Barcelona, 1263, king of Aragon "invites" Nachmanides to a "debate" with representatives of the church. The reason for the "debate" - the Church, through its representative, sought to argue that the Talmud has proof of the Trinity, the life of Jesus after his death, and his divinity.
Why did Christians care if Jewish writings had proof of their faith? Wasn't the Christian faith strong enough that it needed external proof?
The debate was not a theoretical theological debate or debate club; The Barcelona Debate was a trial aimed at proving that Judaism was superfluous. According to the plaintiffs, if Christianity appears in the Talmud, it is a natural continuation of Judaism, and there is no reason for Jews to adhere to the pre-Christian religion and simply become Christians.
The purpose of the debate was not to show what Jews think or believe, nor to call Jews liars, but to show that the truth of the Jews justifies the elimination of Judaism. The Christian prosecution demonstrated an impressive knowledge of the Talmud and Jewish thought, for a simple reason: the war against the Jews was waged by converted Jews.
Nachmanides naively thought that through the debate (what 760 years later would be called hasbara) he would prove that Judaism had an independent right to exist. He was right, and of course he was expelled from Barcelona. He was expelled because he did not understand the game: the purpose of the argument was to "catch a Jew," and even if he comes out "eligible," he is still Jewish, and the convert manages to secure his place.
"Jewish Catcher" did not start in Barcelona and did not stop there. In 1543, Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, published a book called On the Jews and Their Lies. Luther hoped that in light of his criticism of the Catholic Church, Jews would "see the light" and convert to Protestant Christianity. When that didn't happen, he began playing "The Jewish Catcher" with the help of some Jewish converts.
In Europe, over the years, religion converted itself into a nation, and from a nationality to a universal identity, and each time the supposedly enlightened culture demanded justifications for pogroms and the elimination of the Jews. Religious debates turned into blood libels, blood libels into national subversion, and then into "scientific" racism. And each time there were Jews who volunteered to find evidence of the guilt of the Jews.
Today, more than ever, "Jewish Catcher" (there's also a great book by that name) is the popular game on campuses, in the media, in bureaucracies in the U.S., Europe, and the United Nations. Jews are still invited to an argument, which is nothing more than an orchestrated rhetorical trap backed by "facts" provided by kind-hearted Jews.
Jews and their state face daily field trials, in which they are forced to jump between defending themselves from malicious and false accusations and positions that should be obvious, such as the right to sovereignty or self-defense. No matter how much we explain ourselves, we will be guilty, because our very existence is the source of the violence against us. If we only agree not to exist, violence will end, and if we are against violence, then the cessation of our existence is inevitable. The failure of our advocacy is not because we chose the wrong words, but because in the eyes of the accusers, the very attempt at advocacy is an admission of our guilt.
Today, more than ever, "Jewish Catcher" is the popular game on campuses, in the media, in bureaucracies in the United States, Europe, and the United Nations. Jews are still invited to debate, which is nothing more than an orchestrated rhetorical trap backed by "facts" provided by kind-hearted Jews
We need to change concept. Take, for example, the blood libel about settler violence. Are there violent residents of Judea and Samaria? Yes. But there are also violent Herzleins - two teenagers from Herzliya murdered taxi driver Derek Roth, and a year later Yigal Amir murdered a prime minister. Did the international forums against Israel talk about "Herzlein violence"? Not. Because there are no blood libel organizations like B'Tselem and Breaking the Silence. For the international enlightened anti-Semite, "settler violence" is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the justification for a national home for the Jewish people. After all, if the "settlers are violent," then they must be expelled from Hebron, Jerusalem, Bari and Tel Aviv.
The solution to the PR problem is not only to show that "settler violence" is a blood libel, but first and foremost to replace those among us who provide "evidence" of blood libels.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us