Just War Theory & Flirting with Treason

[Obama in Oslo. A disturbing aside about Israel.]



The real price tag


The motive behind the torching of a West Bank mosque early Friday morning was, as the graffiti left behind attested, "To exact a price."

But the vandals who targeted the house of worship in Yasuf struck simultaneously at the sovereign authority of the state. The Netanyahu government's imperfections notwithstanding, the establishment of the Third Commonwealth in 1948 created an overarching Zionist authority. Those who reject it and turn to violence are flirting with treason.

The assailants took it upon themselves to decide when and under what circumstances "the Arabs won't have quiet." To our fanatics, not only do the ends justify the means, but we suspect the means deliver a sick sense of primitive gratification. They have no compunctions about igniting a third intifada - or worse - in order to derail the settlement freeze. Their apocalyptic theology and political hubris tempts them to force the hand of God.

They are men without doubts.

As you would expect, Israeli politicians and clergy from across the political spectrum, including settler leaders, have denounced the attack. Yesterday, a group of religious kibbutz movement rabbis sought to reach the scene of the outrage to express remorse, as did middle-of-the-road settlers from Efrat.

Yet there were also those who either refused to condemn the attack or did so with the kind of equivocation and verbal acrobatics we've come to expect from Palestinian "moderates" reacting to attacks on Jews.

We want to hear more settler leaders and rabbis say - plainly, explicitly and without prevarication - that the Yasuf attack, and the perfidious disregard it symbolizes for the authority of Israel's democratic government, is despicable. Let settler spiritual leaders acknowledge that such vandalism amounts to a desecration of God's name and ostracize those who propagate ideas that encourage such behavior.

IT'S A safe bet that those who perpetuated the mosque attack have little tolerance for anything US President Barack Obama says or does. They've written him off as an enemy of Israel, and the members of Israel's security cabinet as his stooges. The mosque assailants were probably savoring - clandestinely - their moment in the limelight as Obama was delivering his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo's City Hall on Friday.

An eloquent address by an eloquent man is easily taken for granted. It was delivered just as Israelis were ushering in Shabbat, so not many here heard the president outline his worldview. That's too bad, because the speech grappled with how a country can wield power without being corrupted by it; how human behavior can be elevated while accepting the reality of human nature.

Obama drew no applause when he declared that evil was real and pacifism was not the way to confront it. He resurrected a Kennedy-esque Democratic defense of the use of force, making no apologies for US behavior.

He declared that Islam had been defiled by those who kill innocents in the name of God. Adding, "No Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint."

We found ourselves thinking how tragic it would be if Jews fell into the trap that has ensnared Muslims and if ours became a mirror image of violence-ridden Palestinian society.

Obama took his European audience to task for

rejecting the use of force under virtually any circumstances. He discussed the theory of just war, summarizing it as "waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence."

Except for the doctrine of proportionality, which may make sense for a global superpower but could bleed our small country to death, the other principles seem worthy. He also said that America reserved the right to act unilaterally - also a tenet of Israel's security doctrine.

We were discomfited by the president's oblique implication, in referencing the Arab-Israel conflict, that Jews and Arabs fell back in the same manner on "tribe" and "religion" in confronting modernity. That's patently not true.

Yet every time extremist settlers behave badly, the real price tag is that it becomes harder to make the case that the Jewish state is a beacon of enlightenment in a benighted Middle East.

Settlement freeze & dissent

False altars

[The interior of a mosque in Samaria said to have been desecrated Thursday night by radical settlers "to exact a price" for the moratorium. Madness]


Thursday's main headline in The Jerusalem Post captured some of the best news of the week: "Thousands rally peaceably against building freeze."

Some 30,000 demonstrators, many of them young people, turned out on a chilly evening near the prime minister's residence in Jerusalem to protest the security cabinet's November 25 moratorium on new settlement construction.

The assembly was a celebration of democracy. There was neither incitement nor violence. It could easily have been otherwise. Fortunately, as our Herb Keinon wrote yesterday, the Yesha Council leadership recognized that a rancorous demonstration - with depictions of Binyamin Netanyahu wearing a keffiyeh or an SS uniform - would alienate the majority of Israelis.

National Union MK Michael Ben-Ari did cross the line when he asserted, "If there is a people that has to be evacuated and should not be here, it is not the Jewish people." It was a clever sound bite, but a tactically unwise and morally untenable argument.

We much more respect the tone set by Ma'aleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel who addressed the premier from the podium: "We worked together for 18 years. And for 18 years you instructed me to build the land. Do not change your path today. We will be by your side to help you withstand American pressure."

This newspaper has questioned the value of a settlement freeze that is so wide as to include strategic settlement blocs such as Ma'aleh Adumim, yet is barely appreciated in Washington and has been utterly dismissed by the Arabs. MK Arye Eldad (National Union) was correct when he told the crowd that the freeze could potentially lead to a disengagement from much of the West Bank. Thus a moratorium which includes areas Israel intends to retain under a permanent accord sends highly problematic signals.

Of course, the main obstacles to the emergence of a demilitarized Palestinian state are the Palestinians themselves. Fatah's ineffective and intransigent "moderates" refuse good faith bargaining; Hamas's ruthless rejectionists seek permanent "armed struggle."

LEADING UP to Thursday's rally, we've been deeply troubled by the claim of settler leaders that their grievances take precedence over the decisions of Israel's security cabinet. Yesha Council head Danny Dayan urged his constituents to forcibly prevent inspectors with stop-work orders from entering settlements. He labeled the government decision "illegitimate" and a "White Paper" - a crass reference to the betrayal by British Mandate authorities of the Balfour Declaration.

Sure enough, there have been clashes up and down the West Bank between settlers - including high-school girls - and authorities. Radical settlers have even sought to "exact a price" by igniting Palestinian violence; others reportedly slashed tires on a quiet Jerusalem street.

The atmosphere of intimidation reached such levels that the IDF reportedly suspended training exercises because it needed personnel to assist the civil administration.

Radical settler Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, of the Har Bracha hesder yeshiva pre-army academy, instructed national-religious recruits to disobey orders that run contrary to the Land of Israel ethos. Though his institution is funded by the Defense Ministry (and Diaspora donors), Melamed let it be known that government officials would have to come to his mountain if they wanted to parlay; he would not come down to them.

In contrast, Rabbi Haim Druckman, another leading hesder rabbi, has written against exploiting the army to make political capital.

The establishment of the state means that competing centers of authority cannot be tolerated. There can be no false altars.

Settler leaders are being disingenuous if they think they can turn to the High Court of Justice, appeal to public opinion and lobby members of Knesset yet retain the "right" to violently confront the state if they don't get their way.

WHILE INSISTING settlers work within the law, we are not oblivious to the often dysfunctional nature of Israel's political system or the possibility of individual corruption. That is why we support Wednesday's Knesset vote to expedite legislative consideration of a bill that would require a national referendum prior to any withdrawals from the Golan Heights or east Jerusalem. Consideration might be given to a similar requirement for substantial withdrawals in Judea and Samaria as well.

In this way, decisions about Israel's permanent boarders would benefit from the unassailable legitimacy of the body politic. For now, however, the security cabinet's settlement freeze decision deserves the absolute allegiance of the governed.

The place of Jewish Law in Contemporary Israel

Justice and Halacha

Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman must have been thinking out loud when he told a legal conference Monday night that judicial decisions in this country ought to be based on Torah principles and this goal should be implemented incrementally.

"We will bestow upon the citizens of Israel the laws of the Torah and we will turn Halacha into the binding law of the nation," the minister pledged, "Soon, in the near future, amen."

What possessed this savvy lawyer, consigliere to the stars, and a power broker in his own right, to in effect call for the creation of a theocracy? Does Neeman envision it would be based on his type of progressive national-religious Orthodoxy? Would it not more likely adhere to a form of haredism? Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was inspired to blurt out that he anyway discourages his followers from turning to goyish courts because Israeli judges do not adjudicate according to Halacha.

Having unleashed a storm of concern, Neeman's office "clarified" that he did not, actually, mean what he said - though Neeman later told the Knesset that rabbis could right now start taking some of the burden off judges.

Frankly, Neeman's remarks catch us by surprise. We had pegged him as a man who appreciated where fundamentalist Orthodoxy - the stream now ascendant - is leading the country.

It was a committee Neeman chaired that recommended Robinson's Arch as a solution to the Orthodox hegemony at the Western Wall. It was Neeman who proposed the formation of the Institute of Jewish Studies, where representatives of different streams of Judaism would instruct prospective converts. And it was Neeman who supported the appointment of more compassionate Orthodox rabbis to the rabbinical courts.

Neeman well knows that operating a modern state on the basis of Halacha is unworkable.

In 1953, the secular state enacted the Rabbinical Courts Adjudication Law that empowered the rabbinate to apply Halacha in areas of marriage, divorce and citizenship. The results have been ... unsatisfactory.

Thousands of citizens must go abroad to marry because the state clergy does not acknowledge they are Jewish. Scores of women are chained in dead marriages because the same clergy will not grant them divorces. Tens of thousands of potential Jews have been turned away from Jewish civilization because they will not commit to leading Orthodox lifestyles.

The profane blending of politics, patronage and piety has alienated countless secular Israelis. Yet jealous of their prerogatives, the Orthodox will not share the taxpayers' resources with the Masorti and Reform streams who might be able to reach these people.

LIKE NEEMAN we, too, cherish the halachic tradition. Over thousands of years, the sages created legal foundations that have formed a basis for Western jurisprudence.

For instance, laws of inheritance and torts, topics being studied this week by Talmudists worldwide, epitomize Jewish ideals of fairness. From the Pentateuch to responsa literature, Halacha has made it possible for Jews to flourish intellectually, communally and spiritually under the harshest conditions.

It is a grand idea for Israeli jurists to be informed by Halacha, but it would be terrible if they were bound by it.

Halacha, like American constitutional law, is organic, evolving and malleable. It is intended to unify the Jewish people. Tragically, however, those who today dominate the application of Halacha tend to be strict constructionists. A theocratic state in which such rabbis would replace judges would be hellish.

A learned, astute observer, a personal friend of the minister, told The Jerusalem Post the idea that Israeli jurisprudence could operate on halachic grounds is "not serious" and Neeman well knows this.

"Jewish law was never the law of the land in any period of Jewish history. So no one really wants this, not the secular, and also not the rabbis; the secular for obvious reasons; and the rabbis because it would require a stunning revolution in Jewish law," the source said.

After all, what, practically, does Hebrew law have to say about the currency markets? Where would bad guys go? Can contemporary litigation follow halachic rules of witnesses or the limitations on the testimony of women?

If our justice minister wants to think out loud, he should do so in the privacy of his own home.

Settlement freeze? Not a brilliant result

All pain, no gain

{Pictured: Ma'aleh Adumim a consensus "settlement")


Let's tally the diplomatic benefits that have accrued to Israel since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's November 25 announcement of a 10-month moratorium on new settlement construction. That statement followed tardily on his June 14 address at Bar-Ilan University formally accepting the creation of a demilitarized "Palestine" as the endgame to negotiations.

Since the freeze was announced, US Special Envoy George Mitchell has managed to contain his enthusiasm. While acknowledging that Netanyahu has gone further than any previous Israeli leader, Mitchell could bring himself to say only that he wants to see permanent status negotiations resume "as soon as possible."

To which Mahmoud Abbas essentially responded: "I don't think so."

In an interview with a Washington-based think tank, Mitchell did at least reiterate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent statement that negotiations should be "based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps."

This is significant, because the Obama administration had previously been seen to be backing away from George W. Bush's April 2004 letter to prime minister Ariel Sharon, in which the former president said a negotiated outcome would have to be based on a 1967-plus formula.

Unfortunately, in an extraordinary tactical blunder, Netanyahu allowed consensus settlement blocs to be included in his freeze.

THE administration's minimalist response to Netanyahu's two historic announcements, along with its failure to persuade Arab governments to take steps toward normalization with Israel and demonstrate that the Arab Peace Initiative is not simply a propaganda ploy, can only make one wonder where this freeze is going to lead.

If it means so little to the White House and nothing to the Palestinians - if it is, moreover, not part of some larger coherent strategy in which Netanyahu enunciates what Israel's boundaries ought to be - and if the moratorium's gut-wrenching impact domestically is all pain and no gain, what are its benefits?

Indeed, a Swedish EU initiative "takes note" of Netanyahu's freeze by proposing to sanctify the Palestinian position on Jerusalem as Europe's own policy.

It's bad enough that Europe rejects Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem on the grounds that it does not want to prejudge a negotiated outcome. But to watch Sweden (which is finishing its tenure as rotating president of the EU) push so hard to acknowledge east Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, even as Abbas refuses to negotiate, is profoundly demoralizing to an Israeli mainstream which genuinely seeks accommodation with the Palestinians.

Evidently, it's politically easier for elements in the EU to parrot PLO demands, rather than support an equitable solution that also takes Jewish sensibilities into account.

Of course, Abbas's demand for a settlement freeze is patently bogus in the first place. A prospective peace deal would permanently resolve the issue of where Jewish rights could be exercised and which settlements would be uprooted. So why are we arguing about a freeze when we should be negotiating borders?

The real reason Abbas does not want to talk is because he hopes that by hanging tough, an exasperated Washington will impose the Fatah position on Israel. On top of that, he does not want to appear conciliatory when Hamas's fortunes are on the rise.

It doesn't help that Netanyahu is placing Abbas in an untenable position. The PLO, which ostensibly eschews armed struggle, has been demanding the release en masse of Palestinian prisoners since 1993. To which Israel has responded in dribs and drabs under the rubric of "helping Abu Mazen."

Yet by taking a single IDF soldier captive and by adhering to its original demands for three years, Hamas is on the threshold of achieving the release of 1,000 terrorists, including the vilest in the Israeli prison system. The popularity of the Islamists will skyrocket; Fatah's will nosedive.

To add insult to injury, Netanyahu is reportedly toying with freeing Marwan Barghouti, whose arrival in Ramallah would be one big headache for Abbas and hasten a rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas at the expense of both Israel and Abbas. No wonder the rais is sulking.

So Netanyahu's US-pressed freeze has pitted settlers against soldiers. It hasn't swayed Abbas or the Arab League. Hamas is bemused. Europe is little impressed.

The Obama administration, which so far has merely offered parsimonious praise, needs to do better.

Global warming

Copenhagen concerns


If a colossal meteorite were hurtling toward earth and scientists unanimously agreed that humanity faced imminent extinction, it's safe to assume that nations and peoples would set aside their differences to save the planet.

Or - human nature being what it is - maybe they wouldn't.

The situation is infinitely more complicated when it comes to global climate change. As a two-week summit begins today in Copenhagen, the debate rages on between a majority working feverishly to forestall planetary cataclysm and a minority that says there is nothing to be alarmed about.

A 2007 survey found 54 percent of Israelis believed global warming was a pressing problem. A new poll found that only 48% still felt so. A recent Gallop poll found that one percent of Americans think the environment is the No. 1 issue. The number of Americans who "believe in" global warming has dropped to 57%.

And an EU poll found that just 50% of Europeans see climate change as the biggest issue facing humanity.


Who can blame Israelis - worried about jobs, social cleavages and the pending release of 1,000 terrorists, not to mention the prospect that Iran will detonate a nuclear device over Tel Aviv - for not putting global warming at the top of their concerns?

THAT THE globe is heating up is pretty widely accepted. Ice caps are melting; sea levels are rising. A relatively small increase in temperatures can cause massive environmental catastrophe. The earth needs just the right amount of gases in the atmosphere. Too little and the temperature would plummet; too much and greenhouse gases could cause global warming.

What is disputed is whether humans burning fossil fuels are to blame for climate change.

So it comes down to this. Wager that the prevailing thesis about planetary warming is correct, that contamination by humans is responsible for global warming, and you're morally obligated to do something about it. Fifty percent of anthropogenic global warming is carbon based, while the other half results from other man-made sources like burning of cow dung.

We think it is prudent to gamble on the side of those who would sensibly but systematically reduce emissions. Working for more breathable air and a reduced dependency on the oil cartel is not a bad thing, even if it turns out to have no impact on climate change.

The problem remains human nature. Some countries will exploit the crisis or try to catch a "free ride" on the sacrifices of the well-meaning. In 1997, industrialized nations agreed to emission targets in a pact known as the Kyoto Protocol, but these goals have not actually been implemented. The post-industrial European Union has pledged to cut its emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

If the problem is indeed man-made, industrialized and post-industrialized countries are inadvertently responsible for the bulk of heat-trapping pollutants. But it is the denizens of bottom tier countries who will suffer the most if the worst forecasts about global warming come to pass. Meanwhile, rapidly developing countries such as China and India want the economic benefits of industrialization, but not its political responsibilities.

It does not instill a sense of "we're all in this together" to watch some leaders in the non-industrialized world salivating at the prospect of a massive redistribution of wealth - actually economic and environmental reparations - to help them cope with the crisis ahead.

The Economist argues that greenhouse emissions can be reduced without impoverishing humanity. We don't see how, unless countries stop playing the blame game and observe a "from each according to their ability" motto.

THIS COUNTRY will be represented in Copenhagen by technocrats, MKs, ministers and environmental campaigners. Like many world leaders, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is waiting until the last minute before deciding whether to attend.

Israel is too tiny a country to have much of an impact on global emissions. Still, successive governments have committed to voluntarily adhere to international emissions targets. The State Comptroller's Office, however, has complained that a consolidated national plan remains overdue. In Israel, 87% of total greenhouse gas emissions are energy related. So we need to very substantially cut the growth of emissions by 2020.

From electric cars, solar energy and wind-power to safe nuclear energy, Israel is capable of leading by example on alternative energy. It should.