Month: July 2005

Founding fathers leave an indelible mark on their countries. Israel was lucky to have an founding father who hated terror. How vehemently? I only discovered doing research for my article on “Jewish Terrorism.” . I cannot forgo the opportunity to share a small part of it with you.

On December 18, 1946, in a closed meeting of the political committee of the Zionist Congress, Ben Gurion argued brilliantly against colleagues advocating terror. His words could not be more relevant today. He began by saying, “One thing is prohibited under any circumstances – murder. Murder – means spilling of innocent blood. Murder – No. I have to tell you that a soldier is a volunteer. I know what it means to be a soldier. The role of the soldier is to kill and be killed for a just cause. . . . But there is something else that is called murder. And there is not one of us who may permit it, and we may not give anyone permission to permit it, especially when it is done in our name.” . . .

Ben Gurion believed that terror is self-destructive, especially to the youth engaged in it. “We may not permit within our ranks the demoralizing education of ‘only thus,’ only with the gun, as it undermines the foundation of our movement,” he asserted. It is also wrong to underestimate the people’s ability to combine building with self-defense: “As to the question, raised in the Congress at the end of the political debate by one of our best men: “How can we combine these things? – I must answer that we were forced to combine them in reality…I went to plow with a rifle on my shoulder in Segera.”

Indeed, the alternative would result in the emergence of a generation which would lack the ability to handle peace: “Imagine: A miracle would happen tomorrow and we would receive a state on both sides of the Jordan, and all the earthly kings would ship Jews to the Land of Israel, and there will no longer be a basis for terror. I know that a few hundred or a few thousand Jewish boys and girls would be the most miserable. They have no other interest in life except to shoot people. They have not been educated for anything else. They will have no meaning to their lives. As this was all their purpose, dream, pathos and song.” . . .

“If you tell the youth . . . that the only thing to do is to shoot, it could no longer do anything else. It would be the worse exploitation of our brothers and sisters…who after 70 years of work in the land of Israel there are still poor neighborhoods to take their children, who do not have enough to eat, street children, and …make into murderous bands with the help of the theory ‘Only Thus!’ (with a gun).”xi

posted by Judith

The Ben Gurion principle holds. Torture is not an abstract notion. Somebody needs to do the torturing. Would you want to have a torturer as a neighbor? A son in law? A father of your child? This may sound like practical rather than moral reasoning. But I believe in the interdependency of the two.

Hence, as tempting as it may be at times, torture should remain the dirty word it is.
posted by Judith

The Dutch seem to have great difficulty adjusting to these dangerous times. The kids are assaulted. The police refuse to act. The family goes on TV to protest. “We do not have enough proof.

In the meantime, they are considering a one year jail sentence on those who praise terror.

I know free speech advocates will be horrified. I concur. Words can kill.
posted by Judith

I am sick and tired of hearing that thugs want to be treated with dignity.The kidnapping of foreign citizens is no minor offence. Today the Japanese Diet heard a defector testify that North Korean instructors at the spy training school were proudly talking about their roles in abducting Japanese nationals.

Too bad the US toned down its straight talk about the nature of the Pyongyang regime. I am glad the Japanese picked up the slack.
posted by Judith

“For years French President Jacques Chirac enthusiastically championed whatever anti-Israeli international coalition happened to manifest itself at almost any given opportunity. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s depictions of him yesterday as “a friend of Israel” and “one of the world’s great leaders” weren’t what Israeli ears naturally expect,” writes the Jerusalem Post.

For days French news waxed lyrical about the upcoming visit. It ran a feature about the increased number of French Jews who go “home” to Israel. Today, in addition to pictures of Sharon and Chirac smiling, there was a softball interview with the Israeli Prime Minister.

Why? Because they want to increase their influence in the ME, say the pundits. Because they wish to improve their relations with the US, say I.

The easiest way to assess a country’s intentions towards the US is to watch its relations with Israel. The honeymoon between the US and India was preceded by a honeymoon between Israel and India just as the worsening relations between Western Europe and Israel preceded the deterioration of European-American relations.

Moreover, as Andrei Markovitz argues that there are strong ties between European anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. Both rose during the European-American-Israeli estrangement and both are currently subsiding which is sine qua non for success in fighting terror.
posted by Judith

Congressman Lantos strongly condemned the brutal treatment of the gay boys:

“This sickening episode shines a bright light on the severe shortcomings of the Iranian legal system,” Lantos said. “No matter what legal sources or traditions a country bases its law upon, there is no justification for whipping and executing people amid an angry mob – particularly not when the convicts committed offenses while they were minors, who are specifically protected under international law. And in this case, authorities apparently chose to play on deep-seated feelings of bigotry toward homosexuality, which can carry the death penalty in Iran.”

That is the Islamic law agreed a Muslim cleric’s on Australian TV and created a firestorm.
posted by Judith

Eric Cohen explains in his lecture the Meaning of Genetics, that we as a society have some tough decisions to make. The only question is whether we are going to make them together or leave them to “the professionals.” Personally, I hate the choices the professionals tend to make. For example, the High court has just ruled that doctors can deny terminal patients food and drink against their will.

Come again?!
posted by Judith

As a Presbyterian minister, I have registered my dissent from last year’s controversial resolution at our General Assembly calling for “selective disinvestment” from companies doing business in Israel and the occupied territories. I thought our activists’ campaign was one-sided and ill advised. If my religious celebrations were subject to suicide attack (maybe they are), I would be willing to go to considerable lengths to prevent its happening ever again. I would be open to building a barrier or wall (depends on who you talk to). I agree with some points made by Martin Peretz in the blog to which you linked.

As I read more of that blog, however, I saw a point of view that sees no room for compromise, no hope for Palestinian Arabs, only concern for Israel. Extremists on both sides drive this conflict, Palestinians who refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist AND Israeli Jews who reserve the right to build new settlements anywhere and everywhere. The latter won’t recognize how sensible it is to withdraw from the exposed and almost indefensible Gaza settlements. Ariel Sharon’s opponents on the right make him look like the soul of reason. (The Rev.) Stephen Scott,First Presbyterian Church,Statesville, NC
posted by Judith

“It’s not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation,” a statement from the Vatican press office said Thursday night, “and (that is) for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law.”

“It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (the terror strikes) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence,” said the statement, which had an unusually blistering tone for the Holy See.

Just so I understand, the reactions of Egypt, Britain, Iraq and Turkey to terror attacks have always been compatible with the rules of international law ?! Therefore, terror attacks against innocents living in those countries are wrong. Terror attacks targeting citizens living in countries with imperfect records are not. I am wordless.
posted by Judith

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.

Sir Winston Churchill via James Calvin.
posted by Judith