Natan Slifkin is Absolutely Right

I could not agree more with Rabbi Slifkin's post, Which follows:

The reactions to the impending ceasefire and hostage/prisoner trade are extraordinary.

Let’s first review the losses for each side:

Gaza:

• Hamas’ entire upper leadership killed

• Tens of thousands of fighters killed (vastly outnumbering whoever will be released in the trade), many more injured

• Tens of thousands of civilians killed, many more injured

• Utterly catastrophic devastation

• Seemingly invincible allies (Hezbollah, Assad) defeated

• Major sponsor (Iran) weakened and shamed

Israel:

• Nearly a thousand civilians killed

• Nearly a thousand soldiers killed, many more injured

• Hostage situation

• National trauma

• Some economic harm

• Significant long-term international political damage

It seems clear that while Israel’s losses are significant, Gaza’s losses far, far, far outweigh them.

Now let’s switch and look at the gains. First at Israel:

• Major threats from Hezbollah spectacularly near-neutralized

• Major threats from Israel’s biggest enemy, Iran, spectacularly decreased

• Hamas leadership and tens of thousands of fighters eliminated

• Restoration of deterrence in Middle East - it’s accepted that Israel can and will strike anywhere

• Internally, a widespread understanding that the nation needs to be stronger and more cohesive

Without downplaying the various serious losses and harm on Israel’s side, these are very significant gains. Now let’s look at Gaza’s gains:

• A military/terrorist blow dealt to Israel

• Political and economic harm inflicted on Israel

These are not significant benefits for people in Gaza.

At this point, it should be the situation that Israel is celebrating, and Gaza is in mourning. But what we’re actually seeing is more or less the opposite.

In Israel, whether people think the ceasefire/exchange is a great idea or a terrible idea (personally I have no idea), nobody is celebrating.

In Gaza, and among their supporters abroad, while some are bemoaning the terrible catastrophe that Hamas brought upon them, a lot of people are celebrating. Some are celebrating a release from destruction, but many are celebrating a victory. They think that Hamas did a great thing on October 7th and they can’t wait for it to do something similar again.

Why are the reactions the opposite of what one might expect? The reason is the difference between Israeli (Jewish) culture and Palestinian (Islamic) culture.

For Israel, the priority is the life and wellbeing of Israel. It’s not about how much harm one does to one’s enemies; it’s about how much harm there has been to one’s own side, and whether one’s own nation is surviving and thriving.

For many of the Palestinians, on the other hand, it’s primarily about honor, which in turn relates to how much harm one does to one’s enemies. That’s much more important than how much harm one’s own people suffers in the process.

This is exactly why the conflict started a hundred years ago. For so many Arabs, it was more important that the Jews should not have a state than that the Palestinians should have a state. And this is exactly why the various peace talks over the decades failed. And, barring some extraordinary radical change in the Palestinian and global mindset, this is why there will be no peaceful resolution.

The Problem With Pure Empathy

By Daniel Z. Feldman

(Words of wisdom by Rabbi Feldman published in a RIETS Kollel Elyon publication - HM)

If indeed empathy can lead you astray, Jimmy Carter may be Exhibit A. Alongside his noble work, Carter also found common ground with terrorist groups such as Hamas and with the Assad dictatorship, and constantly blamed Israel alone for all the problems of the Middle East. There are countless images and records of him literally and figuratively embracing the worst murderers on Earth, eagerly advocating and legitimating their positions.

Many feel that Carter was antisemitic; perhaps. His attitudes toward the Jewish State were certainly extreme and difficult to explain. But what is clearly true is that the empathy he apparently displayed was no barrier to him becoming a pawn of forces of pure evil. Also clearly true is that there are many thousands of others whose natural instincts have been exploited and manipulated by terrorists such as Hamas, and innocent and good people all over the world are paying the price.

One need not, however, go as far as Bloom and Bregman and be “against empathy”. Empathy is a crucial Jewish value, and is indeed a necessary trait as a bulwark against cruelty and an impetus towards kindness. One who feels empathy will be moved to build houses for the homeless, and that is a wonderful thing. Further, empathy is an end unto itself, rather than a means. A condolence letter is an act of empathy that says I am with you, and nothing more, and that is a wonderful thing, too.

Where empathy falls short is as a policy maker, especially for those who carry the weight of complex decisions that can affect the lives of millions, and that requires dealing with people who are not necessarily what they seem and will exploit any weakness.

The trait of rachmanut, which could be identified with empathy, is indispensable for Jews; the Talmud says its presence is one way to identify a descendant of Abraham. But it also cannot exist by itself; the Talmud also warns that those who display rachmanut to the cruel will thereby act with cruelty to those who truly need rachmanut.

Crucially, the Talmud actually requires three traits to establish lineage from Abraham: two being rachmanut and the practice of chesed, or kindness. These may seem identical, but clearly if they were they would not occupy two spots. They are, instead, complementary. Rachmanut is the instinct to act on behalf of those who appear to be suffering; chesed is the benevolent act itself, having been rationally verified as the right course of action, in consideration of all factors in balance. The first is needed to move one to act; the second is to assure that the act is good.   

The third criterion is bushah, shame, what may correlate to a sense of humility. This is the controlling factor of the other two; the recognition that it’s possible to be wrong, that one’s initial instinct may not be providing the whole picture, that even the most virtuous impulse may be misguided. If the loudest cheerleaders of Hamas, be they former presidents or ivy league students, had more bushah, the world may actually be a better place.

Don’t give up on empathy – it is a powerful force, and vital for the world’s future. And that’s exactly why its so important we get it right.