Ron J Hutter is the author of the satirical novel on antisemitism, “The Trombone Man: Tales of a Misogynist", the play “BEST," and the “Kristallnacht Cantata: A Voice of Courage"
(Editor's preamble, with author's agreement: Events described in the Tanach become even more meaningful when they repeat themselves in our time. In the story of Esther, Ahasueros cannot rescind his previous decree to have the Jews killed and so the Jews are given the right to defend themselves - something we don't really question, although they should not have needed permission. And defense becomes permissible only after Esther begs and pleads. Prophetic, no?)
The question whether Israel has a right to defend itself has become common parlance among some world leaders, commentators and in social discourse over dinner.
Even Netanyahu and cabinet ministers have to explain to the world that “Israel has a right to defend itself."
Every time Iran and its proxies threaten or actually attempt to annihilate Israel and follow through with missile attacks and terrorism, the phrase pops up again. These days, less so.
Another version might be that Israel has a right to defend itself (usually muttered without conviction) but must de-escalate immediately, which is both patronising and contradictory. Often Israel’s right to defend itself is qualified by “complying with international law," which means anything you want it to mean depending on politics.
This has become so ‘normal’ that people repeat it without thinking of what that really implies.
The phrase goes deeper than merely discussing a rhetorical question.
Has anybody ever asked whether Taiwan has a right to defend itself? Or Ukraine, or Cuba or Venezuela or France or the UK or whatever? Why only Israel?
What is taken for granted all over the world without question has to be discussed, and debated when it comes to Israel. Occasionally that question is preceded by the term “controversially." When Israel exercises /states its basic sovereign rights it is seen as controversial.
Imagine Netanyahu et al telling the nation and the world, not that the State of Israel has a “right to defend itself, “ but instead “Israel will act in its national sovereign interest in a way it deems fit."
No ifs, buts or handwringing apologies.
The war does not only refer to kinetic fighting but also should include a deeper awareness of psych ops and its essential role in winning the war. Or losing it, as what happened in Vietnam when arguably the war was lost on the streets and universities of America and in Hollywood, as Jane Fonda proved.
Some 2500 years ago when Judeans were exiled to Babylon, Chinese general/philosopher Sun Tzu in his ’Art of War,’ recognised that psychological warfare was essential for a decisive victory.
Language is a powerful means in subduing and overcoming your adversary. The converse is also true. Israel must never be apologetic by explaining that it has a “right to defend itself."
The first duty of any government is to ensure security for its citizens and borders. This is never questioned anywhere except when it involves Israel. Compare this to Ukraine in its war with Russia where “international law" has a very different meaning to Israel.
If British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and other so called allies mutter that “Israel has a right to defend itself but…," the message is problematic by being patronising, a hypocritical double standard - as well as being a mixed message through the use of the word “but." Simply put, “yes, but" means no.
When the Children of Israel escaped from Egypt, they were in the Sinai Desert for forty years because they had to enter the Promised Land without a culture of subjugation with its slave mentality.
Later, Jews were in exile for nearly 2000 years before the restoration of Israel. Much longer than the forty years needed to change the slave mentality!
The diaspora mentality of submission, homelessness, pogroms, approval seeking and insecurity unfortunately still dominates and is entrenched in Jewish culture. Jews/Israel therefore must consciously initiate and adapt to a new mentality starting with language, not only with the apologetic “right to defend itself," but in other ways too, such as with eastern Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria).
The 2000 year challenge of overcoming an approval-seeking mentality, has not yet been successful.
Parents, teachers and friends can start making a conscious effort to change language from being apologetic to being unequivocally assertive.
Changing language from the “right to defend" ourselves to the unapologetic “acting in our national sovereign interests" would be a good point of departure during the present war.