Q&A: Censoring Pictures of Female Hostages in Bnei Brak
Censoring Pictures of Female Hostages in Bnei Brak
Question
In many public affairs and scandals there is a recurring pattern.
A group of people associated with a certain sector/ideology do something very bad, in the name of that worldview they believe in.
The opposing side: condemns it, and exploits the fact in order to generalize and attack the ideology itself as a whole.
The sector in whose name the acts were done: explains that these are extremist fringes that are not representative.
For example: a video showing Haredim in Bnei Brak spraying over pictures of female hostages, in the name of “standards of modesty.”
Secular people: condemn it, and exploit it to attack the whole idea of standards of modesty. Their claim: true, these are 2 specific people, but their motivation necessarily comes from a popular outlook accepted by an entire sector.
Haredim explain: true, their motivation was religious (which we believe in), but they acted wrongly, and they do not represent us.
And so on… regarding violent settlers, extreme leftists, etc.
One side attacks and blackens an entire worldview, even though this is ostensibly an isolated and unrepresentative incident.
And the other side tries to explain that this is a lone and unrepresentative incident, even though the incident happened on its watch, in the name of its ideology.
Who is right? Is there a way to set definitions for this pattern? Or is each case judged on its own?
Answer
This is a question of definition. If you define guilt as a necessary but not sufficient cause, then Haredism is indeed guilty of such acts. If you define guilt as a sufficient cause, then it is not. But beyond that, even if Haredism were a sufficient cause of this act, there still would not be any essential criticism here, since I would not stop being Haredi even if it led to such acts. Haredism is a worldview one believes in; it is not a tool for becoming better or more polite people.
Something similar applies to the discussion of whether right-wing politics and religiosity were a cause of Rabin’s assassination. The answer is yes (in the sense of a necessary but not sufficient condition), but that does not mean I would stop being religious because it might lead to murder. At most, I need to try to overcome the difficulty and prevent the act.
One more comment. In column 507 I pointed out that there is a difference between the formulated ideology and the practical plane (what people actually do in practice). Criticism of a group’s ideology has limited weight, since it is possible that in the practical sphere it neutralizes these problems. There is a commandment in the Torah to kill Amalek, women and children, but in practice that does not really happen. The same is true regarding death penalties by a religious court. So one can say that the Torah is murderous, but blaming the Jews for that is problematic because in practice it does not happen. When such an ideology exists, there will always be purists who come with complaints against the majority and the leadership for not being consistent enough and not being religious enough, and therefore for deviating from the ideology. And those critics will indeed be careful to implement the ideology (see, for example, the Hilltop Youth). Therefore whenever there is a gap between ideology and practice, there will be groups that try to align the two and will take extreme steps, and may even feel they are the most righteous because of it. I have written about this more than once as well. And indeed the group bears guilt for the actions of that subgroup if it does not come out against them sharply enough. This happens quite a bit, when within the group itself there are feelings of guilt about the gap between the ideology and the actual deeds.
By the way, Haredim erase female figures everywhere, and therefore in my opinion this act is completely within the Haredi consensus. It is just that here there is more sensitivity. That’s all. In fact, here this is simply baseless sensitivity, since the erasure does not mean that the Haredim are insensitive to the suffering of the female hostages, but only that they do not want pictures of women.
Discussion on Answer
You are mistaken (fortunately). See column 507.
This is not just a negative phenomenon of the ideology; it is literally what their ideology demands: that there be no pictures of women at all.
It is impossible to claim that this is an unrepresentative phenomenon. And in general, if the ideology demands something, then it is guilty. The fact that the ideology is not always implemented is due to lack of ability.
Just as Hamas does not murder all the Jews. It wants to, but it cannot.
The same thing applies אצלנו. It is not that there is no desire to wipe out Amalek, or to lower secular people into a pit and not bring them up, but rather that this cannot be implemented nowadays because of a lack of influence, weapons, power, or because the consequences would be catastrophic and would lead to the destruction of religion or the people. Or in order to accumulate power and plan ahead, and that is why the Iranians still do not attack, or why the countries around us with whom we have peace are building up at a frightening pace.
Therefore it is also permitted to save a non-Jew on the Sabbath and to help a non-Jewish woman give birth on the Sabbath.
Even though a believing person truly believes that his religion will never be destroyed, because God protects it forever.
That is why Hamas embarked on a mission that could lead to its own end.