I hold no brief for the ad by 21 Montreal Orthodox rabbis criticizing the Israeli government’s disengagement policy from Gaza. In my view, the ad’s arguments were one-sided and exaggerated. In its favour, however, the ad addressed itself to the issues and scrupulously avoided descending to personalities. The same cannot be said of Beryl Wajsman’s disgraceful screed.

Rather than legitimately criticize the ad on matters of substance, Wajsman resorts to the old and discredited smear tactic of guilt by association. What do the reasoned criticisms set forth by the ad, even if one disagrees with them, have to do with the curses directed against Prime Minister Sharon by some misguided rabbinic extremists? Or with the murder of four Israeli Arabs by Eden Tzubari? Or with a vicious anti-Sharon video? Nothing at all. The ad never mentions Sharon and never personally attacks the good faith of the planners of the disengagement policy. Why, then, does Wajsman introduce these red herrings?

Wajsman presumes to lecture the rabbis on what he considers to be the requirements of Jewish law. He argues that the rabbis have abrogated the most sacred rule of Judaism, the saving of lives. But this is to beg the question with a vengeance. The rabbis believe that the withdrawal, far from enhancing Israel’s security, will weaken it. From their standpoint, then, the rule of saving lives would require that they oppose the withdrawal.

Wajsman further argues that the rabbis ignored the Jewish legal principle of the law of the land is law. But certainly respect for the law in a democratic society does not mean that individuals do not possess the right and the duty to protest a government policy if they consider it to be shortsighted, unjust, or harmful. Wajsman piously protests that “people of faith have the right to express their views on public matters in the same manner as anyone else.’’ But when the rabbis wish to exercise that right Wajsman turns around and accuses them of disrespect for the law!

What particularly troubles me is the clear anti-religious animus pervading Wajsman’s article. How else can one account for his exclamation that “thankfully, Israeli society is overwhelmingly secular”? Or for his irrelevant and contemptible slur about the high rate of welfare recipients among Haredi Jews?

What both the ad and Wajsman’s response lack is any sense of humility. The more thoughtful among both the proponents and opponents of the disengagement policy freely admit that the outcome of the disengagement is unclear and that they are only speaking of a balance of probabilities. But, above all, in such perilous times, with such fateful choices before us, we all have the responsibility to avoid inciting hatred between Jews. In this respect, the rabbi’s ad succeeds in meeting that responsibility, while Wajsman’s response, with its crass appeal to base anti-religious prejudice, fails miserably.

Lawrence Kaplan is a professor in theDepartment of Jewish Studies at McGill University.