000 lives. The book, by the way, won the 2007 Nereus Writers' Trust Non-Fiction Prize, and was shortlisted for the 2008 Charles Taylor Literary Prize for Non-Fiction. As for your other question, I, as a "very experienced administrator", suggest you stop inserting your irrelevant WP:BLP violations regarding Ali on various Talk: pages, stop soapboxing on Talk: pages, and stop making uncivil and false claims about WP:OWNERSHIP. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"made an apparently unsubstantiated assertion"
User:Lute88 has replaced the phrase "In 1966, Immanuel Jakobovits... asserted" with the phrase "1n 1966, Immanuel Jakobovits... made an apparently unsubstantiated assertion". According to which reliable source was Jakobovits's assertion "apparently unsubstantiated"? I would also like to direct his attention to WP:NOR, WP:V and the following two sections in the WP:NPOV policy: Please do not make these kinds of policy-violating edits again. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias."
 * Neutral point of view: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view...The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."