The
media response to the Jerusalem killings betrays a widespread assumption: that
Palestinians are "noble savages" who are not responsible for their
actions. What we learnt (again) this week was that the anti-Zionist ideology,
the ludicrously simplistic assumptions it makes about Palestinians and
Israelis, and the demonizing/exculpatory framework through which it distorts
our understanding of the conflict, is now bleeding from the cloisters of
academia into those wider structures of feeling and patterns of response that
shape our public square. Read the
complete article at -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/11243168/Blaming-Israel-for-Palestinian-violence-is-racist-it-denies-that-Arabs-are-moral-agents.html
The witnesses, laying their coats at the feet of Saul, were the men that would cast the first stones at Stephen in Acts 7. Why did they all lay their coats at Saul’s feet? The Talmud contains a very interesting account of the act of stoning that may provide the answer. “When the trial was over, they take him [the condemned person] out to be stoned. The place of stoning was at a distance from the court, as it is said, ‘Take out the one who has cursed.’ [i] A man stands at the entrance of the court; in his hand is a signaling flag [Hebrew sudarin = sudar , ‘scarf, sweater’]. A horseman was stationed far away but within sight of him. If one [of the judges] says, ‘I have something [more] to say in his favor,’ he [the signaler] waves the sudarin , and the horseman runs and stops them [from stoning him]. Even if [the condemned person] himself says, ‘I have something to say in my favor,’ they bring him back, even four of five times, only provided that there is some substance to...
Comments
Post a Comment