Volume 22 Number 93
Produced: Thu Jan 25 20:22:04 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administrative Detention
[Joseph Steinberg]
Administrative Detention in Israel (2)
[Zvi Weiss, Yosey Goldstein]
Fattakhov case and UCSJ
[Mike Gerver]
Shmuel Cytryn and "Massering"
[Warren Burstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 08:18:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Administrative Detention
:housands of Arabs during the Intifida. There is no reason for me to
:assume that the grounds for doing so in those cases were any greater -
:or lesser - than those being applied now.
This is incorrect. Administrative Detention laws as enacted by the
British were meant to prevent NON-CITIZENS in OCCUPIED LANDS from
causing problems, not CITIZENS. No British man from London was ever put
in administrative detention.
Arresting an Arab from Gaza for security reasons falls within the normal
use of administrative detention; arresting a JEw or Arab who is a
citizen of Israel does not.
Also, Arabs arrested and put in detention were told why they were
arrested... 'suspicion of terrorism, etc.'
| | ___ ___ ___ _ __ | |__ Joseph Steinberg
_ | |/ _ \/ __|/ _ \ '_ \| '_ \ <steinber@...>
| |_| | (_) \__ \ __/ |_) | | | | http://pages.nyu.edu/~jzs7697
\___/ \___/|___/\___| .__/|_| |_| +1-201-833-9674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 09:59:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Administrative Detention in Israel
> From: Shmuel Himelstein <himelstein@...>
> With all the discussion about the injustice of having a Jewish
> individual under administrative detention in Israel, I think it is very
> important for us to remember that the law under which this
> administrative detention was imposed is the very same one which was
> applied to keep under administrative detention - but actually in most
> cases in prison for extended periods of time and without trial - of
> thousands of Arabs during the Intifida. There is no reason for me to
> assume that the grounds for doing so in those cases were any greater -
> or lesser - than those being applied now.
==> However, the Arabs as a group were quite vocal not only in their
opposition to the State, but in that violent means were justified in
overthrowing the State. During the Intifada, Jews were attacked and
injured (or worse) and these regulations could be seen as needed for the
security of the State. In this case, there appears to be NO such
juditfication and we have the obscenity of a so-called democracy
perverting security regulations to silence people.
> It would interest me to know whether Halachically there is any basis for
> fighting for the present Jewish individual's freedom and whether is any
> basis Halachically for not having done so earlier, in the case of
> non-Jews who were similarly held.
==> Clearly, there are Halachot of Pidyon Shevuyim that apply to *Jews*.
Why does the poster appear to show such sympathy for a non-Jewish
Population that continues to show its hatred for a Jewish State?
=Zvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yosey Goldstein <JOE-G@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 96 16:59:13 EST
Subject: Administrative Detention in Israel
Shmuel Himmelstein writes: "With all the discussion about the
injustice of having a Jewish individual under administrative detention
in Israel, I think it is very important for us to remember that the law
under which this administrative detention was imposed is the very same
one which was applied to keep under administrative detention - but
actually in most cases in prison for extended periods of time and
without trial - of thousands of Arabs during the Intifida."
I am sorry, but I think there is a big difference between using this
law on the books to lock up Arabs who were attacking Jews and trying to
bring down Israel and using that law to lock up a Jew! I see a
difference between using a law to safeguard Jews and their homeland and
LOCKING UP THE JEWS THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SAFEGUARDING. I read the
news that is sent out over the internet and even though I do not read
the Jerusalem post every day and I do not know the background of
everyone being locked up, I can not see any reason for locking up this
number of people who all happen to live in the "occupied" territories!
Is every Jew there a threat to Israel's security? Has there been an
outbreak of mass dementia and the government afraid all of these Jews
are crazy enough to kill a fellow Jew G-D forbid? If they are Criminals,
Charge them! If not free them! If these are people who have different
political views than those in power, could that be why they are being
locked up without charges?
Shmuel Continues: "There is no reason for me to assume that the
grounds for doing so in those cases were any greater - or lesser - than
those being applied now."
Do you want me to believe that all things being equal then it is OK
to lock up these people? If they locked up Arabs whom they suspected of
being possible terrorists then it is OK to lock up Jews because they may
cause civil disobedience? Or if they locked up Arabs for no reason then
it is OK to lock up Jews for no reason? We have a rule in Shas of
RAGLAYIM LEDAVAR, there is a basis for an assumption. Call me a Bigot
but I certainly think there is more of a basis to mistrust an Arab who
was picked up during or after a rock throwing incident than a Jew!
Especially when the Jew is a Rabbi. Maybe Shmuel Cytryn disagreed with
the government. Did he advocate Bombing the Knesset G-D forbid or doing
some other heinous crime? I still have not heard what or that he has
been charged with any crime. How about the last Rabbi that was placed in
"Administrative detention" ? What did he do?
All this brings to mind the famous story about the Chofetz Chaim. He
was brought into court for some reason. The lawyer told the Judge about
his greatness. When the Judge asked the lawyer, "Do you really believe
all of those stories about him?" the lawyer answered, "Maybe not.
However about me and you they do not tell these stories!" The same
principal applies here. Maybe in one or 2 cases there is a basis, BUT IN
ALL OF THE DETENTIONS???
Shmuel concludes: "It would interest me to know whether Halachically
there is any basis for fighting for the present Jewish individual's
freedom and whether is any basis Halachically for not having done so
earlier, in the case of non-Jews who were similarly held."
Again I am appalled at the comparison between a Jew and a suspected
terrorist! What was done, I assume, was done for JEWISH safety! To
assure Jews would not be killed! What is the HETER, the excuse, now?
I had seen in a book years ago that the basis for Mitzvos Bain Odom
Lechavero, between man and man, is reciprocity. I do for you because you
have the same obligation towards me. Does this rule apply in this case?
I would just like to end with a thought that I have already voiced in
this forum, but it relates to this subject. It is possible that Reb
Shmuel is correct in asking whether or not we stepped over the line when
locking up Arabs. However, the reason he may be right is because of the
bad effect it had upon OUR collective Middos! We know from every Mussar
Sefer that one's action's effect one's Middos. If a person acts in a
cruel manner, he will BECOME cruel. If a person acts in a kindly manner,
he will become kinder. Therefore, even though the army was FORCED to go
overboard, possibly, and incarcerate innocent Arabs to save Jewish
lives. The outcome of this cruel action was the desensitization of the
soldiers and the dulling of their kindness to the point where they can
beat peaceful Jewish protestors. To the point where they can lock up
Jews for no reason, or unsubstantiated reasons. To the point where they
will do whatever for the country, even when there is no danger being
presented to the Jews in the country! This is a tragedy of major
proportions! This is a tragedy that must be reversed.
May be be Zocheh to the Geulah SOON
Yosey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GERVER@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 2:12:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Fattakhov case and UCSJ
In my posting in v22n81 about Dmitrii Fattakhov, I asked why the Union
of Councils for Soviet Jews (UCSJ) seems not to be trusted by certain
organizations, and speculated that perhaps it had something to do with
Orthodox vs. Reform disputes. I have since spoken with Pamela Cohen of
the UCSJ, and it is clear to me now that this speculation was completely
wrong. Pamela Cohen is frum herself, and although the UCSJ is not
defined as an Orthodox organization, it has always worked closely with
Orthodox organizations in the Soviet Union and former Soviet Union,
including Agudah, Chabad, the Novominsker Rebbe, etc. There is no reason
for anyone reading this list to be concerned that the reliability of
UCSJ is in any way compromised by such issues.
Mordecai Perlman says that his reluctance to organize a mass letter
writing campaign was due to the concerns expressed by Agudah about the
effect such a campaign might have on the rest of the Uzbek Jewish
community, and their opinion that it might be more effective to write to
Congressmen and government officials here, urging them to get involved.
UCSJ, while also urging people to write to their own governments, feels
that grassroots protests to Uzbek officials are also useful and
important. My own gut feeling, based on many years acquaintance with
UCSJ's Boston area affiliate Action for Post-Soviet Jewry (whose
director is on the UCSJ board), is that UCSJ is right in this case. But
I certainly understand and respect the concerns of Mordecai and Agudah,
and if anyone feels more comfortable writing to their own government
officials rather than Uzbek officials, that's fine. In particular, I
agree with Mordecai that urging the Israeli government to get more
involved is perhaps the most important thing to be done, and I would
especially encourage anyone with connections to the Israeli government
to concentrate on that. The possible dangers to the Uzbek Jewish
community that Mordechai is worried about can probably be avoided by
urging people to write letters to Uzbek officials as private citizens
expressing concerns about human rights, without mentioning the issue of
anti-semitism. For that matter, there is no reason why we should not
encourage non-Jews and non-Jewish organizations to write such letters,
if they have been involved in human rights activism and Soviet Jewry
issues in the past (as many church-based groups have been).
Regarding the question (not directly relevant to this case) of whether
Jews should get involved in human rights cases involving non-Jews,
Mordechai says "Our resources are limited and therefore should be used
for Jews." But we are also commanded to give tzedakah to non-Jews,
together with Jews, "mipnei darchei shalom" [for the sake of peace]. It
seems to me that this principle should also apply to human rights
activism. Some part of our resources, not most, but some small part,
should be devoted to non-Jewish political prisoners. I believe it is a
great kiddush ha-shem that someone with a name as Jewish-sounding as
Joshua Rubinstein, for example, has a highly visible position as NE
Regional Director of Amnesty International USA. And it should go without
saying that Jews should come to the defense of non-Jews who have
themselves been active on behalf of Jewish rights, as many non-Jewish
human rights activists have in the past in the Soviet Union
(e.g. Sakharov, Orlov, Kovalev, et al).
Mike Gerver, <gerver@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 06:37:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Shmuel Cytryn and "Massering"
Carl Sherer writes:
>Second, the prohibition of mesira, as far as I know, does not apply to
>situations of Pikuach Nefesh. Where someone is a murderer and I know
>that he will murder again chas v'shalom, and I am able to stop him from
>murdering by reporting him to the New York police department (to use an
>innocuous example) I don't think there is any prohibition on doing so
>and aderaba (exactly the opposite) there is an obligation to do so. If
>we assume all of the facts cited by the original post to mj-announce are
>correct, it strikes me that there is an issue of pikuach nefesh here
>(Mr. Cytryn's) and that we may be required by halacha to speak up on his
>behalf.
I don't understand the Pikuach Nefesh issue here. Is Mr. Cytryn being
held under dangerous conditions? If the fact of his being in Israeli
jail is such a situation, don't we have an obligation to free every last
prisoner (or at least those who aren't a public risk)?
And perhaps there is a Pikuach Nefesh issue in the other direction? I
don't wish to accuse Mr. Cytryn of anything, but isn't it at least a
*possibility* that the goverment of Israel has a valid reason for
holding him?
For the record, I oppose administrative detention, whether the detainee
is Jewish or not.
|warren@ an Anglo-Saxon." -- Stuart Schoffman
/ itex.jct.ac.IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 22 Issue 93
