Criticizing any government even if you are not a citizen of that particular government’s country should be the right of all people that live in free societies. Most of us very often do exactly that. I was a vocal opponent of the Oslo accords, the Wye Plantation agreement, the withdrawal from Lebanon, the Clinton sponsored Camp David and Taba talks and the Disengagement.
While living in Israel from 1995 to 2001, together with thousands of others, I demonstrated in Jerusalem’s Zion Square and Dizengoff Square in Tel Aviv against the above-mentioned peace schemes. Since then my pen has been an active critique of Israeli government policies.
The basis for my criticism never varies. After thousands of years of oppression against Jews who prior to 1948 had to rely on often-hostile gentile governments for protection, Israel’s number one priority must be to protect Jews.
This is backed up by Jewish sources. The Talmud states that the death of one Jewish person is comparable to that of an entire universe. This does mean that we do not care about the lives of others – of course we do. However history has informed us that if we do not look after ourselves others will not do it for us.
Just as protecting ones own life must be a priority, similarly for Jews the obligation to protect all Jewish life is paramount. It is perfectly legitimate for other nations to take a similar point of view regarding their citizens.
Casualties of suicide bombings during the Oslo period were referred to by Shimon Peres as “the sacrifices of peace.” In the Jewish worldview this is a terrible statement. If one extra Jew has to die because of the desire for peace then that peace is not worth the price. Therefore when I see the Israeli government experimenting with a peace process whose outcome may be the death of more Jews – and this has now proven to be the outcome – I cannot hold back on my criticism.
‘Murderous war?’
Over the last few weeks, however, I have heard criticism coming from a different perspective. Prominent academics and thinkers from around the world have been publicly calling the Israeli war against Hizbullah murderous, disproportionate, excessive and barbaric.
Their stated view is that there is always a peaceful solution to every conflict. If only one could get the parties round the table to talk to each other, if only they were the mediators between Hizbullah and Israel the conflict would be solved without the need for war, they surmise. In their view, every act of violence on the part of Israel is an unnecessary murderous act.
This is a legitimate point of view and their strategies may work on the individual – and even on the corporate and national – level. The mistake however is that this is not a one-size-fits all world. Just as there are psychopaths and pedophiles who need to be locked up because therapy cannot ensure that they will not hurt others, similarly on the world stage there are thoroughly evil groups against which force must be used in order to protect innocents.
Acknowledging evil
Judaism is realistic about the existence of such evil. In the Bible we find God destroying Egypt because they enslaved the Jews. Were the ten plagues really a proportionate response? How could a good and just God mete out such collective punishment?
The answer is clear: When diplomacy fails, as it did with the ancient Egyptians and as it has done with the modern day Palestinian representatives and therefore Hizbullah it becomes clear that the enemy is irreparably evil. Reluctantly, and with a heavy heart, one comes to the conclusion that force is the only option.
The fact that Israel is up against an evil and unrelenting enemy was evident to me before Oslo and its ill-fated successors such as the Road Map. Others may have needed those so-called peace processes to prove this. However, after the failed diplomacy and peace initiatives of the last fifteen years, one must suspect that there may be other more sinister motives underlying the current criticism of Israel by the so-called intelligentsia.