Sticks and Stones

Some Palestinian “journalists” have responded to the recent murders in Jerusalem with something less than condemnation. One article in particular, by “Khalid Amayreh in Occupied East Jerusalem”, left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. The title, which fairly sums up the piece, reads “Soldiers (not innocent students) killed at settler center”.

It seems that the writer wishes to enter a discussion as to who is a civilian. According to his logic – that all Israeli citizens are legitimate targets due to compulsory military service – a citizen of any society that has conscription is a viable military target. Such as, say, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Tunisia. We’ll bear that in mind next time we’re engaged in hostilities with those nations, Khalid.

But let us not forget that this yeshiva was (apparently) the headquarters of the Jewish settlement movement. Aha! They therefore deserved to die. That clears that one up. Except civilised people do not condone acts of violence – or, in this case, murder – in response to political beliefs. If we did then, presumably, retribution against the Palestinians who, in a 77% voter turnout, elected Hamas to 76 out of 132 parliamentary seats, would be equally justified. Or who were seen dancing in the streets, cheering and distributing bon-bons (yes, bon-bons), in celebration of cold-blooded murder.

Amaryeh, in the interests of journalism, moreover seems to deem it relevant that “Yitzhak Rabin’s killer, Yigal Amir, is reportedly to have studied at the Merkaz Ha’rav”. One wonders: is he sure he wants to go down that route? Unsurprisingly, he does not pursue this line of thought.

Of course, as was to be expected, the “Zionist-influenced or Zionist-controlled American media” did not stray from the official Zionist “propaganda”, shallowly portraying the innocent civilian victims as…well, as innocent civilians. But our mate Khalid knows better. They were, as “paramilitaries” (though not engaged in hostilities), anything but innocent. But, if that applies, then how much more was the assassination of Imad Mugniyah justified? And if we take this to its logical conclusion, then the attack, which was “probably to avenge [his] murder”, was in fact unjustified, as the original killing was justified. No?

Amaryeh also dismisses the claim that the IDF “doesn’t murder Palestinian civilians deliberately”, forgetting to note the fact that while the Israeli Army, in the interests of clarity, wears full military uniform when engaged in hostility (I hardly need mention that neither the victims of the shooting, nor the shooter himself, was wearing any such thing) – militants, if they are in an obliging mood, may deign to wear towels on their heads. But let us not forget that the murderer was a civilian himself until he decided to pick up a rifle and kill other civilians. This episode, if anything, perfectly demonstrates the dilemma facing Israel in terms of knowing who the enemy is.

After the horrific Baruch Goldstein massacre of almost exactly 14 years ago, Rabin described it as a “loathsome, criminal act of murder”, and the Israeli media unanimously condemned it in similar terms. Hamas have taken a slightly different approach, being so proud of the attack that they even claimed responsibility for it. In my view, that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

1 Comment

How often do we hear from know-nothing Christian pundits that the United States of America is founded on “Judaeo-Christian ethics” or “Christian morals”? In short, that the US is “a Christian country”? (I would supply a link, but I don’t really fancy trawling through Bill O’Reilly clips to come across one, thank you very much.)

Very well then. Let us explore some of the tenets of Christianity, as prescribed in that bible thingy they keep going on about, and see how familiar it is:

…that ye resist not evil… (Matthew 5:39)

The phrase “War on Terror” leaps immediately to mind. There are evil people in the world and, quite rightly, the United States has committed itself to doing everything within its power to combat them. What is more, under such a moral teaching the USA could do without a police force or even any justice system whatsoever.

…whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (ibid.)

If the US followed this moral teaching, after 9/11 it would have invited al-Qaeda to take their pick of targets on the West Coast.

I was a stranger, and ye took me in (Matthew 25:35)

I was an immigrant, and I was deported.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9)

Seems a small point, but the freedom to divorce from a spouse is integral to the concept of personal freedom, and the secular USA rejects any notion of a “religious contract” that cannot be undone by us mere mortals.

sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor (Mark 10:21)

I’m no expert, but I’m fairly sure that the US infrastructure is based on a rather different economic model.

Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more (John 8:11)

This again, along with many other such verses, would leave many current judges without a means of income, and many chuckling criminals free on the streets.

At the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phillipians 2:10)

One of a number of such exclusive verses, this has no resonance in the United States, where there is no coercion of religious belief, no religious test for public office, etc.

Feel free to add your own.

No Comments

The second in a series in which Leo examines the modern uses and abuses of certain words from the Greek lexicon.

The Oxford English dictionary tells us:

/kyoodos/

• noun praise and honour.

— USAGE Despite appearances, kudos is not a plural form: there is no singular form kudo, and use as a plural, as in he received many kudos for his work, is incorrect.

— ORIGIN Greek.

The fact that it is singular is contained in the definition so I don’t need to say anything more about that.

The more significant abuse is the trivialised use of the word. In Greek, kudos is more than just honour. It is fame, undying glory. To better understand this one has to have a brief understanding of heroic culture.

One of the best examples of the heroic attitude is Achilles, who chose a short life with glory and fame over a long life at the end of which he would be unknown - almost a ‘Live Fast, Die Young’ sort of philosophy. The ancients believed that a man could achieve some degree of immortality by being remembered and talked about after their death. Compare these lines from the Roman poet Horace:

Non omnis moriar multaque pars mei
vitabit Libitinam

“I shall not wholly die, and a part of me will survive the grave”

Kudos refers to undying fame as acquired by the greatest men in the world. The greatest warrior of the Greeks in the Trojan War, Achilles, achieved it by killing the greatest warrior of the Trojans, Hector. Hector, meanwhile, before his death, told his wife that he had to risk death (which would result in the death of his son, father and brothers and the enslavement of his wife, mother and sisters, as well as the destruction of his city) in order to achieve kudos for himself and his father (Iliad VI).

Kudos is not even fame in the sense that we would think of it. Who will know Amy Winehouse’s name in a hundred years, let alone 2,500? Hector is still a boy’s name (albeit a somewhat unfashionable at the moment) although the man, if he ever existed, died around 3,000 years ago: that is kudos. That is undying glory. Very few can claim it in the last few years: Napoleon perhaps? Mozart, Shakespeare?

Whatever the case may be, kudos should not be used lightly to refer to getting something in the bin from across the room, or completing a level of Guitar Hero III. The fact that we still talk about Homer, Horace and Shakespeare is a great testament to their genius, and this form of immortality should be respected.

No Comments

We were delighted with the recent declaration of independence by the fledgling nation of Kosovo, and glad that the major European countries and the US lost little time in recognising it. The reactionary reaction from the Serbs was as predictable as it is contemptible (strange how all of a sudden Serbia is so interested in international law, isn’t it?), especially with recent announcements that display a certain childishness inappropriate to international discourse. The idea of a democratic pro-Western moderate Islamic European (says their declaration: “we believe our future lies with the European family”) country is a promising one to say the least.

One country, however, that has conspicuously failed to recognise Kosovo is another young state, whose declaration of independence was met with even worse threats and acts of violence: Israel. It is not hard to see why this might be from a political angle. Supporting Kosovo would alienate Russia, whom Israel has been trying to court as part of their bid to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, though I personally don’t see that bearing fruit. Nor does it want to create a precedent whereby disputed peoples declare independence unilaterally, as the Palestinians have thought of doing in the past, while in the middle of peace negotiations - indeed, the comparison has been made.

This is the wrong attitude to take, for several reasons. For one thing, the above reasons are deeply flawed: Russia has never been a friend to Israel, and certainly isn’t on their side when it comes to Iran; and Abbas knows better than to declare independence not only when major powers will not recognise it, but when he has a willing partner in negotiations, which was not the case with Serbia. Rather, Israel should display camaraderie with its true friends, which includes Kosovo.

Hashim Thaçi, Kosovar prime minister, recently revealed the following to JTA: “I love Israel. What a great country. Kosovo is a friend of Israel. I met so many great leaders when I was there—Netanyahu, Sharon — I really admire them.” If nothing else, it seems exceedingly churlish and cynical for Israel to act in the way that it has.

But even from a political standpoint, a friendly Muslim state in SE Europe can hardly be a bad thing. Israel should not only be rushing to support such an effusive admirer, but should, along with Jews all over the world, be pouring investment into Kosovo to capitalise on this unique opportunity to improve Islamo-Jewish international relations. Kosovo has not forgotten Israel’s generosity, both in terms of aid and support during the crisis at the end of the last millennium, and nor should Jerusalem.

Israel would do well, as it approaches its 60th anniversary, to think back to the days of its own newly-declared independence. If Jews needed a Jewish state back then, how much more do they need a friendly Muslim one today?

3 Comments

It is tempting to think of Castro’s recent announcement that he will go gently into that good night in terms of a redemptive fable, in which the passionate-revolutionary-turned-cynical-autocrat is reminded of his socialist roots; perhaps he saw a starving child on the streets, or a political prisoner evoked memories of himself as a young man. So tempting, in fact, that one is almost inclined to believe it.

Castro is the architect of one of the few true revolutionary states of the 20th Century. He can be said to have breathed life back into the socialist movement after the disaster of Stalin and the USSR; to have revived hope among socialists around the globe. Indeed, his first two significant changes, in the fields of literacy and health care, were, and remain, astounding successes. They do not, of course, justify the executions and other human rights abuses, nor the one-party state that was established, but they at least indicate that Castro was working on behalf of the people - that he was a man of socialist principle and conviction.

Personally, I am willing to give the early Castro the benefit of the doubt, though some might understandably be more cynical. For me, however, the turning point came with the Prague Spring revolution, when Castro expressed support for the invading Soviet troops even when European Communists, including Nicolae Ceauşescu, the Romanian leader, denounced it. Suddenly, he was on the opposite side of the fence: the Prague Spring, boosting hopes for true socialism, echoed his own revolution, yet this time he makes the politically motivated decision to support the Old Communism represented by the USSR.

And yet here we see him voluntarily surrendering his premiership. As I have already said, it is tempting to see it as repentance of some sort, some sort of realisation that he has lost sight of the principles with which me once inspired a nation. Alternatively, one could interpret it as nothing more than the inevitable result of having a prosthetic anus.

As far as I’m concerned, the answer lies in what happens next: the younger, beardless brother, Raúl will accede to the throne. I’m afraid that it’s hard to read any redemption into that fact, and one is forced to accept that socialism in Cuba is well and truly dead. As Trotsky said, socialism needs democracy like a human needs oxygen, and Castro’s egocentric autocracy is a prime example.

No Comments