Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Jul 6, 2009
The cigarette that sparked the violence
There has been some discussion regarding the shabbos parking lot protests in Jerusalem that were very violent in its first week (this past shabbos the violence decreased dramatically).
A claim was made, I saw it in an article somewhere, and it has been brought up in discussion during various forums and conversations about the protests, that during the protests a policeman sparked the violence by lighting up a cigarette in front of the haredim who at the time were protesting respectably. they took his action as an affront, as if he was flaunting his chillul shabbos in front of their faces and taunting them, and then everything went downhill from there.
The discussion generally centers on whether the policeman intended to provoke them, whether he knew what he was doing was wrong, etc.
Thinking about this claim, it struck me that I doubt we have any obligation to be "dan l'kaf zchus" the policeman.
On the one hand, I see no reason to assume his lighting of the cigarette was with malicious intent. He probably just wanted a smoke. On the other hand, I have no problem saying he was frustrated with the haredim and lit it up to provoke them. I am even willing, to play devils advocate, if necessary to assume he did it to provoke.
But why should that provoke anyone? Are the protesters so childish that they cannot handle the sight of a secular Jew lighting a cigarette that it drives them wild and makes them lose control of themselves and start throwing rocks or whatever else they were doing?
They are there watching people drive. If they would turn their heads in either direction they would see scores of cars passing by. They are protesting that some of those cars now have the option to stop their cars in an orderly fashion. The cars driving by are not bothering them (they are, but they are not not driving them to the point of protest). And the lighting of a cigarette drives them crazy?
Are these rational people driven by the need to defend shem shamayim and the lighting of a cigarette drives them wild? Watching the police drive up in their cars, horses and motorcycles is not provocative (though the parking lot is), and a cigarette being lit is provocative?
If the need to protest chillul shabbos is important, so be it. protest the chillul shabbos. But let's not be ridiculous and make claims about cigarettes being justifiably the cause of violence.
A claim was made, I saw it in an article somewhere, and it has been brought up in discussion during various forums and conversations about the protests, that during the protests a policeman sparked the violence by lighting up a cigarette in front of the haredim who at the time were protesting respectably. they took his action as an affront, as if he was flaunting his chillul shabbos in front of their faces and taunting them, and then everything went downhill from there.
The discussion generally centers on whether the policeman intended to provoke them, whether he knew what he was doing was wrong, etc.
Thinking about this claim, it struck me that I doubt we have any obligation to be "dan l'kaf zchus" the policeman.
On the one hand, I see no reason to assume his lighting of the cigarette was with malicious intent. He probably just wanted a smoke. On the other hand, I have no problem saying he was frustrated with the haredim and lit it up to provoke them. I am even willing, to play devils advocate, if necessary to assume he did it to provoke.
But why should that provoke anyone? Are the protesters so childish that they cannot handle the sight of a secular Jew lighting a cigarette that it drives them wild and makes them lose control of themselves and start throwing rocks or whatever else they were doing?
They are there watching people drive. If they would turn their heads in either direction they would see scores of cars passing by. They are protesting that some of those cars now have the option to stop their cars in an orderly fashion. The cars driving by are not bothering them (they are, but they are not not driving them to the point of protest). And the lighting of a cigarette drives them crazy?
Are these rational people driven by the need to defend shem shamayim and the lighting of a cigarette drives them wild? Watching the police drive up in their cars, horses and motorcycles is not provocative (though the parking lot is), and a cigarette being lit is provocative?
If the need to protest chillul shabbos is important, so be it. protest the chillul shabbos. But let's not be ridiculous and make claims about cigarettes being justifiably the cause of violence.
Labels:
chillul shabbos,
hafganah,
haredim,
Jerusalem,
violence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
Shabbos? What are you talking about? They were deeply concerned about the health of their fellow Jew!
ReplyDeleteAre these rational people driven by the need to defend shem shamayim and the lighting of a cigarette drives them wild? Watching the police drive up in their cars, horses and motorcycles is not provocative (though the parking lot is), and a cigarette being lit is provocative?
ReplyDeleteI think your error is in thinking they're all rational.
How did they know the policeman was Jewish? Just because your a police office in Jerusalem doesn't mean your Jewish. In fact many (especially those working on Shabbos) are not.
ReplyDeleteI'm not justifying the reaction. But it's not the same as the cars going by. This was a direct affront, as if to say, "Hey charedim, Shabbos this!"
ReplyDeleteyou're assuming he even knew it's assur to smoke on shabbos. In his world, the chareidim are nuts and it's allowed to smoke, so he looks at them like they are crazy.
ReplyDeleteBaruch mekadesh es shimcha ba'rabbim!
ReplyDelete