First, we have the case of Mel Gibson. Sunday morning came with the news that on Friday he had allegedly expressed anti-Jewish feelings, popularly but misleadingly called “anti-Semitic.” That outburst itself, while deeply offending sensibilities, neither broke bones nor is conceivably the efficient cause of anyone’s breaking them.

(We are not here interested in whether he also threatened the arresting officer, whose superiors then allegedly covered up the incident—not because they are indifferent to the content of Gibson’s alleged outbursts, but because of the support he provides for Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca's programs. This is under investigation.)

According to the original arrest report, obtained somehow by reporter Harvey Levin, Gibson opined, inter alia:

The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world! (Gibson drunk, July 28, 2006)

Gibson has acknowledged that such behavior is morally wrong, and that the motivating feelings need to be excised, if not exorcised, from his soul. Thus:

To be anti-Semitic is a sin. It's been condemned by one Papal Council after another. To be anti-Semitic is to be un-Christian, and I'm not. (Mel Gibson sober, 2004)

I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. (Mel Gibson sober, July 29, 2006)

This was not good enough for renowned, and presumably sober, depth psychologist Abraham H. Foxman A.K.A., national director of the Anti-Defamation League. When the media solicit his diagnoses, Foxman always generously makes himself available for consultation. In his professional judgment, Gibson's apology was “unremorseful and insufficient.”

It's not a proper apology because it does not go to the essence of his bigotry and his anti-Semitism. We would hope that Hollywood now would realize the bigot in their midst and that they will distance themselves from this anti-Semite.

Apparently the patient does not yet have the insight he needs to liberate himself from evil’s hold. And, lacking Foxman’s skill sets, even that significant portion of Hollywood that is Jewish has trouble clearly discerning that “essence” and so they tolerate “the bigot in their midst.”

Also yesterday, however, we learned of another kind of “anti-Semitism,” the kind that results, not in hurt feelings, but in the deaths of little Semites in Qana:


Let us now ponder the words of one Israeli chaplain, also presumably sober, Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel):

When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good. (As quoted by Israel Shahak in his Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press. London, 2002. P. 76.)

Shahak appended this reference note:

Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), 'Tohar hannesheq le'or hahalakhah' (= 'Purity of weapons in the light of the Halakhah') in Be'iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim - pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War - Chapters of Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, 'A chapter of meditation', Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the Halakhah?' Ma'ariv", 13 October 1975. Rubinstein reports that the booklet was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff, presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he complains that Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi—military or civil—taken exception to what he had written. [Emphasis added.]

By the way, original arrest reports are not generally distributed to the citizenry just for the asking. According to the NYPD’s web site, for example, “information that adversely affects the rights of an accused or the investigation or prosecution of a crime” is deemed “non releasable.” I could, however, find no corresponding statement on the LAPD site. The report that found its way into Mr. Levin’s eager hands, within 24 hours, seems to qualify as such adverse information. Who gave it to him?

The timing was interesting, no?