The Informationist

Through the Looking Glass

One of my first thoughts after 9/11, and probably the first idea that I had the fortitude to draft into an essay, was the need to confront ”The Terrorist in the Mirror.” My first assertion was that any cause that motivates reasonable, committed people to work will also motivate unreasonable people to kill. My corrolary was that we all have a special responsibility to police and to punish those whose violence furthers our own goals.

Over the past few years, we have seen a hugely disappointing performance from the Muslim community. Though some brave voices continue to speak out, at considerable risk to themselves, the sclerotic power structure continues to excuse Islamic violence, at least selectively. Those of us who do not belong to that community frequently stand outside it and wonder if we’re witnessing a mere lack of nerve or a genuine support for violence.

Most of us who are not Muslims have an easier job. We belong to less violent movements, and have less fear of our own extremists--precisely because they are only small and typically insignificant components of our communities. So it is instructive to see how we respond when one of our lashes out, violently and needlessly, at a helpless civilian population.

I learned of one such story today. A 19-year old Jewish Israeli named Natan Eden Zadeh shot up a civilian bus full of Druse and Sunni Arab Israeli citizens. He killed four people including the driver and two young girls, and injured several others.

The easiest thing for me to do, of course, would be to disown him. First of all, I’m a Jewish American, rather than an Israeli. Second of all, it appears that our takes on Israeli politics differ. But such a course would be too easy. Though he and I may belong to different factions of the Zionist movement, there is no question that he is one of “my own.” Much as I take great pride in Israel’s demonstration that the Jewish State can retain its basic decency, liberalism, and humanitarianism even in the fact of murderous barbarity and international condemnation, I must also concede that this young man brutalized and terrorized innocents in the name of a cause that I support.

So what can I “do” about it? Not much from here. My refusal to disown him is a tiny start. A second step is to see how Israeli society and the Israeli leadership respond. So far, signs are encouraging. The Jerusalem Post headline calls him a ”Jewish Terrorist.” as does the banner headline in Haaretz. If anyone finds a Jewish source calling him a “freedom fighter,” I’d like to see it. (I’m certain that one will materialize sooner or later--they always do).

The next question is how the authorities will respond. Not to Zadah himself--he’s already dead--but to his friends and supporters. In many ways, this incident is Israel’s “put up or shut up.” Israel’s response to Israeli Jewish terrorism must be a model for PA responses to Palestinian Arab terrorism.

Will Israel set the model that it would like the PA to follow. I am optimistic, but only time will tell. Stay tuned. . .

[UPDATE 8/5: I must say that reaction has been swift, uniform, and appropriate. No one seems to be hailing this murdered as a freedom fighter, or talking about how he was standing up for his rights. Some have discussed him in the context of Baruch Goldstein (who shot up a mosque in Hebron) and Yigal Amir (Yitzchak Rabin’s assassin)--the only two other instances of “our own” terrorists. Several cities and communities have objected to having Zadha buried in their cemeteries; the relatives of those already buried there objected strenuously. MKs across the political spectrum have expressed condemnation and outrage. None have shied from applying the terrorist label. Police have detained Zadah’s friends who allegedly knew of his attack before it occurred as possible conspirators.

There is a message here. Goldstein, Amir, and Zadah brings the number of Israeli Jewish terrorists over the past eleven years to three!. Three is, of course, three too many. But it is also a small number, smaller in fact than the number (or even the percent per capita) churned out of other liberal democracies. A liberal society simply cannot police all of its people, and it cannot prevent all murders. What it can do, however, is create social, political, and legal environments to make such barbaric behavior unacceptable. That is something that Israel has done. Zionists remain woefully imperfect, but we do seem to do a reasonable job at our “terrorist in the mirror” test.].

[UPDATE 9/1: The Israeli Ministry of Defense determined that Zada’s victims are not “victims of terror” because under current law, the assailant must be an “enemy force.” (This determination reduces the state’s compensation to the victims’ families, in addition to applying an incorrect label). Though likely technically correct under the law, this determination is unacceptable. Israel needs to change its law. I don’t know precisely what the precise legal definition of “terrorism” should be, but Zada’s barbarism certainly qualifies. We encountered a similar dilemma in the U.S., when administration officials refused to recognize the Egyptian who shot up the El Al counter at LAX on July 4, 2002 as a terrorist. It turned out that under their definition, Timothy McVeigh didn’t quite count either. I hope that this matter is not closed. If it is, it is an outrage and an embarassment. The international community, typically quick to criticize Israel for legitimate defensive acts, might want to note that the distinctions the Defense Ministry is trying to draw are immoral].

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 08/04 at 04:59 PM in Foreign Affairs and the World beyond Our Borders