RSS
How Does ‘An Eye for an Eye’ Hold Up Today?
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is one of the best-known rules not only in the Torah, but universally. It was recorded in the Hammurabi code of Mesopotamia more than 4,000 years ago. This rule still applies in many legal systems, and is sometimes taken literally. It is clear, however, that this statement in the Torah cannot be taken literally at all.
The Talmud (Bava Kama 83b to 84a) raises an obvious question: Perhaps one thinks it means literally an eye; in that case, if a blind man blinded another or if a cripple maimed another, how would he be able to give an eye for an eye literally?
There are even greater challenges. What if a person who has no teeth puts out the tooth of somebody who has a full set? How are you going to take a tooth for a tooth? Did they have some sort of mechanism for judging a bruise for a bruise? There was indeed a judging system:
If two men are involved in a fight when a pregnant woman comes in between them and as a result there is a miscarriage but there’s no other physical damage [this must have been a pretty common occurrence to be specified], the punishment should be in accordance with what the husband places the value of his lost child and that should be assessed by the judges.
This is then followed immediately by, life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a bruise for a bruise, a wound for a wound.
But then in the next verse, the Torah says that if a person has a slave and he damages him, puts out his eye or knocks out his teeth, the slave should go free. On both sides of this law, you have laws that deal with financial compensation assessed by the judges in relation to the injury or the loss — as indeed would happen in most legal systems today.
The second time this law is repeated, slightly changed, is in this week’s reading (Vayikra (Leviticus) Chapter 24:). The context is a sad incident in which the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian father was involved in a fight and cursed God. Through his mother, he was part of the Israelite people. But because of his father, no tribe would accept him — an interesting example of how they defined Israelites then. He felt rejected and alienated. In a way I can feel sorry for him.
The law of cursing is phrased differently in verses 24:15 & 16, and expanded by adding different words for the crime of blasphemy, before reiterating the law.
Cursing God was not the way people nowadays curse or insult each other verbally. Curses were taken very seriously. It was the equivalent of rejecting not only God, but also the people. Laws of blasphemy are not only still very strongly adhered to in many countries today, but actually there is pressure now, thanks partly to the Islamic vote, to bring blasphemy back as a serious offense in Britain and elsewhere
There are people who like to make fun of the ancient Biblical laws and say how out of date they are. Yet in many ways, they are far more advanced and humanitarian than many laws that apply in different countries and under different religions around the world today.
The author is a writer and rabbi, currently based in New York
The post How Does ‘An Eye for an Eye’ Hold Up Today? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Prime Minister of Yemen’s Houthi Government Killed in Israeli Strike
FILE PHOTO: Head of the Houthi-led government Ahmad al-Rahawi looks on during a visit by Houthi government officials to the Hamas office in Sanaa, Yemen August 19, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah/File Photo
The prime minister of Yemen’s Houthi government and several other ministers were killed in an Israeli strike on the capital Sanaa, the head of the Houthi Supreme Political Council said on Saturday, in the first such attack to kill senior officials.
A number of others were wounded in Thursday’s strike, Mahdi al-Mashat added, without providing details.
Israel said on Friday that the airstrike had targeted the Iran-aligned group’s chief of staff, defense minister and other senior officials and that it was verifying the outcome.
Mashat’s statement did not make clear whether the Houthi defense minister was among the casualties.
Ahmad Ghaleb al-Rahwi became prime minister around a year ago but the de facto leader of the government was his deputy, Mohamed Moftah, who was assigned on Saturday to carry out the prime minister’s duties.
Rahwi was seen largely as a figurehead who was not part of the inner circle of the Houthi leadership.
Since Israel’s war in Gaza against the Palestinian militant group Hamas began in October 2023, the Iran-aligned Houthis have attacked vessels in the Red Sea in what they describe as acts of solidarity with the Palestinians.
They have also frequently fired missiles towards Israel, most of which have been intercepted. Israel has responded with strikes on Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen, including the vital Hodeidah port.
During the last year, Israel carried out a series of assassinations targeting senior leaders and commanders of Hamas and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, significantly weakening both groups.
The Houthi-run news agency Saba ran a statement from Defense Minister Mohamed al-Atifi shortly after the prime minister’s death was confirmed and quoted him as saying the group was ready to confront Israel.
The statement did not mention Thursday’s airstrike and it was unclear if it was made before or after the attack.
Atifi runs the Houthis’ Missiles Brigade Group and is considered their leading missiles expert.
Sources confirmed to Reuters that the energy, foreign and information ministers were among those killed.
On Thursday, Israeli security sources had said the targets had been various locations where a large number of senior Houthi officials had gathered to watch a televised speech recorded by leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi.
The Israeli military described the attack as a “complex operation” made possible by intelligence-gathering and air superiority.
“Our stance remains as it is and will remain until the aggression ends and the siege is lifted, no matter how great the challenges,” Mashat said in a televised speech, adding that the group “shall take revenge.”
RSS
Al Jazeera Hit With Defamation Lawsuit by Syrian Jewish Ex-Refugee
The Al Jazeera Media Network logo is seen on its headquarters building in Doha, Qatar, June 8, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon
A defamation lawsuit was filed against the Qatar-based Al Jazeera media network on Wednesday by Abraham Hamra, a Syrian pro-Israel advocate and lawyer.
According to the lawsuit, which was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Hamra “is a Jewish refugee from Syria, born in Damascus. He fled Syria with his parents and siblings in 1994 at the age of eight, following the partial lifting of restrictions on Jewish emigration by the Syrian regime under President Hafez al-Assad in 1992.”
The Algemeiner obtained a copy of the complaint, which explains that, on Aug. 25, Al Jazeera posted a video claiming that Hamra was paid by the Israeli government to visit an aid site of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an Israel- and US-backed program that delivers aid directly to Palestinians, operating independently from UN-backed mechanisms.
“This accusation is false in its entirety. Plaintiff has never received any payment, compensation, or financial incentive from the Israeli government or any affiliated entity for visiting aid sites in Gaza,” the lawsuit claims.
“The visit by Plaintiff related to Israel and Gaza was undertaken independently, in his personal capacity, on his own dime, as an advocate for his community and to bear witness against misinformation,” the suit continues.
The UN and critics of Israel have expressed concerns that the GHF’s approach forces civilians to risk their safety by traveling long distances across active conflict zones to reach one of its four food distribution points, at times creating chaotic scenes where Israeli forces have used gunfire to control the crowd.
However, supporters of the GHF argue that it bypasses the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which often steals humanitarian supplies for its own purposes and sells the rest at inflated prices. The GHF has called on the UN to publicly condemn the killing of aid workers in Gaza and to collaborate in order to provide relief to the enclave’s population, accusing the UN of perpetuating a “vast disinformation campaign” aimed at tarnishing the foundation’s image.
The lawsuit notes that the social media post from Al Jazeera, which included the image of Hamra, “cites no sources for the ‘reportedly paid’ claim, and publicly available information about Plaintiff, including his professional bio, social media posts, and known activities, demonstrates he is an independent US attorney with no financial ties to foreign governments.”
Al Jazeera also “failed to conduct even basic fact-checking, such as contacting Plaintiff for comment or verifying the allegation, despite their status as a major media network with resources to do so,” according to the lawsuit.
Al Jazeera did not respond to a request for comment from The Algemeiner.
The lawsuit argues why the allegedly false claim rises to the level of libel, saying it “constitutes libel per se under New York law because it accuses Plaintiff of committing a serious crime, namely, violating FARA [the Foreign Agents Registration Act] by acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Israel, and tends to injure him in his profession as a lawyer.”
“FARA requires individuals acting as agents of foreign principals to register with the US Department of Justice, and failure to do so is a federal offense punishable by fines and imprisonment,” the suit says. “By falsely alleging Plaintiff was paid by a foreign government to promote its interests, the statement implies criminal conduct and undermines his professional integrity.”
Consequently, Hamra is seeking payment for damages of at least $1,00,000 and requesting a trial by jury.
Read the lawsuit here: Hamra v Al Jazeera ECF No. 1 Complaint
RSS
US Lawmakers Launch Investigation Into Wikipedia Over Claims of Systemic Anti-Israel Bias
US Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC). Photo: Reuters
The US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has opened an investigation into the nonprofit that operates the Wikipedia website, demanding answers over concerns that hostile foreign actors are exploiting the popular online encyclopedia to spread anti-Israel propaganda and antisemitic narratives.
Republican Reps James Comer (KY), who chairs the committee, and Nancy Mace (SC), who chairs the panel’s subcommittee on cybersecurity, information technology, and government innovation, on Wednesday sent a letter to Maryana Iskander, chief executive of the Wikimedia Foundation, asking the nonprofit to turn over records showing how the platform polices disinformation campaigns that target articles related to Israel and the Middle East.
The lawmakers cited studies showing that pro-Russia networks and other state-backed operations have sought to manipulate Wikipedia entries on conflicts involving Israel, often by inserting anti-Israel or antisemitic framing designed to sway Western audiences. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), for example, published a report earlier this year arguing that “malicious” Wikipedia editors have inserted anti-Israel bias onto the site, oftentimes violating the organization’s neutrality policies in the process.
Meanwhile, a report from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab found evidence of Russian-linked attempts to shape narratives used to train AI chatbots by twisting information about Israel.
“The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating the efforts of foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by US taxpayer dollars to influence US public opinion,” Comer and Mace wrote. They emphasized the importance of stopping organized attempts to “inject bias into important and sensitive topics.”
Specifically, the committee is demanding records on possible coordination by nation-states or academic institutions to influence Wikipedia pages, internal arbitration files documenting how the site has handled editor misconduct, identifying data for accounts flagged for suspicious activity, and any analysis showing patterns of manipulation tied to antisemitism or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The letter also requests details of Wikipedia’s editorial policies to ensure neutrality and prevent the spread of bias.
Although the committee acknowledged that most online platforms face disinformation threats, the letter stressed that Wikipedia’s outsized influence as one of the most visited websites in the world and a key training source for artificial intelligence systems makes it especially important to prevent anti-Israel narratives from taking root unchecked.
The Wikimedia Foundation has previously stated that it takes action against volunteer editors who violate neutrality rules, but lawmakers say further transparency is needed to guarantee accountability.
However, a detailed investigation by Pirate Wires in October 2024 revealed that a powerful group of roughly 40 Wikipedia editors coordinated to “delegitimize Israel, present radical Islamist groups in a favorable light, and reshape the narrative around Israel with alarming influence,” particularly after the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. Notably, one editor removed mention of Hamas’s 1988 charter, which calls for the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel, from the Hamas article just six weeks after the attack. The group also reportedly sought to suppress documented human-rights abuses by Iran, and a related effort by a Discord-based collective known as “Tech For Palestine” coordinated mass editing of articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
According to a report by the Jewish Journal, Wikipedia’s arbitration committee (ArbCom) permanently banned two editors outright for engaging in off-platform coordination tied to the “Tech for Palestine” Discord campaign, citing violations of policies. Additionally, the committee imposed indefinite topic bans on eight editors in the Israeli-Palestinian area for disruptive behavior such as non-neutral editing, personal insults, and misrepresentation of sources. In December 2024, ArbCom permanently banned two anti-Israel editors and placed restrictions on three others for violation of site policies in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area.