I'm not that clear on something. This article in the JPost talks about the AG of Israel, Menachem Mazuz, and his interest in starting the process for a diciplinary hearing on Rabbi Meir Druckman, the Chief Rabbi of Kiryat Motzkin.
Much of the controversy surrounds Druckman's statement that the prime minister has declared war against God and the Torah and his call for a "death curse" to be put on Sharon.I'm not really sure why this would constitute incitement. Though I think that it is an abuse of a Chief Rabbi's position to be calling for any violence at all, the fact that they are calling on a higher power for the violence, as opposed to human beings, would seem to me to be more mumbo-jumbo than incitement. And his calling for the blocking of roads and attempts to stop the disengagement would seem to be within his right to free speech. In addition, the story directly below this one in the JPost is about a similar attempt to put a pulsa denura - Aramaic for 'lashes of fire' - death curse on Ariel Sharon by a group of anti-disengagement activists, but this article reads:
Druckman also has advocated the blocking of roads and said "We will do all we can to stop the evacuation and the destruction. We will be the first to go to jail with heads held high and the true joy of doing a mitzvah."
Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz has decided in the past not to launch criminal investigations into rabbis who have instigated the death curse.Now, I would prefer that no one puts any "curses" on Ariel Sharon, but I can't see why one group would get a free pass here while the other would get prosecuted. Any ideas? And do you guys disagree with my assessment on whether a pulsa denura constitutes incitement?
Mazuz's decision was based on a previous court ruling in the matter of Avigdor Askin, in which it was decided that the pulsa denura curse ceremony does not constitute a criminal offense.