The "Chief" and I - September 2002

The "Chief" and I - September 2002

The more important a man is, the higher position he holds, the greater the respect people have for his thinking, the more painful his errors are, the more devastating his mistakes, the more damaging are his faults.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is certainly a man to be heard. He is definitely one of the leading thinkers in English Jewry, a man heard by Jews and non-Jews alike, whose books deserve the fullest attention.  He is also the Chief Rabbi of The United Kingdom. His responsibility is therefore three fold. He must be accurate about the facts; he should know where to say what and he must not put himself in a position where he unjustly - although unintentionally - harms Israel.

Let us begin with what I consider the most devastating example in the interview given by the Chief Rabbi to The Guardian.

Rabbi Sacks was "profoundly shocked by reports of smiling Israeli solders posing for a photograph with the corpse of a slain Palestinian". Shocking indeed. But I do not understand. "reports"? Surely the Chief Rabbi could have verified the accuracy or inaccuracy of these "reports". Rabbi Sacks did not say that he saw the pictures. He only read reports. Do these picture actually exist? Are they authentic? Are they similar to the pictures taken of funerals of "dead" Palestinians who fell from the starches and jumped back once, then refused to do so the third time?     

In the past, there were reports analyzing the "murder" of Aldora – the Palestinian child assumed" killed" by Israeli solders. Indeed, the English press  elaborated on it more than once. A leading  German television station conducted a deep research and concluded that Aldora was killed by a Palestinian bullet. Could it be that the reports about the smiling solders were as "accurate" as the story about Aldora?  However The Chief Rabbi made a general statement. Doesn't Israel deserve an expression of doubt as to the accuracy of these reports? The Chief Rabbi should have – and could have verified the accuracy of the story. But he satisfied himself with the reports which made him 'profoundly shocked". He condemned Israel unjustly and unfairly. And if the Chief Rabbi of The United Kingdom does so, what do we have against The British Media? [and we have].

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

Is the Chief Rabbi less "shocked" of the fact that in order not to cause bloodshed with Palestinians surrounding the Tomb of Joseph an Israeli solder was left to die of his wounds? Does he know of another country having to fight barbarians who lynch their prisoners as did the Palestinians to four Israeli solders in Rammallah? He will not talk to suicide bombers says the "Chief". What about those who kill their own in the center of town and then carry their bodies to be hang on a telephone poll?

I am an Israeli. I admit to mistakes. In every war there are mistakes [how many innocent people were killed by US and UK forces in Afghanistan; in Iraq or in Yugoslavia]? Did Israel not consider the lives of the Palestinians? We could have ended this conflict long ago with a lot more Palestinian dead and a lot less Israelis. We did not. Because, not like other nations, we try not to make mistakes. We simply try to protect our children. 

Last but not least. Yes. England is a Democracy. So is Israel. Everybody can express themselves in both countries. Some people have more responsibilities for their words then others. If The Chief Rabbi wishes to criticize Israel, he does so, so we can amend. If so, his criticism should be expressed in Israel.  In England? In The Guardian? Why?

Shneor Z. [Zalli] Jaffe, Adv. Jaffe,

Jaffe, Fund, Grofman & Co.

Jerusalem