Last month, I read on Arutz Sheva that ?Israel reportedly offered to stop targeted killings of terrorist leaders if the PA manages to control terrorism ?to a reasonable extent? and to stop rockets from being fired at Israel.?
Reasonable? What constitutes reasonable? Merriam Webster's online dictionary defines ?reasonable? as ?Not extreme or excessive.? Looking up ?excessive? yielded ?Exceeding what is proper or necessary.? Meanwhile ?extreme? is defined as ?Existing in a very high degree, exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected.?
So now it's time to examine terrorism and world-views regarding it. An appropriate place to start might be America, which is also a Western society as well as Israel's friend and ally. Does America consider any form of terrorism reasonable? Absolutely not! How about Great Britain? Again, a resounding ?no.? How about France, Italy or Russia? Non, non, and nyet, respectively. Even Saudi Arabia, which sends funds to Hamas, goes after and prosecutes all terrorists who perform terrorist acts on Saudi soil. The aftermath of the recent Riyadh bombings proves this.
So why should Israel be willing, or even pressured into accepting a certain amount of terrorism? Is there a separate rule for Jews and a Jewish state than for the rest of the world? Are Jews less valuable or more expendable? Or does the Israeli government see it citizens as human sacrifices for some tenuous peace plan?
Let us assume that Israelis are expendable for the sake of peace. What constitutes controlling terrorism to a reasonable extent? Looking at the above definitions, one immediately notices that there are no numerical values given in the definitions. Ergo, the quantity that defines reasonable is relative to the amount of the whole. This gives a whole lot of leeway in interpretation.
How many dead people is a reasonable number? How many permanently maimed people is reasonable amount? And who is to choose these human sacrifices, or is it a lottery? Is two reasonable, but not three? Or maybe ten, but not fifteen? Or maybe just men, but not women? How about a few elderly, but draw the line at children?
And who is to choose these human sacrifices? Are the architects of "a reasonable amount of terrorism" willing to let their loved ones become the victims? That way, the rest of the citizens, who had no say in being sacrificial lambs, would be spared. Or how about those outside influences pressuring Israel to compromise the lives of her citizens? Will George Bush, Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Hosni Mubarak, or the host of other ?peacemakers? offer up their families to a terrorist?s nail-studded, poison-dipped bomb? Or maybe some terrorist?s fatal snipings, as well as knife and axe attacks? Or do these power brokers just want the average Israeli citizen to pay with his or her life for the sake of their own international images?
This whole concept of ?a reasonable amount of terrorism? and its implications of murdered people sounds awfully like the ancient practice of human sacrifice. Is Israel truly considering a return to murderous, barbaric, heathen practices for the sake of a very questionable peace - a peace that it has never been able to attain, no matter how many people have died on the altar of terrorism? What would HaShem think of the Hebrew nation, who is so willing to return to a forbidden practice on the promise of a sworn enemy, who has a personal history of lies, broken promises, and mass murder?
May HaShem bless and save the people of Israel from the folly of its leaders who are ready to make human sacrifices at the foot of a modern-day Baal. Amein.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Goodtree is a writer of humor and political commentary. She may be contacted at Bgoodtree@AOL.com.
Reasonable? What constitutes reasonable? Merriam Webster's online dictionary defines ?reasonable? as ?Not extreme or excessive.? Looking up ?excessive? yielded ?Exceeding what is proper or necessary.? Meanwhile ?extreme? is defined as ?Existing in a very high degree, exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected.?
So now it's time to examine terrorism and world-views regarding it. An appropriate place to start might be America, which is also a Western society as well as Israel's friend and ally. Does America consider any form of terrorism reasonable? Absolutely not! How about Great Britain? Again, a resounding ?no.? How about France, Italy or Russia? Non, non, and nyet, respectively. Even Saudi Arabia, which sends funds to Hamas, goes after and prosecutes all terrorists who perform terrorist acts on Saudi soil. The aftermath of the recent Riyadh bombings proves this.
So why should Israel be willing, or even pressured into accepting a certain amount of terrorism? Is there a separate rule for Jews and a Jewish state than for the rest of the world? Are Jews less valuable or more expendable? Or does the Israeli government see it citizens as human sacrifices for some tenuous peace plan?
Let us assume that Israelis are expendable for the sake of peace. What constitutes controlling terrorism to a reasonable extent? Looking at the above definitions, one immediately notices that there are no numerical values given in the definitions. Ergo, the quantity that defines reasonable is relative to the amount of the whole. This gives a whole lot of leeway in interpretation.
How many dead people is a reasonable number? How many permanently maimed people is reasonable amount? And who is to choose these human sacrifices, or is it a lottery? Is two reasonable, but not three? Or maybe ten, but not fifteen? Or maybe just men, but not women? How about a few elderly, but draw the line at children?
And who is to choose these human sacrifices? Are the architects of "a reasonable amount of terrorism" willing to let their loved ones become the victims? That way, the rest of the citizens, who had no say in being sacrificial lambs, would be spared. Or how about those outside influences pressuring Israel to compromise the lives of her citizens? Will George Bush, Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Hosni Mubarak, or the host of other ?peacemakers? offer up their families to a terrorist?s nail-studded, poison-dipped bomb? Or maybe some terrorist?s fatal snipings, as well as knife and axe attacks? Or do these power brokers just want the average Israeli citizen to pay with his or her life for the sake of their own international images?
This whole concept of ?a reasonable amount of terrorism? and its implications of murdered people sounds awfully like the ancient practice of human sacrifice. Is Israel truly considering a return to murderous, barbaric, heathen practices for the sake of a very questionable peace - a peace that it has never been able to attain, no matter how many people have died on the altar of terrorism? What would HaShem think of the Hebrew nation, who is so willing to return to a forbidden practice on the promise of a sworn enemy, who has a personal history of lies, broken promises, and mass murder?
May HaShem bless and save the people of Israel from the folly of its leaders who are ready to make human sacrifices at the foot of a modern-day Baal. Amein.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Goodtree is a writer of humor and political commentary. She may be contacted at Bgoodtree@AOL.com.