Rabbi Arthur Waskow 3/23/2004

Dear friends,

Tuesday morning, when I sent out the collection of critical responses to the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, I had no time to write what my own views are.

I wanted to make sure that as soon as possible, people who are very likely to have heard expressions of strong support for the assassination also hear that there are well-reasoned and well-felt objections to it.

Now I have time to say my own views, AND ALSO INVITE YOU TO ACT — using our new software to send your own views to the Israeli, Palestinian, and US leaderships.

TO SEND YOUR ACTION LETTERS, GO TO THE CLOSE-TO-LAST PARAGRAPHS OF THIS LETTER.

Among those who opposed the assassination was the head of Israel security force, the Shin Bet. It is hard to imagine that he or the many other Israelis I quoted, most of whom are at constant personal risk of being attacked by terrorists is "soft on terrorism" or "supports Hamas" or the like.

Yet some who have written me in response to the mailing have responded as if opposition to the assassination is the same as support for Hamas.

I understand the pain and fear and rage about Israeli deaths at the hands of Hamas that stir such responses, but it important for us to think more deeply and feel more fully if we want to serve life and save lives.

There are four crucial issues that I think are at stake here:

I. World opinion & Jewish self-protection.

Much of the world outside Israel, even such close allies as the US government, have expressed either opposition or strong doubt about the Yassin attack.
There are two ways for Jews to respond to this:

1) That prudence and wisdom suggest bringing "a decent respect to the opinions of [hu]mankind" to look at this issue.
2) That the whole world is anti-Semitic, so Jews should ignore their opinions and be tough.

The second is well-rooted in a great deal of Jewish experience during the last two thousand years. There are still anti- Semites around, so many still feel some truth to it. Yet I think the danger is far less than it used to be, because Jews in Israel, North America, and some other areas have real power.

Even where anti-Semitic acts occur against individuals or groups, Jews are no longer as vulnerable to systemic threats. That doesn mean such acts should be ignored not at all!! but we should be able to listen to criticism with more space to learn from it than, say, a century ago.

Again, I understand why the history of the Jewish people leaves many Jews hypersensitive to danger; but to live effectively in the world, we need to be aware of what the world really is. We can have compassion for the fearful, but keep reminding ourselves how to measure danger realistically.

The Torah teaches us to remember what Amalek, the most murderous of enemies, did to us and Torah also teaches that when we have achieved safety, we should blur that memory. Not be obsessed by it.

It is that obsession that turns the abused child into an abuser adult, or a broken one. Nothing is more dangerous than a community that still thinks of itself as a victim when it is actually powerful. Dangerous to others and itself.

II. What is the most effective way to deal with terrorist acts or organizations?

I totally understand the sense of justice and anger that responds to the murder of civilians with the desire to punish whoever has had a hand in it. But an ancient Jewish teaching - - Tzedek tzedek tirdof, justice justice shall you pursue" - - has long been understood to mean that the word "justice" is repeated to remind us that just ends can only be achieved by using just means.

The most fully just means would probably have been for Israel and the Palestinian Authority to have agreed to set up a Special International Criminal Court to try those accused of terrorism or war crimes anywhere between the Jordan and the Sea. But neither has pursued that goal, nor has the present US government which opposes even the present International Criminal Court.

Second best, for Israelis to use their superior military force to arrest alleged terrorists and have them stand trial either in an ad hoc internationally constituted court, or at worst an Israeli court.

Killing people without a trial, without a chance to present evidence on their own behalf smells too much like lynching. Not a just means. And often, not even just results for often it is innocent bystanders who get killed.

Even worse: These attacks on alleged terrorists have become deeply entangled in the ongoing politics of the Occupation.

To put it bluntly:
It seems to me that Sharon is in a de facto alliance-of-murder with Hamas, each seeking the subjugation of the other nation and each convinced the escalation of murderous violence will bring the other side to exhaustion and collapse. Each thinks its own violence is made legitimate by the other side's violence.

And by perpetrating its own violence, each is giving the other side a spurious "legitimacy" it would not otherwise have.

By now, both must know that is what will happen: Hamas does a bombing, it knows Sharon will retaliate. Sharon does an assassination, he knows Hamas will retaliate.

So I ask you: Do they both WANT this, and to hell with the people who die? Do they want it because that way, each side thinks it will ultimately win?

Disgusting. And enormously destructive.

For of course many have expressed the fear that in response to this assassination, many Israelis will die. That was what happened when Hamas bomb-engineer Yahya was killed.

Diagnosing the likelihood does NOT condone any killing that does result but it should convince us to stop this practice of assassinations.

III. Is there is any other way to deal with terrorist groups?

Not only the path of criminal justice that I sketched above, but the path of peacemaking. (They are complementary. Cooperating on a special Criminal Court could help lead toward broader peacemaking, and even if we were to achieve the goal of peace, we would probably still need provisions to deal with some residual terrorism.)

The Geneva Initiative was an example of both Israelis and Palestinians working together to figure out a practical, decent, and enforceable solution. So were proposals for a comprehensive peace that came from Arab League meetings.

Maybe some of these proposals were fraught with poisoned provisions; maybe when push came to shove the Palestinians and other Arab peoples would have refused.

But we don know. The Sharon government rejected them and others like them, out of hand. And as a result we are in great danger.

IV. The question of "moral equivalence."

We often hear that there can be no moral equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian violence, because Palestinian terrorists are deliberately trying to kill civilians, whereas Israeli retaliators do so only by accident, as "collateral damage."

When we look at the individual mental and spiritual state of an individual user of violence, that may be accurate. At that level and for that purpose, the soldier who kills children while trying to kill an alleged terrorist leader may be less culpable than a terrorist who deliberately blows up a pizzeria. (Even that may be less true once it is clear that these soldierly killings almost always include innocent people.)

But there is another dimension. The Occupation itself is a gigantic act of violence. It shatters the Palestinian economy and society, has killed and maimed many more Palestinians than the terrorist attacks have killed Israelis, and humiliates countless people who then for their whole lives burn with rage.

This Occupation is a deliberate act, not an accident or a necessity. Not only could the Israeli government have pursued far more vigorously the possibilities of peace; it could if absolutely necessary have built a self-protective Wall on or very close to the "Green Line" and withdrawn all troops from the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of East Jerusalem.

Instead it chose to make the Wall another tool of the occupation, swallowing up Palestinian homes and farms, whole towns and villages.

The Palestinians, who are far weaker, in THIS dimension bear less responsibility for disaster.

*** So for all these reasons, I conclude the assassination was both an ethical and a practical mistake.

What to do? We invite you to send a letter to the Palestinian Authority mission to the UN; to Prime Minister Sharon; to Israeli opposition leader Yossi Beilin; and to your Member of the US Congress. So your letter will carry more weight, please identify yourself as a committed Jew, or Chritian, or Muslim, or mother, or father, or teacher why and how you care about the need for peace in this land that holds such promise and despair.

We have provided a model letter. I think you will find it is absolutely clear about protecting both Israelis and Palestinians, and about moving toward peace.

In any case, please modify it as you like, or write your own. Click on
http://capwiz.com/shalomctr/issues/alert/?alertid=5417776& type=ML
to send a letter today.

May the One Who makes harmony in the farthest reaches of the universe teach us to make peace within ourselves, among ourselves, among all the children of Israel and all the children of Ishmael, and among all who dwell upon our planet.

Shalom, Arthur