« Diner Dinner | Main | Time is running out... have you registered to vote? »

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Live by the sword...

I am horrified and disgusted by the pipe bomb attack last night that injured Professor Ze'ev Sternhell.  I cannot, and will not, contemplate one single mitigating reason why a citizen of Israel should have his life threatened because of words and ideas he/she expresses, publicly or privately.  Full stop.

I am, however, extremely disappointed by the way the media and the left are reporting this event, as if it were an inevitable result of words and ideas expressed by only one segment of Israeli society.  That just doesn't work for me.

Here's a quote that caught my eye:

"Police speculated that the attack against Sternhell was "ideologically" motivated and was likely carried out by extreme Right wing activists." 

Well done Clouseau!  You win the Pulitzer for investigative journalism for that one.  Of course it was carried out by right wing fanatics (why call them activists?).  But why beat around the bush and besmirch a perfectly good word like 'ideaology'.  Ideology is an inoffensive, 'pareve' concept that refers to any organized belief system or world view.  Nazi-ism and Fascism are ideologies.  So is pacifism... and veganism, for that matter.

Ideology isn't to blame here... extremism is.  And extremism certainly isn't bound to any single ideology!  It is, however, by definition the "actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society"... meaning not the mainstream.  The fringe.

So why is it that the words and actions of fringe elements are routinely used to indict an entire law-abiding and moderate segment of society?  The answer is that it is inconvenient to make such distinctions... especially if it suits one's agenda to ignore them. 

I have had to remind several people lately that I have personally heard the words 'Nazi', 'fascist' and 'death to... (fill in the blank)' tossed around casually at both right and left wing demonstrations (and even at protests against university tuition hikes!), so the responsibility for watering down these, and other equally terrible words/expressions can be spread around liberally.

But while I completely share the justified sense of outrage surrounding this attempt on Professor Sternhell's life *, and hope that those who did this inexcusable thing are quickly brought to justice... I have no patience for anyone who pretends that incitement to violence in Israel is exclusively a right-wing problem.

To refute that theory, one need look no further than Professor Sternhell's own words, which appeared in Haaretz at a time when the Palestinians were demonstrating a troubling (for him) lack of regard for the political leanings of the Israelis whom they were murdering:

"Had the Palestinians the least bit of sense, they would have concentrated their struggle against the settlements and would not plant explosives on the western side of the Green Line. In this manner, the Palestinians would themselves draft the solution that will be reached in any case."

Professor Sternhell is doubtless more eloquent than the typical extreme right wing lunatic who calls for attacks against spokespeople of the far left.  But his suggestion that the most expedient way for the Palestinians to achieve their goals would be to leave good Israelis living inside the green line alone, and concentrate their murderous attacks on the evil settlers, is an equally extreme and dangerous incitement to violence. 

We may never know who left the pipe bomb at Professor Sternhell's home, or who left behind leaflets offering a huge reward for anyone who kills someone associated with Peace Now.  But Professor Sternhell signed his name to the above piece of blatant incitement to murder... yet instead of being arrested, he was awarded the prestigious Israel Prize.  What kind of a message does that send regarding hate speech and incitement?

It is easy to sit in judgment and latch onto criminal events like last night's and try to use them for partisan gain.  And it is even easier to throw up one's hands and say 'a plague on both their houses'. 

But what is hard is for the largest segment of Israeli society... the part that resides between the extremes of the far right and far left, to finally admit that dangerous hate speech and incitement are a systemic problem that knows no partisan loyalty.   And we must come to terms with the reality that until we all refuse to continue living by this terrible sword, we will not have seen the last death by it. 

Warning:  Anyone who suggests that last night's pipe bomb attack was 'only' intended to frighten the victim (or any equally ludicrous/unsubstantiated theories about cause/blame) will be immediately banned from this site forever.  Think before you comment.

Posted by David Bogner on September 25, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef010534d41a31970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Live by the sword...:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Love the headline:

POLICE: BOMB AT STERNHELL'S HOME LIKELY PLANTED BY FAR-RIGHT

As if the *entire* "far-right" all planted the bomb together. Think their bias is showing?

Posted by: psachya | Sep 25, 2008 3:33:41 PM

Dare I suggest that any faction that wants to do away with another faction leave them, anonymously of course, a diner dinner for a few months? The cholesterol alone could do major damage.

Posted by: Marsha in Englewood | Sep 25, 2008 4:13:19 PM

I won't talk much about this, but one point: I agree that incitement and poorly chosen statements are problematic, as is the rhetoric on both sides of the divide.

Yet as far as I know, no prominent right wing fanatics (Baruch Merzel, anyone?) has been attacked by Israelis. Sternhell is hardly the first person in the left to have a serious threat on their life.

Rhetoric, terrible as it may be on both sides, is a whole different story than actual action on that rhetoric. Maybe the action is done by a fringe group of nuts (while the rhetoric may be uttered by a slightly larger group of nuts), but it is curious that the ones who actually seem to be in danger from Israelis are the left.

If you had left your post as your first paragraph, I'd be satisfied. I honestly don't think that now is the time to try discussing the problematic tone of political discourse in Israel, as it smacks of providing justification for violence. Obviously this is not what you meant, but it's certainly what it looks like to an outside reader. I'd hate the draw the parallel, but it's like when some left wing blogger first deplores a terrorist attack against settlers in the WB, and then spends a lengthy post discussing why settlers have justifiably angered Palestinians by 'colonizing' on their land. Anything that has a seeming "Yes, but..." after it takes away the very point of the condemnation.

*shrugs* Just my .02.

Ender

Posted by: matlabfreak | Sep 25, 2008 4:24:47 PM

Uhhh.... this is the same media elite that aided and abetted the Shabak in its demonization of the nationalist camp during Oslo.

The fake posters of Rabin in an SS outfit.

The staged "induction ceremony" to a "right-wing underground" that didn't exist.

The staged attacks on Arab civilians by fake "settlers"

... don't know if you were here David, but things got pretty Bolshevik back then. And the Lefties generated a stream of hand-wringing patsies from the nationalist camp, after each of these fake incidents.

Until people wised up.

The lefties have a history of false/sting operations - and they certainly don't need any help beating the Right's breast.

Posted by: Ben-David | Sep 25, 2008 4:48:30 PM

The very idea of “hate speech” is hog wash. An argument can be made that anything I don’t like hearing is “hate speech”. To be politically correct now means the limiting of free speech and restriction on the flow of ideas. A free thinking person should be able to SAY or WRITE anything they want. But I should also have the right to mock them and their views mercilessly. Violence means you have no logical argument.

Posted by: David Bailey | Sep 25, 2008 6:16:15 PM

David Bailey: as an American I understand the passion behind your freedom of speech/expression sentiments. As an American-Israeli, however, I can only paraphrase "when in Rome...." and let you know that Israel is most definitely not Rome.

Also -- respectfully -- the idea of "hate speech' is not hogwash. You can not walk into a public theater and scream "fire." It is illegal to slander or libel someone. Freedom of expression is limited to those expressions which don't place others in imminent danger, deprive them of their civil rights, or damage their property.

IMHO, there is a difference between defending peoples' right to express themselves, and tolerating hateful or inciteful speech. The only reason we (Americans) passionately defend the rights of hate-mongers to spew their venom is that in so doing, we protect the non-hate-mongering members of society from censorship. There are certain self-imposed moral and ethical responsibilities that members of civilized societies must bear. Too bad the folks who seem to need that ability to self-edit the most are exactly the ones who do so the least....

Threatening someone with physical harm or invoking violently emotional reactions through speech is hardly what the American founding fathers had in mind when drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: zahava | Sep 25, 2008 6:58:10 PM

Zahava: An excellent argument. I can see your point that there need to be some limits on speech.

Posted by: David Bailey | Sep 25, 2008 7:24:43 PM

Whatever the garb, extremism from any side stinks.

Posted by: Ilana-Davita | Sep 25, 2008 10:49:29 PM

This incident will be used to justify reprehensible actions by the same people who now bagatellize Palestinian reprehensible actions.

"Why of course we have to molotov the synagogue, didn't you know about the extremist rightwingers in Israel who terrorize anybody who dares to speak out? This is a blow for peace, justice, beauty, and freedom of speech, comrade!"

For the huggable fluffy butterflies and dolphins, peace out.

Posted by: The Back of the Hill | Sep 26, 2008 12:02:43 AM

See earlier post, Ancient wisdom on a modern topic.

Posted by: Barzilai | Sep 26, 2008 2:05:23 AM

Barzilai seems to be suggesting we consult Cicero's words about traitors. Folks, that is exactly what David warned against.

Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Sep 26, 2008 2:34:41 AM

Jordan - , "that is exactly what David warned against" - funny but I thought he was saying it was wisdom???

Ben-David - please read David's footnote "any equally ludicrous/unsubstantiated theories about cause/blame"

Matlabfreak - :If you had left your post as your first paragraph" hit it on the nose, bulls-eye.

Posted by: asher | Sep 26, 2008 6:58:15 AM

zahava - who are you referring to? Wasn't 100% clear to me what you meant by "invoking violently emotional reactions through speech"

Posted by: asher | Sep 26, 2008 7:55:19 AM

Asher: as David has repeatedly lamented, hateful and inciteful speech is hardly a partisan issue.

The statement wasn't clear? Allow me to crystallize it for you -- anyone who uses speech with the hope that they will goad others into taking the unlawful actions which cause harm, damage, or injury to others is just plain wrong. Full. Stop.

Matlabfreak -- I have been reflecting on your comment since you first posted. With all due respect, I think you perhaps missed the point of the post. If you had left your post as your first paragraph, I'd be satisfied.

IMHO, nothing that David has written after Full stop. justifies violence. In fact, I think the opposite. I think that using this topic to say עד כאן (ad kahn/to this point) is in fact appropriate. Why? Because the very nature of dialogue is that someone will have the last word. And while "sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt me" is a great way to teach your four-year old to shrug off a school yard bully, the fact is that in the adult word, we ascribe a great deal of weight to words and their meaning.

Let's turn this topic around and look at it from a slightly different perspective....

If as the Israeli political left contends, it does in fact have a majority vote, doesn't that place a tad more responsibility in that camp to lower the rhetoric and use language responsibly? Why kick a group when it is down? Don't you think that the violent rhetoric against the settler camp at the exact moment that Jews were being evicted from their homes significantly contributed to the nastiness of an already horrific situation? It was a classic case of "wound, meet salt -- salt, meet wound." Think about how differently the whole disengagement would have been if the Israeli Left had greeted evicted settlers as heroes.

If you could for a moment, willing suspend your contention that the settlers in Gush Katif had no right to be there in the first place and really think about the squandered opportunity....

These folks gave up their homes and in most cases their livelihoods. Had they been given a hero's welcome, been praised for the self-sacrifice they made for the good of the State it might have enabled them to see themselves as partners in building a more secure Israel, rather than as the scapegoats for everything that is wrong with our situation.

And had the evacuees been treated as partners rather than enemies, I dare say, there would have been fewer demonstrations and far less rhetoric (on both sides).

The point I am trying to make is that the way language was used during the disengagement could have resulted in a far different reality.

Also, I must respectfully disagree with your contention that there has been no violence enacted against representatives of the right.
I suggest you view footage from Armona, or read through the volumes of Honeni reports, to see how the rhetoric on the left enabled violence against an entire group, rather than a focus against individual representatives.

Posted by: zahava | Sep 26, 2008 9:06:36 AM

zahava - to quote you "The point I am trying to make is that the way language was used during the disengagement could have resulted in a far different reality."
Leaving a house with striped clothes and yellow stars, with hands up in the air lost sympathy.

Please also distinguish between use of force (extreme or not) by the police, which is the body entitled to use force in order to maintain law and order, and targetting of individuals either as part of a political grouping or privately, in which case matlabfreak is correct, the violence only goes from right to left, and if you reckon otherwise you're deluding yourself and your readers.

Shabbat Shalom

Posted by: asher | Sep 26, 2008 11:53:44 AM

In an now-old, but interesting study, researchers found that white children living in segregated schools and neighborhoods who were never exposed to black children were more racist and hostile than children who lived in mixed neighborhoods or went to mixed schools. Familiarity breeds understanding.

This Left-Right hostility in Israel stems directly, IMHO, from the segregation of our children from other, different children with whom they could be friends, or argue with, or share soccer balls with....I don't have a solution, but as long as haredi children study only with haredi children, and chiloni/Left of center kids study only in secular schools and dati-leumi/Right of center kids never have friends from another segment of society, then I think we're sowing the seeds of future hate. There is a crying need here for communication between Jewish groups, regardless of religious orientation or political philosophy. I've seen extremely heated elections in the States but no one has bombed the RNC or DNC HQs....

Posted by: aliyah06 | Sep 26, 2008 2:19:39 PM

Asher: Do you really mean to insinuate that the entire evacuated population of Gaza left as you described? Do you?!

Do you really mean to say that because of a few bad actors, the majority who left emotionally, but without the histrionics, are undeserving of sympathy?

Do you?!

Further, while the police may be legally entitled to use force -- a separate argument which shifts focus away from the currently delineated topic -- the fact that this force is used discriminately against only one segment of the population rather disproves your contention that violence in this country moves only from right to left. Demonstrations on the left here hardly constitute peaceful sit-ins and love-fests. The same conditions exist in left-leaning demonstrations as those in right-leaning demonstrations where the police determine that only force can "maintain law and order." Just because this violence is perpetrated under the guise of law and order and with the blessings of the State makes it no less morally reprehensible.

If I am, as you accuse me of being, truly delusional -- the delusions were of your making, not mine. I used to think that you were genuinely interested in dialogue and in trying to understand how to "agree-to-disagree" with people whose views are not aligned with your own. Your hateful response to my trying to show you -- calmly, with the 20-20 vision of retrospect, and in a respectful manner -- how we may have altered the path of history two years ago by choosing different means of communication... well... you have sadly only proven that you are not interested in dialogue. You are in transmit mode only.... And you hardly show me the courtesy that I have shown you.

David's original post did not state "the pipe bomb was wrong, but the inevitable result of Prof. Sternhell's rhetoric." Rather he said, "The pipe bomb was wrong. The media's exploitation of this event to condemn a significant minority of the country as a result of this event is also wrong." Do you see the difference? Are you capable of seeing the difference?

For those who can't digest the difference, allow me to clarify: in the first example the "but" as Matlabfreak suggested, seems to "justify violence." In the second, there is the statement of two parallel wrongs. There is not an attempt at justifying the first event -- in fact Trep has stated unequivocally that it is completely unjustifiable. Rather, he has stated the second wrong to illustrate his worry that due to the second wrong that the gap between left and right will widen.

We do not need to widen the gap! We need, desperately to find ways to close the gap. To see the humanity and intellect in one another. To see that while we disagree, we have arrived to our conclusions with thought and introspection -- that none of us has simply been "drinking the cool-aid."

Posted by: zahava | Sep 26, 2008 2:53:38 PM

I'll get to more after Shabbat (or maybe after RH; I'm a bit busy right now), but I want to emphasize one thing: I do NOT think that David was justifying anything, and I applaud his attempt to address a difficult issue in Israeli society. I just think that juxtaposing his fine condemnation of the attack with an equally reasonable discussion of the troubling nature of discourse in the Israeli world gives a very unfortunate *appearance* of providing a justification for the attack.

Obviously this is NOT anyone's attempt, but appearances are important - just as important as the tone of our rhetoric. I think it is the duty of the dati leumi community to eliminate even a *doubt* that we might somehow justify such barbarism.

A few other points: I actually don't contend that the Gush Katif settlers had no right to be there, and I never will (I think you have the mistaken impression that I'm a leftist. I'm not, I just think the right needs to be more responsible). They had every right to be there, and the government had every right to remove them when it decided to. The rhetoric was difficult, yes, but AFAIK no overt acts of serious violence were carried out against the settlers by anyone. Certainly, no prominent right wing leaders were attacked by members of the left.

The violence - on both sides - associated with the pullouts, and the later evacuation from Amona, are irrelevant to this discussion. That is a matter between settlers and the government, not the right and left. You can argue it might be somehow driven by an overarching theme in Israeli society that demonizes settlers, and I might even agree with you. But even so, it was a (largely lawful) action by the government against some of its citizens, not a symptom of individuals in the right taking matters into their own hands, as in the case of Sternhell - and, let's be honest, Rabin.

There's plenty of government violence against portions of the left, too, for that matter. Those Israelis who participate in the anti-fence protests are routinely injured and/or arrested, various protests at checkpoints/etc. in the WB result in violence, etc. Why the evacuations of settlements are rather more dramatic is something I won't speculate on right now, but I strongly suspect it is because both the government and the right come loaded for bear to each confrontation.

Zahava and David: I don't want you to think I'm accusing you of anything. I haven't met either of you, but you both seem to be reasonable and good people who would never condone such violence as we saw this week. I just don't appreciate the appearances that are evident by painting Sternhell as a far-left nut and implicitly comparing him to far-right nuts who just threatened his life. Rhetoric and action are different. Both reprehensible, perhaps, but on wholly different levels.

Posted by: matlabfreak | Sep 26, 2008 9:53:27 PM

This is Barzilai, simply shocked that anyone would read such calumnous intent into my short, neutral post. I simply was pointing out the irony that David had just highlighted the damage that can be done by misguided idealogues, otherwise known as traitors. Obviously, there's no point in having a country of Jews if we're at each others' throats because of our different opinions. Also obviously, we tend to get carried away with our opinions to the point that common sense and reality fade into obscurity. So we're going to always have this kind of dialogue, and we'd better get used to it and learn how to deal with it non-violently.

The Modern Orthodox Jews in Israel are the one and only reservoir of sanity. This is a precious and rare resource, particularly in the Middle East, that needs to be nurtured and encouraged. Good for David for sticking up for sanity.

Posted by: Barzilai | Sep 26, 2008 10:34:55 PM

Ten bucks says the right-wingers hunt the 'extremist' down and turn him over to the authorities. ;o/

Posted by: Wry Mouth | Sep 27, 2008 9:41:24 AM

While I don't know or understand a lot of the specific situations mentioned, it seems to me that these systemic problems are the toughest to overcome. Every culture, every society has them to one degree or another (though it's easy to be blind to our own). At what point will the mainstream of society get fed-up with extremism and come together to do something about it, do something to change the system that fed the extremism they can no longer tolerate?

My impression is that the mainstream of society is mostly passive, and the more passive it is the more extremists will flourish. It's a balance of power sort of situation, and maybe then the fulcrum of that power is the mainstream's threshold for tolerance of the extremes? Until people speak out, as you've done, and do something about it then extreme actions have a sort of implicit approval. That leadership in the mainstream goes a long way, because a lot of those passive folks in the middle will do something if someone shows them the way. Well, that's the hope anyway.

Posted by: Steve Bogner | Sep 27, 2008 4:05:59 PM

One point that needs to bhe dealt with is philosophical. If the Left, as Sternell so eloquently declared, view the Pal. terror as a reaction to supposed Israel/Zionist sins, from colonization, occupation, etc., and even suggest to them better tacticalo ways of making their terror more efficient, how can they be upset that some idiot/s presume that Sternhell's words deserve a reaction?

Posted by: Yisrael Medad | Sep 27, 2008 8:42:32 PM

Matlabfreak: Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify (and so eloquently too!) your thoughts on this topic. I have been enjoying the discussion with you dafka because you make me think about different approaches to the same topic.

By the same token, my intention in bringing up the disengagement was not to accuse you of anything -- but rather to illustrate something which I passionately believe -- that rhetoric and stubborn adherence to ideology and isms are really at the center of what ails Israeli politics and society. I really believe that we could have (and should have) a far different reality. My sole purpose in bringing up the disengagement was to show that there was a plausible alternate communicative approach in discussing what was done, and how it could have dramatically altered the tensions -- and yes actions -- on both sides.

Sadly, there will never be a shortage of lunatics out there -- if we learn nothing else from history, we should be certain of this. I think that the basic point that David and I have been trying to make (perhaps not as successfully nor as succinctly as we would like) is that a mercurial environment seems to, de facto, create a situation where lunatics feel freer to act.

Society, hopefully, dictates standards of acceptable behavior. When greater society is already desensitized, how do you reel in the lunatics who will by definition seek to push the limits of what is acceptable?

Think about how shock-jocks have radically altered the use of language in American mainstream media! I remember the FCC had such tight censorship standards when I was a kid, that swearing was verboten. By contrast, today, television and radio dialog is filled with words that would make the saltiest sailor blush. Thus, making it hard to say to our kids that while yes they did hear their favorite celebrity say "shut the F*** up!" that it really isn't the way we want them to speak.

From a sociological perspective, it seems that volatile and intolerant behavior enables violence. Not that it justifies it -- but it enables it. Thus it would seem that the best way to prevent such horrific actions is to make it crystal clear that such actions will be viewed as monstrous and barbaric. I contend that lowering rhetorical volume is a necessary step toward that end.

Posted by: zahava | Sep 27, 2008 8:51:10 PM

You forgot Sternhell's more famous call for violence and force against those he ideologically disagrees with:

"When necessary, we shall have to forcibly deal with the settlers in Ofra or in Elon Moreh. Only a person who is willing to advance against Ofra with tanks will be capable of curbing the fascist drift that threatens to inundate Israeli democracy."

I find it extremely ironic how Sternhell uses the term fascist to attack those he perceives to be his ideological opponents.

After all, the call for a strongman capable of using military force against his ideological enemies is a classic component of fascism.

There's no question that Ariel Sharon was the Mussolini that Sternhell pines for.

Posted by: JoeSettler | Sep 28, 2008 1:43:30 PM

No need for the Israeli left to physically attack the right wing in Israel. Their ideological proxies, Arab terrorists, do the job for them by murdering Jews——men, women, children and infants——who live in Judea and Samaria.

Creatures like Sternhell make it not only acceptable to the chattering classes to murder Jews, but positively fashionable.

Posted by: Robert J. Avrech | Sep 29, 2008 8:39:33 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.