New IDF Chief Rabbi Says Soldiers Can Rape Arab Women To Boost Morale - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14814085
Outgoing chief rabbi, Brig. Gen. Rafi Peretz, of the Israeili Defense Forces, who is stepping down after six years in the position is being replaced. And, his successor, Rabbi Col. Eyal Karim’s appointment is being met with backlash — as he is outspoken for allowing soldiers to rape women during wartime.

Karim, who was announced on Monday as the intended new IDF chief rabbi, has provoked controversy with previous misogynistic statements, such as opposing female conscription and implying that rape was permissible in times of war.

According to Ynet News, Karim has been serving as the head of the Rabbinate Department in the Military Rabbinate. He is an alumnus of the Bnei Akiva Nachalim and the Ateret Cohanim yeshivas, and he served previously as a combat paratrooper, eventually commanding their elite reconnaissance unit, before taking a break from the military and eventually returning to its rabbinate.

In 2012, Karim’s controversy started when the Hebrew religious website KIPA, asked him, in the light of certain biblical passages, if IDF soldiers were permitted to commit rape during wartime despite the general understanding that such an act is widely considered repugnant.

His answer enraged many Israelis.

“Although intercourse with a female gentile is very grave, it was permitted during wartime (under the conditions it stipulated) out of consideration for the soldiers’ difficulties,” he wrote. “And since our concern is the success of the collective in the war, the Torah permitted [soldiers] to satisfy the evil urge under the conditions it stipulated for the sake of the collective’s success.”

In other words, soldiers can rape innocent women during times of war in order to keep their morale up.

The head of the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women and Gender Equality, MK Aida Touma-Sliman (Joint Arab List), said, “Col. Karim’s ruling on permitting raping non-Jewish women is similar to the fatwa of a murderous organization that’s not so far from Israel’s borders. I will contact the attorney general and oppose the appointment, and I call on female and male members of Knesset to join my request.”

The chairperson of Na’amat —Movement of Working Women & Volunteers, Galia Wolloch, said, “Anyone who thinks that rape is okay as a morale-booster for soldiers, so long as it’s of gentile women, cannot lead the army to good moral and spiritual places.”

When he is not advocating for the rape of women, Karim is outspoken about refusing to allow women in the IDF.


Karim wrote in 2002 that it was explicitly forbidden.

“In a situation such as the one during the War of Independence, in which there was a real pikuah nefesh [matter of life or death] of the Jewish people, women also participated in the defense of the nation and country, even though the situation was not so modest,” he wrote. “But in our era, we do not live with a real threat to our survival.

“And because of the liable damage to the modesty of the girl and the nation, the great rabbis and the Chief Rabbinate have ruled that the enlistment of girls to the IDF is entirely forbidden.”

Karim is also outspoken about women singing at military events. If a woman sings at an event, he claims, men should not have to attend as it is repugnant.

According to the Times of Israel, the IDF on Monday responded to allegations against Karim, saying the colonel “wishes to clarify that his words were only uttered in response to a theoretical hermeneutical question, certainly not to a practical halachic question.

“Rabbi Karim never wrote, said, or even thought that an IDF soldier is permitted to sexually harm a woman during wartime,” the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit added in a statement.

Except that he did — as evidenced by the above quote.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/new-idf-ch ... le/218362/


News from the only democracy in the ME. :excited:
#14814090
According to this, he was actually just commenting on passages in the Torah:

Israel National News wrote:Rabbi Karim responded to a question during an 'Ask the Rabbi' session in 2003 asking how Jewish law could condone the rape of enemy women by Jewish soldiers during times of war.

The questioner was referring to the law of battle in Deuteronomy in which the Torah does not 'condone' rape at all, but commands a fighter who takes a woman captive to marry her only after giving her 30 days in which to mourn her capture - or recompense her. In both cases, he has to accept responsibility, as opposed to the horrific maltreatment and mass rapes of captive women in other cultures and civilizations.

Like any other issue in the Torah, there are discussions, debates and commentaries of rabbis through the ages and Rabbi Karim joined that historical responsa process by answering. In his response, Rabbi Karim explained the Torah’s rationale, but did not explicitly add that this is forbidden in modern times, an unnecessary qualification since the IDF does not make its decisions based on halakha and the question was a theoretical exercise in understanding a Torah topic.

Rabbi Karim wrote in his affidavit that he did not at any point imply giving permission to IDF soldiers to rape women, and that his words were taken out of context.

"I never wrote, said or thought that IDF soldiers are permitted to rape women in war-time.” he wrote. "I believe it is absolutely forbidden for soldiers to do so. That was my opinion then, and it remains my opinion today."


I looked deeper since that source comes from a right-wing Zionist publication and found a source quoted by the Telegraph that translated the passage rather than just paraphrasing it:

972 Magazine wrote:UPDATE: Following comments doubting whether rape was the issue of the Rabbi’s answer, I post here the question that he was asked:

Is it allowed in our days [sic] for an IDF soldier, for example, to rape girls during a fight, or is such a thing forbidden?
Rabbi Qarim answered thus:

“The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations wage among themselves. Since, essentially, a war is not an individual matter, but rather nations wage war as a whole, there are cases in which the personality of the individual is “erased” for the benefit of the whole. And vice versa: sometimes you risk a large unit for the saving of an individual, when it is essential for purposes of morale. One of the important and critical values during war is maintaining the army’s fighting ability […] As in war the prohibition against risking your life is broken for the benefit of others, so are the prohibitions against immorality and of kashrut. Wine touched by gentiles, consumption of which is prohibited in peacetime, is allowed at war, to maintain the good spirit of the warriors. Consumption of prohibited foods is permitted at war (and some say, even when kosher food is available), to maintain the fitness of the warriors, even though they are prohibited during peacetime. Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot in the original – YZG), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra in the original -YZG), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.”


Wow, indeed. Put a Quran in his hands and you can't really tell the difference.
#14814104
He didn't permit rape anywhere which is clear from his defense and the quotes themselves. The issue caused a stir in Israel. When it became clear it's bullshit, well, the outcome is clear.

Bulaba Jones wrote:Wow, indeed. Put a Quran in his hands and you can't really tell the difference.


You really can tell the difference if you know what you are looking at. It is quite clear that that his answer has been taken out of context and nowhere does the answer specifically mention rape but sexual relations and "evil urge" - which is not rape either.

[...]When the quote surfaced in 2012 and caused a media firestorm, he published a clarification stating that his comments were in no way meant to be applied in the modern era, but rather pertained to a theoretical discussion of the biblical permission for a Jewish soldier to kidnap an enemy woman and wed her.

“Obviously, in our times, when the world has advanced to a level of morality in which one does not marry captives, one must not perform this act, which is also entirely against the army’s values and orders,”
he wrote.

The IDF on Monday responded to allegations against Karim, saying the colonel “wishes to clarify that his words were only uttered in response to a theoretical hermeneutical question, certainly not to a practical halachic question.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-taps-c ... time-rape/


Like the "far right news source says", the comment does not even necessarily mention rape but says 'evil urge' (yetzer ha'ra). Evil urge can merely be consensual sexual relations with a gentile women. Even fulfilling the "evil urge" of having sex outside of marriage is the same idea, even if the woman was Jewish.

MememyselfandIJK wrote:What the fu** he**? How do they get away with so much?


Who is "they" and get away with what? Actions they did not commit? Lovely propaganda articles in the OP are only the tip of the ice berg when it comes to spreading hate and lies about the groups of people ones just loves to hate. The article is a year old and it lacks journalistic integrity referencing the following quote at the end of the article:

"Except that he did — as evidenced by the above quote."

This is not honest journalism. An ethical journalist doesn't interject judgement into articles, nor does an ethical news outlet allow them to exist within the articles it publishes in their medium. But it doesn't seem like its their article. It's borrowed from another source.

Even after a year, they have not bothered make necessary fixes to clear the name of a falsely accused man.
Last edited by danholo on 12 Jun 2017 23:16, edited 1 time in total.
#14814111
@danholo Israel gets away with so much. Have you seen that video that @skinster posed a few days ago? I am still fuming over it. They just shot a 15 year old Palestinian girl for an unproved stabbing, taunted her for an hour, and left her to die, until she was finally taken to a hospital. Not much you can dispute when it is documented.
#14814115
danholo wrote:He didn't permit rape anywhere which is clear from his defense and the quotes themselves. The issue caused a stir in Israel. When it became clear it's bullshit, well, the outcome is clear.

You really can tell the difference if you know what you are looking at. It is quite clear that that his answer has been taken out of context and nowhere does the answer specifically mention rape but sexual relations and "evil urge" - which is not rape either.


He was asked:

Is it allowed in our days [sic] for an IDF soldier, for example, to rape girls during a fight, or is such a thing forbidden?


He responded:

“The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations wage among themselves. Since, essentially, a war is not an individual matter, but rather nations wage war as a whole, there are cases in which the personality of the individual is “erased” for the benefit of the whole. And vice versa: sometimes you risk a large unit for the saving of an individual, when it is essential for purposes of morale. One of the important and critical values during war is maintaining the army’s fighting ability […] As in war the prohibition against risking your life is broken for the benefit of others, so are the prohibitions against immorality and of kashrut. Wine touched by gentiles, consumption of which is prohibited in peacetime, is allowed at war, to maintain the good spirit of the warriors. Consumption of prohibited foods is permitted at war (and some say, even when kosher food is available), to maintain the fitness of the warriors, even though they are prohibited during peacetime. Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot in the original – YZG), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra in the original -YZG), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07 ... -by-soldi/
https://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-im ... war/39535/

An idiot can clarify his statements after the fact, but it doesn't change that he was asked if it's OK to rape people nowadays, and he responded with a speech justifying it. If you're asked for your opinion on whether rape is acceptable behavior for soldiers right now, and you give a short speech on how it's justified, how is it "out of context" to point out that you have just given a speech justifying rape for soldiers right now?
#14814118
It does change the fact because the 'fact' presented is only a part of the whole truth - he did not justify it according to his own words per his clarification. Understanding the context is to understand the topic what is being discussed. Obviously people didn't and it created an small uproar of sorts.
Last edited by danholo on 13 Jun 2017 00:04, edited 2 times in total.
#14814122
Because religion? I mean god literally orders people in the Torah to take all the 12 year old girls for wives and kill everyone else. Amount a thousand other really fucked up shit. Most religious leaders walk a weird balancing act between modern times and the weird shit that goes on in religious texts.
#14814123
mikema63 wrote:Most religious leaders walk a weird balancing act between modern times and the weird shit that goes on in religious texts.
Kinda a good reason to get rid of all religion -- its just not leaders, it is also followers including ISIS, American Christians, and so on.
#14814124
MememyselfandIJK wrote:@danholo Why would the rabbi endorse it, even if it is out of context?


Endorse what, rape? He does not endorse it.

I did some more digging and the Rabbi has apologized for the controversial answer with the following words:

"On Wednesday, Karim published a written statement reading: “I made a mistake when I gave a short answer to a complicated question. I was wrong because sometimes I was not precise with my words and some people found them offensive. I apologize.”
Read more: http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/3 ... time-rape/"

I find it quite clear that the Rabbi in question does not permit rape in war time and there is no 'ruling'. Also the OP article title is misleading as the article doesn't even mention Arabs at all.

Kinda a good reason to get rid of all religion.


No point - if you get rid of 'all' religion, people will just invent another.
#14814127
danholo wrote:It does change the fact because the 'fact' presented is only a part of the whole truth - he did not justify it according to his own words per his clarification. Understanding the context is to understand the topic what is being discussed. Obviously people didn't and it created an small uproar of sorts.


The context is that he was literally asked if it's OK for IDF soldiers nowadays to rape women, and then he responded by giving a short speech on how rape is sometimes justified. It's right there in the translated transcript:

https://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-im ... war/39535/

I don't know how it could possibly be clearer or less "out of context" than to see how he was asked, directly, to answer whether rape by IDF soldiers nowadays is OK.

mikema63 wrote:Sure, I'm an atheist too. I don't know how you'd get rid of religion though.

Regardless I think this is kind of a silly thing to fight over when you have some actual crap going on out there.


The guy is a douchebag. Why is it silly to comment on a thread where a guy literally responds to a question asking him if it's OK nowadays for Israeli soldiers to rape people, and for him to literally justify rape? That's pretty vile and disgusting for anyone to say in seriousness, is it not? And I'm not even pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. In contrast to some people in this thread, I have no stake whatsoever in I/P stuff. It's just gross.
Last edited by Bulaba Khan Jones on 13 Jun 2017 00:24, edited 1 time in total.
#14814128
mikema63 wrote:I mean god literally orders people in the Torah to take all the 12 year old girls for wives and kill everyone else.

You really need a rabbi to explain whether what to take literally from god. :lol:

I also like how skinster formatted the article in the OP:
In 2012, Karim’s controversy started when the Hebrew religious website KIPA, asked him, in the light of certain biblical passages, if IDF soldiers were permitted to commit rape during wartime despite the general understanding that such an act is widely considered repugnant.

His answer enraged many Israelis.

“Although intercourse with a female gentile is very grave, it was permitted during wartime (under the conditions it stipulated) out of consideration for the soldiers’ difficulties,” he wrote. “And since our concern is the success of the collective in the war, the Torah permitted [soldiers] to satisfy the evil urge under the conditions it stipulated for the sake of the collective’s success.”

She really took the effort to bold it carefully. :lol:
#14814129
I don't know how it could possibly be clearer or less "out of context" than to see how he was asked, directly, to answer whether rape by IDF soldiers nowadays is OK.


How can you not know, when it has been mentioned many times already?

When the quote surfaced in 2012 and caused a media firestorm, he published a clarification stating that his comments were in no way meant to be applied in the modern era, but rather pertained to a theoretical discussion of the biblical permission for a Jewish soldier to kidnap an enemy woman and wed her.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-taps-c ... time-rape/

It seems that the translation is off regarding the question, and that the words are in past tense 'permitted'. The answer itself does not mention the word 'rape', in itself.

edit: Finally found the full Hebrew. According to the original question, there are many questions contained within, and the final question is the only one that is in the translation. Frankly, it doesn't seem that the Rabbi even answers the last question direcly at all, and dismisses it altogether and gives a general answer about the law in general.

http://saloona.co.il/palmadu/?p=856

הופיע ממש כך, מילה במילה, באתר ‘כיפה’:

יפת תואר שבתורה
תוכן השאלה:
בס”ד

קראתי באתר זה לגבי שבויה יפת תואר, וכן את ההלכות בתורה, ועדין נשארת לי השאלה-

במלחמות שונות בין העמים, כמו מלחמת העולם הראשונה, למשל, נלחמו עמים שונים ביניהם, ואף אחד לא היה טוב ליהודים במיוחד או רע ליהודים ביוחד…

אבל אם היו כובשים כפר והיו שם יהודים והיו אונסים בנות יהודיות, הדבר נחשב, בצדק, לאסון ולטרגדיה לבחורה ולמשפחה.

אם כן, אונס במלחמה נחשב דבר מזעזע. איך, אם כן נאמר לי ע”י רב, שאישה יפת תואר מותר, לפי חלק מן הפוסקים, גם לפני כל התהליך המתואר בתורה? זאת אומרת, יכנע ליצרו וישכב עימה, ורק אחר כך יקח אותה לביתו וכו’?

דבר זה נראה לי סותר. הרי אם אונס אזרחים במלחמה נחשב למשהו אסור ומזעזע, מדוע, לכאורה, ליהודי מותר?

והאם מותר בימינו לחייל צה”ל, לדוגמא, לאנוס בחורות בזמן לוחמה, או שדבר זה אסור?

בתודה

תוכן התשובה:
מלחמות ישראל – הן מלחמות מצוה והן מלחמות הרשות – הינן מלחמות מצוה. בז שונות הן משאר המלחמות המתנהלות באומות העולם, בינם לבין עצמם.
מאחר שמלחמה במהותה אינה ענין ליחיד אלא האומה בכללותה לוחמת, ישנם מצבים שאישיותו של הפרט “נמחקת” למען הכלל. וגם להיפך, יש ומסכנים יחידה גדולה למען הצלת הפרט כשהדבר נחוץ מטעמים מורליים.
אחד הערכים החשובים והמכריעים במלחמה הוא שמירה על כושר הלחימה של הצבא. בשל כך, הירא ורך הלבב חוזר מעורכי המלחמה, כדי שלא יימס את לבב אחיו, ורגשותיו וצרכיו של היחיד נדחים לקרן זוית לממן הצלחת האומה במלחמה.
כשם שבמלחמה “נפרצים” גדרי ההסתכנות למען אחרים, כך גם “נפרצים” במלחמה גדרי הצניעות והכשרות. יין נסך שלא הותר בזמני שלום, הותר במלחמה, כדי לשמור על הרגשתם הטובה של הלוחמים. מאכלות אסורים הותרו במלחמה (ולשיטות אחדות גם כשיש מזון כשר), כדי לשמור על כושרם של הלוחמים, אף שבתנאי שלום הם אסורים.
כך גם דוחה המלחמה צדדים מסוימים של גילוי עריות, אף שהתחברות אל גויה הוא דבר חמור מאוד, אלא שהוא הותר במלחמה (בתנאים שהוא הותר), מתוך התחשבות בקשיי הלוחמים. ומאחר והצלחת הכלל במלחמה עומדת לנגד עינינו, התירה התורה לפרט לספק את היצר הרע בתנאים שהתירה, למען הצלחת הכלל.

שלום

הרב אייל קרים
התשובה התקבלה מהרב אייל קרים
בתאריך כ”ז כסליו תשס”ג


Maybe someone could help.

Raping in war, no matter the case, is certainly unacceptable. But I don't even think such a war of "necessity" has ever occurred either.
Last edited by danholo on 13 Jun 2017 01:03, edited 2 times in total.
#14814130
The guy is a douchebag. Why is it silly to comment on a thread where a guy literally responds to a question asking him if it's OK nowadays for Israeli soldiers to rape people, and for him to literally justify rape? That's pretty vile and disgusting for anyone to say in seriousness, is it not? And I'm not even pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. In contrast to some people in this thread, I have no stake whatsoever in I/P stuff. It's just gross.


When discussing whether or not Israel is bad I think the stuff they actually do is important. Not the dumb thing this guy said that one time.

God knows why I even comment in these threads though. Anything less than bobbing my head in complete agreement with every little anti-israeli narrative is grounds for having it cut off. :roll:
#14814133
Oxymandias wrote:Cult of Science and the New Atheists

Cult of science? What? Science is based on rationality and empiricism. We may honor successful scientists, but we realize that they are human and imperfect. New atheism is not characterized by a dogma. It is simply the refusal to comply with the don't ask, don't tell attitude. The whole point of both is to avoid dogma and rely on rationality, logic, and empiricism.

@danholo I understand that he apologized, but some things are better not said in the first place.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

This war is going to drag on for probably another[…]

4 foot tall Chinese parents are regularly giving b[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

https://twitter.com/hermit_hwarang/status/1779130[…]

Iran is going to attack Israel

All foreign politics are an extension of domestic[…]