LONDON MAYOR: Can't figure out what a terrorist group is

I have great sympathy for the people of London. As victims of terror, they have a small taste of what it has been like to be in Israel for years. Yet they also have a wacko, left of left, crazy SOB mayor who compares elected leadership of Israel to the terrorist group Hamas. And this mayoral brilliance comes literally less than two weeks after the attacks in London. If Ken Livingstone can't figure out the difference between a political party and a terrorist group, then I'll have to do a better job of making sure that London isn't on my list of potential destinations.

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 01:40 20/07/2005
London mayor: Likud and Hamas are `two sides of the same coin'

By News Agencies

London Mayor Ken Livingstone told Sky News yesterday that he does not distinguish between members of Likud and Hamas, branding them as "two sides of the same coin."

"I think it is the Israelis who are leading the stubborn line," said Livingstone, who is known for consistently criticizing Israeli policy. "The Likud and Hamas members are two sides of the same coin. They need each other in order to attract support," he said.

"Each side emphasizes the extremism of the other in order to attract sympathy," Livingstone said during an interview with Sky News.

Livingstone agreed to the interview in the wake of the media frenzy surrounding the possible visit of controversial Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has voiced support for Palestinian suicide bombers and has been banned from entering the United States.

"I believe it is forbidden to take human life," Livingstone said. "I will welcome and meet with senior members of the Israeli government if they come here because they serve their country's government even though I believe they have done terrible things bordering on crimes against humanity."

Livingstone said Israel has indiscriminately killed men, women, and children in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for dozens of years.
/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=602148

close window

A sad irony--this editorial from the current edition of the Forward. Read on:


Editorial
The Illusions of London
By
July 15, 2005
Sixteen years ago, the Israeli folk-rocker Chava Alberstein went platinum with a searing song of despair about the unbearable uncertainty of life in Israel and the yearning to move someplace else where life could be simpler and safer. It was called "London."

"Goodbye, I'm going," she sang. "Not that I have illusions about London. I'll be lonely there, too. But at least I can despair in comfort."

Anat Rosenberg was one of the Israelis that Alberstein was singing about. She had moved to London two years earlier, at age 21, partly to pursue a career in art and partly — mostly, her friends suggest — to get away from the violence that had erupted with the outbreak of the first intifada. Over the years since then, she had taken to visiting her parents in Jerusalem with decreasing frequency and growing unease, avoiding Israeli bars and never riding buses. In London she felt safer, her British boyfriend told reporters this week. The last time he spoke to her, in a cell-phone call last Thursday morning, July 7, she was trying to get the Underground to work. Finding her station curiously closed, she hopped onto a double-decker bus. The last thing he heard from her was a scream. She was 39.

Alberstein was wrong. We all have illusions. We imagine that there's someplace to run and hide, someplace we can be safe, and we find it isn't so. The bombs follow us to London, to Madrid, to New York, even to far-off tropical resorts like Bali and Mombasa.

We think that the terror will cease if we are kind and understanding and attentive to its root causes, but it does not stop. We think we can stop the terror by hunting down the terrorists mercilessly, but it does not stop. Terrorists attack in England, which has troops in Iraq, and Morocco, which does not. They kill on the streets of tolerant, freewheeling Holland and of repressive Saudi Arabia. Their leaders are arrested or killed and new leaders emerge. And still we strut and pose and flatter ourselves that we know the answer, if only the others would listen.

Ariel Sharon, who knows something about fighting terrorists, wisely told his ministers and diplomats in the first hours after the London bombings to restrain any natural impulse they might feel to draw quick lessons and share them with the world at large. Express sympathy for London's suffering, the prime minister's office ordered, but don't compare it to Israel's experiences or imply that Israel knows something it can teach England. It's in bad taste and won't be well received. Besides, some Israeli officials added privately, Londoners know a thing or two themselves about living through bombings. They survived the Nazi blitz. They lived through two decades of Irish Republican Army bombings. Their intelligence services are among the world's most highly regarded.

Some Israelis and their supporters around the world wanted to see the July 7 bombings as evidence that Londoners and Europeans in general were insufficiently alert to the dangers of radical Islam. For days afterward, they railed against the political correctness that impels Europeans and other liberals to seek coexistence and understanding rather than confrontation. They argued, too, that Europeans were foolishly seeking to address the Islamic terrorist threat through the tools of law enforcement, rather than treating as a military threat and declaring war, as the right-thinking folks in Jerusalem and Washington have done.

Israelis have a term for the flood of moralizing and political posturing that seems to follow every terrorist incident in that tortured land. They call it "dancing on the blood." By this they mean the almost celebratory passion with which advocates on all sides seize on such incidents to prove the truth of whatever political or military approach they already favored.

Sharon understood correctly in the first moments after the London bombings that such an impulse would serve Israel poorly in the current instance. Yes, Israel needs to show its solidarity and sympathy. Yes, it needs to have such feelings reciprocated. But no, Londoners would not have responded favorably to the voluble, garrulous Israeli approach. This was a moment, Sharon knew, to emulate the British stiff upper lip.

Just four days after the London attacks, suicide bombing returned to the streets of Israel, ending a five-month lull. Two women were killed instantly outside a Netanya shopping mall; two others died later of their wounds. Israeli press accounts suggest that the bombers, a cell of Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the Tulkarm area, were known to Israel's military intelligence and security forces, but that they could not be interdicted under the current rules of engagement. In return for a cease-fire accepted last February by Hamas and the main Fatah groups, Israel has informally agreed to refrain from targeted killings of suspected terrorists and to limit major troop movements in the main Palestinian population centers. Both sides, Israel and the main Palestinian groups, share an interest in maintaining quiet — to ensure the success of the upcoming Gaza disengagement and to give their suffering populations some rest. The agreement has been largely effective. But it has had the perverse effect of giving freedom of action to Islamic Jihad, a small, extremist group that never accepted the cease-fire.

Israel, understandably, wants the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas to take responsibility for enforcing the cease-fire and breaking up the armed gangs. Abbas has been appallingly weak and ineffectual, particularly as Islamic Jihad has stepped up its efforts to mount attacks and trumpeted its contempt for the very goal of coexistence pursued by the two sides' main leaders. Islamic Jihad is a threat first of all to the stability of the Palestinian Authority, and only secondarily to Israel. It is in the interest of Abbas and his aides to quash the threat. Israelis understand Abbas must do more. But they understand that there is not much he can do. And so they grit their teeth and work with what they've got. In effect, they find themselves in a position strikingly similar to the Europeans: surveilling the known targets, watching for signs of trouble, hoping to head them off soon enough. Law enforcement.

Terrorism is a condition of our modern age. It has been with us for decades in various forms and guises. It can be inhibited by various means. Hunting down the leaders and securing public places have dramatically reduced terrorism in some hot spots. Elsewhere, authorities have achieved good results by negotiating with guerrilla armies and addressing the grievances that drove populations to support the desperadoes. There is no single answer, but there is one truth: Terrorist violence will not go away. Rage and hate breed violence, and no one has found a cure for rage and hate. In our age of high-technology, the effects of violence can be awesome. We must reduce it to a minimum, by all practical means. And we must know that there will be more violence to come. On this, no illusions.



Home | Contact | Subscribe | About The Forward
Copyright 2005 © The Forward

IN MEMORIUM

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Teenage friends killed in Tues. blast are buried in joint funeral

By Ron Bousso and Roni Singer, Haaretz Correspondents, Haaretz Service, and Agencies

Two 16-year-old girls, good friends from Tel Aviv who were killed in Tuesday's suicide bombing in Netanya, were laid to rest in a joint funeral at Tel Aviv's Yarkon Cemetery on Wednesday.

Teenage friends Rachel Ben Abu and Nofar Horvitz were among four women and girls killed in the bombing. The other two are Yulia Weltshin, 31, and Anna Lifshitz, 50, who died of her wounds Wednesday. Both were from Netanya.

At least 90 people were wounded in the attack, and 14 were still hospitalized by Wednesday night, one in critical condition.

Terrorism. Today another suicide bomber in Israel, this time an 18 year old from Tulkaram who only yesterday passed his exam that would have allowed him to continue on to college. Instead, he blows himself up in a crosswalk, killing, as of this writing, two and injuring (severely) many others.

There needs to be no double-standard for terrorism in Israel or in Great Britain or the United States: it is random, arbitrary, and deadly and must be eradicated. The problem is the enemy is not easy to fight: the enemy are mired in religious fundamentalism, a pre-democratic, pre-modern sense of themselves that would roll the calendar back to their image of the 600s. Not only is it historically flawed in its reasoning, it is morally indefensible.

The number 30 bus in London, its roof destroyed, bodies dangling from the remains, is an all too familiar scene to Israelis. It is beyond tragic that Londoners have had terrorism come to their doorstep--perhaps Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, who last year hosted a virulently anti-Jewish, any-women, anti-gay Moslem fundamentalist, welcoming him warmly to London, will have second thoughts about who he chooses to host.

We don't live in a world of black and white, but there is no good terrorism.

London. It was just in December, on the way to Israel, that I spent my birthday tooling around on the Tube, mostly the Piccadilly Line. I marveled at how easy it was to get around and how unfortunate it is that LA doesn't have a system like that.

To wake up to such news, is, well, devastating. The photo of the bus reminded me of the one that was bombed across the street from where I was living in 2003. Israelis are used to seeing images like that. But P.M. Ariel Sharon told his ministers that in their public statements they were to refrain from comparing what happened in London to what happened during the previous years in Israel. Smart politics, but also humane. It's a tragedy. We're not playing "who had the worst thing happen to whom." People died and people were badly maimed (NOTE: injuries in bombings usually equate to being badly burned and mamed, as in losing limbs.)

These attacks are just downright scary. I don't care if London is halfway around the world---it's in the world and it's outrageous.

Another rant: The American Media. This morning, briefly on Fox, I heard one of the bimbettes say "The resiliance of the British people is on display today and we're proud of them." I thought "Shut up airhead and cover the story." Fox used their American reportage, which is unfortunate, since they have Sky News, also owned by Murdoch, right there in London. Would've made for better television and reporting having it done by people who actually know the city. Same criticism for CNN: Talking heads in New York covering the story, rather than their bureau in London, peopled with folks who actually live there. We're not talking the remote corners of Asia or Africa.

But that's television news for you in America. Fortunately I was able to see a half-hour of news from the BBC which did a better job of covering the story from the local angle.

I pray that there will be justice somewhere, somehow--and I pray for a complete healing, body and soul for those who were injured and that the mourners find comfort.

This is the text of a d'var Torah that I gave today at the Library Minyan in Los Angeles:

Korach. The name is synonymous in our tradition for unhealthy rebellion.

He has been called the arch-demagogue of the Jewish people, activism to undermine, rather than support; rabble rousing to exploit weakness, rather than strengthen.

Korach is the example par-excellence that the Mishna uses to define a dispute that will not show results, a dispute that is undertaken not for the sense of heaven:

"Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven will in the end yield results, and any which is not for the sake of Heaven will in the end not yield results.

"What is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? This is the sort of dispute between Hillel and Shammai.

"And what is one which is not for the sake of Heaven? It is the dispute between Korach and his party."

No, Korach's dispute is not for the sake of heaven--it is self-aggrandizement, reaching for self-serving power based on a misunderstanding of self and purpose.

Korach is not one who our tradition encourages emulation. Here is a person, a Levite, who as part of the Levites, demonstrated loyalty to Moses after the Golden Calf by engaging in what Alter calls "zealous homicide" of family and kin. Here is a person who is a relative of Moses and Aaron: their fathers were brothers. Here is someone who has lived through the recent tribulations in the desert.

The people at this point are not exactly the paradigm of joy, even though they have been freed from slavery and witness to God's miracles firsthand. Their murmuring and excessive complaining, even pining for the perceived benefits of life in Egypt, engenders God's wrath.

Moses has his hands full with crisis after crisis that requires his direct intercession to blunt God's anger, not only because of the people, but his own sister as well.

Still many, many people publicly die. And the report of the spies leads to people losing faith. This engenders the devastating punishment of this generation's being condemned by their God, to wander, never to reach the promised land of milk and honey.

And along comes Korach.

Korach makes his play for power at a time of extreme vulnerability for the people, for Moses, and judging by God's reactions, God. The stakes are too high for God's chosen leadership to be threatened.

Korach is unique in that he "took" on himself, that his, he began a rebellion through his actions but then he took on others: the 250 chieftans, and eventually his sedition spread to the community. Ostensibly, he was advocating for greater position as a Levite.

But this distinction pales next to its perception: Korach challenges the very underpinnings of the leadership, leadership appointed by God that is trying to structure a society as it transitions from slave mentality to free people under God's providence. Korach took on Moses' leadership, and in so doing, took on God. This is not an dispute taken on for the sake of heaven, but against it.

This raises an important question: Lacking a Moses, Hillel or Shammai, do we know today when a dispute is for the sake of heaven and when it is not?

This is a real-world question for us in the here and now. Because while Judaism in American certainly faces challenges with respect to continuity, we are no longer in the desert and we have long since been freed from Pharoh's chains. When we dispute, are we acting for the sake of heaven or not? Will our disputes lead to results or not?

We as a people are known for our disputes. We have disagreements among ourselves, among movements. Because Judaism lives in the here and now and because of our historic engagement with modernity, the reinvention of Judaism in modernity continues apace. It did not stop more than 150 years ago when the Reform movement emerged in the United States, nor did it stop at the time of Solomon Schechter. As American Jewish history has shown we have continued our evolution. The Reform Movement, for one, is moving toward incorporating more of what we consider traditional elements into its ritual and liturgical practices, incorporating more study to complement its traditional commitment to social action. Some say that is not Reform--others say that it is completely consistent with Reform practice.

The Conservative Movement, too, is facing disputes that we must ask: will they lead to results? Are they being done with the integrity of Hillel and Shammai or, has v'halila, are they being down with the disingenuity of Korach? Are they for the sake of heaven or not?

This week's Forward has the headline: Questions of Gays, Interfaith Couples Roil Conservatives. It begins: As leaders of Conservative Judaism face looming decisions about the future, the movement is facing new internal challenges to its restrictions on gays and lesbians and on interfaith couples.

In then proceeds to quote both movement leadership and lay leaders--those who are calling for change and those who are calling for the strict maintenance of the boundaries as they exist.

With respect to how the movement deals with spouses who are intermarried, Rabbi Charles Simon, the head of the Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs says that "the strategy was to hold the line, to set boundaries. That was a mistake. Those efforts failed." He cites the figure that the number of Jews who affiliate with the Conservative Movement continues to decrease.

That is disturbing--especially since for the last one hundred years the Conservative Movement has allowed for an alternate to Orthodoxy. It still has much to offer--no surprise to anyone present in this congregation.

In speaking with a number of people in the Movement, both congregants and religious leaders, there are the tensions evident when change is happening: one side pushes harder to leave things as they are, as a kind of "last stand" for Conservative identity, usually worrying that change will make Conservative appear Reform.

The other side is cautious, but not immobilized, sensing that it has always been within the Conservative Movement to enact change within a halachic framework. Thus all major change must go through the Law Committee which operates at its own pace. Rabbi Kassel Abelson, chairman of the law committee, told the Forward that while he did not necessarily agree with all of Simon's positions, he felt that the issue of non-Jewish spouses needed to be revisited. He said he did not know when the committee would take up the issue.

On the lay level, often times people just seemed surprised at some of the formal positions of the movement, especially when they read official communiques of movement standards or discover that someone is not going to UJ or JTS because of movement standards. How religious decision-making happens through the CJLS remains a mystery.

What I would like to submit is that the Conservative Movement is strong enough to survive and even thrive because these are disputes l'sham shamiym, disputes that involve the lives of real people, many of whom have been pained by their connection to Conservative Judaism and also the reality of their lives. Much of the leadership of the movement acutely realize this.

Another point why this is a dispute l'sham shamiym: Often those who are disenfranchised in religious life usually do one of two things: they leave it, completely or they get angry. For those who stay, there is a quality of anger in the sense that a situation is unfair, that the old idea of separate but equal actually works. It's not the kind of anger that one experiences by shouting or red faces, but more of a lower-level simmering, a kind of resentment, an acknowledgment of being in while being out at the same time.

Yet still out of this pain comes the desire to dispute, not for self-aggrandizement, not for political power, not to debase the underlying structure of Jewish life, or in this movement, the CJLS. No, it is exactly the opposite.

It is dispute that is based in love.

Love of God.

Love of the Jewish People.

Love of Torah.

It is a dispute based in a desire to see a vibrant Judaism live on for generations to come.

We are a tradition and a living people that has shown is its resilience to these debates--whether Hillel or Shammai, the legions of rabbis in the Talmud, down to our day.

As it says in Kiddushin: "even a parent and child or a teacher and student should debate as vigorously as enemies; in the end, if the debate is over a matter of substance, they will emerge with great affection for one another."