Here's a pop quiz for history buffs and students of modern headlines: Has the world ever experienced indiscriminate warfare upon unarmed innocents at home and abroad? If yes, when, where and why? How did society respond to the phenomenon? Were double standards involved? What, if any, action did the government take? What was the net result of that action?
After one day of intense terrorist activity and a few months of colorful alerts on domestic soil, the United States remains engaged in its War on Terrorism (you can change the name to Operation Iraqi Freedom or to something else, but the goals are the same). Meanwhile, The Hague sits in judgment of Israel and what remains of its bus-bombed population after the past three extremely violent years. World Court jurists are pondering the legalities of the security fence built between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to prevent Human Bombs of Mass Destruction from infiltrating into disputed and non-disputed Israeli real estate. The very persons Israel hopes to keep out have raised grievances against the security fence: potential suicide bombers.
Their complaints range from the superficially plausible to more mundane ploys. Accusations fall into two categories. One, that the security fence constitutes an illegal land grab upon Palestinian territory. Secondly, that inconvenient commutes to and from work, relatives and errands mandate the removal and/or rerouting of the security fence. Since the security fence doesn't follow the precise 1967 border that existed between Israel and Judea and Samaria (the border is the result of earlier defensive measures Israel took to defend itself from annihilation), it's being used as a convenient peg upon which to hang the excuses for dismantling it. This, despite Israel's security concerns about explosive Arab neighbors. The inconveniences for commuters heading to work, family events and other activities camouflage the pressing issue of Israel's effort to protect its citizens from wanton premeditated murder.
Obfuscating the real issue is a timeworn technique for malicious success. Think of the mythical fellow who made it past the foreman with his sand-filled wheelbarrows each night. "I don't care if he removes our sand," the foreman chuckled to his bosses. "This is a rock quarry and he ain't stealing the rocks!" When the foreman opened the gates one morning for another day's labor, his crew complained that not a wheelbarrow was to be found anywhere in the quarry. But the sand thief did not complain. He was long gone, purloined wheelbarrows in tow. Sand was not the issue. Wheelbarrows were, but the clever thief had successfully undermined and concealed the truth by displaying it under the eyes and nose of his supervisor, in the guise of a lesser matter.
Arab grievances in the World Court are today's version of sand in a wheelbarrow. The deliberations sure to fill future headlines need not happen. Precedent exists for dispensing with the topic of the day (Israel's desire to prevent terrorism from harming its citizens), hidden as it is beneath carefully stated lies from "concerned commuters."
Legal precedents being the stuff of subsequent legislation, a perfect precedent for 20th and 21st Century terrorism is available to The Hague and the World Court in 19th Century European law. Governments of that period dealt with terrorism, and decisively so. Because jurists of the period termed terrorism for the ideological anarchy it is, they succeeded in ending reigns of terror without becoming oblivious to pressing realities.
Anarchists are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the current governing power(s). Their gripe is with the existence of the State, accused of inherently depriving individuals of their liberties. Anarchists have a fundamental belief in violent revolution as the only rational and possible response to the allegedly "untenable" conditions of life, because ruling classes never voluntarily surrender power. They throw bombs into crowds in order to attempt the destruction of the State. As Russia, France and other 19th Century countries were overrun by cutthroat fighters, who did not spare defenseless innocents along the way to the castle, the situation was not at all unlike what the world has suffered from global terrorism today. Pushkin depicted a baby carriage tumbling down governmental steps to illustrate the insanity of the point. Unarmed innocents then and now have been unjustly slaughtered for causes, morally bankrupt though they may be. Indiscriminate warfare does not negotiate, does not capitulate and does not advocate reasoned thought in the manner of a just society. The take-no-prisoners Muslim extremists of today are the anarchical terrorists of yesterday.
Islamic terrorists, like the rabble intimidating the European bourgeoisie before them, are conducting tribal warfare against a specific class of people. Instead of opposing royalty or capitalists and industrialists, they accuse Israel (predicated upon Judaism, Jews and Zionism) of depriving them of liberty. Like sand covering treasure upon a watery shore, Muslim lies give way to valuable truths revealed by powerful forces. It's not the borders or the fence that disturb them; it's the difficulty of creating new fatalities.
European governments exiled, imprisoned or executed their enemies, effectively ending reigns of terror and the destruction of society. America has not ceased its war on terrorism, because it is also committed to preventing further terrorist acts and the destruction of its society. The World Court, however, dispenses with precedent as it considers imposing a double standard on beleaguered Israel, striving to prevent new crimes against its populace.
Apparently, statecraft doesn't apply to Israel in the estimation of the World Court. Is intrastate diplomacy with its dialectics of rigorous logic now irrelevant to the nations in the eyes of the law? It shouldn't be, if society is to remain an ethical containment force. If The Hague cannot fathom the fatal flaw in anarchist theory, or any other form of terrorism, it dooms any given population, especially Israel, to the forces of immoral caprice. The crux of the matter presently escaping the World Court's attention is this: Terrorists in any form and in any era take no consideration of how to bring disparate groups together. As Donald Rumsfeld has noted, Israel lacks a viable peace partner.
Israel's lawyers need to realize something before the World Court announces its Judgment Day: Justice is intrastate diplomacy, the statecraft of our Toraitic foundation and prophetic tradition. Justice can build a great Jewish nation. Israel and the Jews cannot afford to practice interstate diplomacy, also known as war. We don't have millions of Jews available for cannon fodder. The dispirited few who remain alive today can only continue to live with G-d's blessing and without the rhetoric of a kangaroo court. Then, Israel's lawyers can pack up and go home to a strong country, which appreciates its sovereignty.
After one day of intense terrorist activity and a few months of colorful alerts on domestic soil, the United States remains engaged in its War on Terrorism (you can change the name to Operation Iraqi Freedom or to something else, but the goals are the same). Meanwhile, The Hague sits in judgment of Israel and what remains of its bus-bombed population after the past three extremely violent years. World Court jurists are pondering the legalities of the security fence built between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to prevent Human Bombs of Mass Destruction from infiltrating into disputed and non-disputed Israeli real estate. The very persons Israel hopes to keep out have raised grievances against the security fence: potential suicide bombers.
Their complaints range from the superficially plausible to more mundane ploys. Accusations fall into two categories. One, that the security fence constitutes an illegal land grab upon Palestinian territory. Secondly, that inconvenient commutes to and from work, relatives and errands mandate the removal and/or rerouting of the security fence. Since the security fence doesn't follow the precise 1967 border that existed between Israel and Judea and Samaria (the border is the result of earlier defensive measures Israel took to defend itself from annihilation), it's being used as a convenient peg upon which to hang the excuses for dismantling it. This, despite Israel's security concerns about explosive Arab neighbors. The inconveniences for commuters heading to work, family events and other activities camouflage the pressing issue of Israel's effort to protect its citizens from wanton premeditated murder.
Obfuscating the real issue is a timeworn technique for malicious success. Think of the mythical fellow who made it past the foreman with his sand-filled wheelbarrows each night. "I don't care if he removes our sand," the foreman chuckled to his bosses. "This is a rock quarry and he ain't stealing the rocks!" When the foreman opened the gates one morning for another day's labor, his crew complained that not a wheelbarrow was to be found anywhere in the quarry. But the sand thief did not complain. He was long gone, purloined wheelbarrows in tow. Sand was not the issue. Wheelbarrows were, but the clever thief had successfully undermined and concealed the truth by displaying it under the eyes and nose of his supervisor, in the guise of a lesser matter.
Arab grievances in the World Court are today's version of sand in a wheelbarrow. The deliberations sure to fill future headlines need not happen. Precedent exists for dispensing with the topic of the day (Israel's desire to prevent terrorism from harming its citizens), hidden as it is beneath carefully stated lies from "concerned commuters."
Legal precedents being the stuff of subsequent legislation, a perfect precedent for 20th and 21st Century terrorism is available to The Hague and the World Court in 19th Century European law. Governments of that period dealt with terrorism, and decisively so. Because jurists of the period termed terrorism for the ideological anarchy it is, they succeeded in ending reigns of terror without becoming oblivious to pressing realities.
Anarchists are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the current governing power(s). Their gripe is with the existence of the State, accused of inherently depriving individuals of their liberties. Anarchists have a fundamental belief in violent revolution as the only rational and possible response to the allegedly "untenable" conditions of life, because ruling classes never voluntarily surrender power. They throw bombs into crowds in order to attempt the destruction of the State. As Russia, France and other 19th Century countries were overrun by cutthroat fighters, who did not spare defenseless innocents along the way to the castle, the situation was not at all unlike what the world has suffered from global terrorism today. Pushkin depicted a baby carriage tumbling down governmental steps to illustrate the insanity of the point. Unarmed innocents then and now have been unjustly slaughtered for causes, morally bankrupt though they may be. Indiscriminate warfare does not negotiate, does not capitulate and does not advocate reasoned thought in the manner of a just society. The take-no-prisoners Muslim extremists of today are the anarchical terrorists of yesterday.
Islamic terrorists, like the rabble intimidating the European bourgeoisie before them, are conducting tribal warfare against a specific class of people. Instead of opposing royalty or capitalists and industrialists, they accuse Israel (predicated upon Judaism, Jews and Zionism) of depriving them of liberty. Like sand covering treasure upon a watery shore, Muslim lies give way to valuable truths revealed by powerful forces. It's not the borders or the fence that disturb them; it's the difficulty of creating new fatalities.
European governments exiled, imprisoned or executed their enemies, effectively ending reigns of terror and the destruction of society. America has not ceased its war on terrorism, because it is also committed to preventing further terrorist acts and the destruction of its society. The World Court, however, dispenses with precedent as it considers imposing a double standard on beleaguered Israel, striving to prevent new crimes against its populace.
Apparently, statecraft doesn't apply to Israel in the estimation of the World Court. Is intrastate diplomacy with its dialectics of rigorous logic now irrelevant to the nations in the eyes of the law? It shouldn't be, if society is to remain an ethical containment force. If The Hague cannot fathom the fatal flaw in anarchist theory, or any other form of terrorism, it dooms any given population, especially Israel, to the forces of immoral caprice. The crux of the matter presently escaping the World Court's attention is this: Terrorists in any form and in any era take no consideration of how to bring disparate groups together. As Donald Rumsfeld has noted, Israel lacks a viable peace partner.
Israel's lawyers need to realize something before the World Court announces its Judgment Day: Justice is intrastate diplomacy, the statecraft of our Toraitic foundation and prophetic tradition. Justice can build a great Jewish nation. Israel and the Jews cannot afford to practice interstate diplomacy, also known as war. We don't have millions of Jews available for cannon fodder. The dispirited few who remain alive today can only continue to live with G-d's blessing and without the rhetoric of a kangaroo court. Then, Israel's lawyers can pack up and go home to a strong country, which appreciates its sovereignty.