Christianity, Islam, and War Crimes

My friend Yair mentioned East Timor, as an example of a major massacre of Christians committed by Muslims. In our jargon, this mentioning is called "Setting for a Spike", as in volleyball. So I have no choice but to spike.

Well, Yair, good that you mentioned East Timor. The Indonesians (mostly Muslims) invaded this poor country (Catholic) in 1975, and killed more than 100,000. They probably could not have done that unless their dictator, Suharto, met in 1975 with president Gerald Ford (a Protestant) and Henri Kissinger (Jewish), who gave him the OK, because East Timor was considered Communist. The American media virtually ignored the slaughter.
This and Cambodia puts Dr. Kissinger, a Peace Nobel prize laureate, on the top of the list of war criminals. Did I mention that he is Jewish?
Muslims will have to work very hard to catch up with the death toll committed by Christians.
Like I said, it's all politics, not religion.


To which Yair responded:
You astonish me again! Muslims kill Timorians, and you blame the Jews again. What is wrong with you. Do you really think it's Kissinger's fault? (and I am not trying to defend
American policy here).
So, let's leave Timor for the moment, and let's talk about Algeria. Is that America/Jews problem too, or is it an Islamic (yes Islamic, not political) problem.
Why do you get out of your skin to defend Islam? What is your point there?

You did not answer my points when I talked about Judaism compared to Islam. You keep talking about Christianity and its horrible actions from 300 years ago, but I am talking today. Can't you see that there is something wrong here?
Every other Islamic nation is involved with bloodshed, one pseudo democratic Islamic country, suicide bombers, medieval religious laws practiced only in these countries, and what you have to say in return is: Kissinger is evil!
Christianity was evil too.
Sekila (Hebrew for: Stoning) was practiced by Jews 2500 years ago (so we are actually Afghanistan).

Avner, you are smarted than that.

I can get your claim that it is not the religion, but who practices it (I don't know Islam very well but I suspect that is not really the case). But even if that is the case, then Communism was a great idea, the practice was wrong, so - who do we blame? We blame the Communists because there was probably something wrong with the way
people interpreted it. The same with today’s Islam. The Koran might be the best, most gentle book ever, even better than "Le Petit Prince", but for me Islam is what I see. Humeini, Saudi Arabia, suicide bombers in the name of Allah, Hamas, Algeria, Sudan, No democracy, terrible attitude to women. Until they change it, for me Islam is an evil religion.

My response:
To say that I blamed the Jews for East Timor is "just a little" demagogy. I blamed the Indonesians first, and President Ford and his secretary of state second. Not all the Jews. My only point was that you don't have to be a Muslim to be responsible for terrorism.

If you only look on today, then you miss some of the picture. Even if I accepted your definition of terrorism, then the fact that most "terrorists" today are Muslims (I will doubt that in a minute), doesn't prove that Islam is terroristic in essence. I'm keeping mentioning the medieval times, because I think that this is evidence that there is no direct link between any religions, to evil doing. If Christians, and even Jews, could do evil on a large scale, even if it was 500 years ago (the Inquisition) or 3,000 years ago (the horrible things which OUR bible describes about Jews wrong-doing) - then my point is that no religion has a monopoly on either the Truth, Goodness, or Evil.

I am not defending Islam, I'm just defending my views of this world. I may be wrong.

Using Terror is not characteristic of Islam, more than it's of Christianity. Claiming that Islam is violent and murderous because of 9/11, is like saying that Christianity is a terrorist religion because Bush sent troops to kill ~130,000 Iraqi civilians (and that's just one case). Bush also does this in the name of "God", why doesn't anybody call him a "Militant Christian"? He does it for a good cause, such as spreading democracy? - Even if this was true (I think it's for the oil prices, but never mind) - so do the other terrorists. It's for what they see as "good cause" - to spread the Islam. He would do it without killing civilians if he could? - so would the other terrorists.
It's just so happened that today, democracy is predominantly Christian. It was not so forever and probably won't be forever.

Now to the definition of terror. This is going to upset you, but it's necessary to make my point. I think that the definition of terror is also political, and it's dominated by those who are in power. Therefore, in the West, a terrorist is one who kills people from the West; but somebody who just kills Iraqis, Palestinians, etc., is a fighter in "the War on Terror". On the other hand, in the Muslim world, a terrorist is one who kills people from the Muslim world, and whoever kills Jews or Christians is a "freedom fighter". My opinion is that both definitions are wrong to the same extent. I think that a terrorist is one who kills civilians, either on purpose, or in an action during which they know in advance that civilians would be killed. This definition includes Bin-Laden, Bush, and some Israeli generals.

I know that you distinguish between those who killed (or sent others to kill, in this sense Bin-Laden is no different than Bush) with a deliberate purpose, and those who wished that civilians would not be killed (like Bush, or Dan Halutz on a much smaller scale). I know that this is hard for you to accept (not to agree, God forbid, but even to accept that others think this way); but to me this is not a big difference. I think that most terrorists on the "bad" side (which is of course always "the Other" side), also wished that they were in a situation that they didn't need to kill. This is how they see it - I don't think they "need" to kill, but they honestly think that this is the only way to achieve their goals, some of which I justify - the goals, not the means - and frankly, I think that we (Israel) give them many reasons to think so: the recent shift in Israeli public opinion, whether you think it's good or not (I know that Yair thinks it's good, maybe Idit thinks it's not good, I respect both views, but the shift is a historic fact) - would not have occurred if it was not for the terrorist Intifada.
The concept that we, the "good guys", wish that we were in a situation in which we didn't "need" to kill, and this is something that most of us feel and think, is just similar!
Yair, you say that you don't know Islam and you can only judge upon what you see. "אין לו לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות" – “The Judge can only decree based on what he sees.” This is very true. I'm afraid that most of what we know about the Islamic world (myself included, I'm no expert by any means) comes from the Western media, which is not very sympathetic. There are 1 billion Muslim people, most of who are just normal human beings, like you and me. This may sound naive but this is truly what I think.
Yes, I agree that there is a significant difference in the way that Jews and Muslims behaved under oppression. My view is that the difference comes from the way people were led to act, the tradition that they kept, the particular interpretation of their religion and tradition, which in both cases could have easily been interpreted in a complete different manner! "טוב שבגויים הרוג" – “Thou shalt kill even the best of the Gentiles” (most Orthodox people don't even know that such a horrible phrase exists in the Talmud, and that's very good that they don't know), could have been interpreted in the same way that Muslims interpreted the more evil verses of the Koran. We both have all the material in the world to take to whichever direction we want - good or evil. The Jews chose the good paths during most of history. Today, and only in the last few generations, manyMuslims choose the evil way. But that's not a necessity that stems from neither Islam nor Judaism! This is a result of a political situation. When people live in their own countries, ruling their own lives, they tend to develop a kind of "self confidence" that sometimes pushes them to be more demanding, more assertive and sometimes even violent. This even works for people of the same ethnicity when they live outside of their own countries - like the Muslims in France. On the other hand, Jews who lived in other people's countries throughout most of history, and didn't have their own country, developed a sort of humbleness, that made them both very ambitions, creative but at the same time very passive when it came to their self defense. This is exactly why the state of Israel was established - to give Jews, both in Israel and outside, the self confidence and feeling of pride and activeness that they lacked. As we well know, for some Israelis, this proposition was so successful, that it even went a little too far...
I'm not justifying any of the atrocities that took place in France, the Netherlands etc., just tried to explain why I see parallels. I know that it's hard for me to explain, I do my best and this is what comes out.
And on top of all that, I see people like GW Bush as bigger terrorists than Bin-Laden (just counting by the number of dead they are responsible for). They are one and the same in my eyes, although one has a beard and the other is a "nice white person in a nice suit".

I think that you've had enough of me for today.

"Happy Purim, Hevraia!" (a quote from Chanan Porat, in Purim of 1994, in the morning after the massacre by the Jewish terrorist, Dr. Baruch Goldstein)

On War Criminals, on both sides

Prof. Ruth Lapidot, who is about to receive "The Israel Award," called it "a very good judicial system":
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=689376&contrassID=2&subContrassID=2&sbSubContrassID=0

And, here is the reality:
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//868931

I know that I'm going to step on very sensitive nerves here, but I have to say this: Prof. Lapidot says that since Israel has "a very good judicial system", there is no need to prosecute Military officers in the International Court. My opinion is, that prosecuting Dan Halutz, Mofaz and other major officers is the only way that these issues will be ever addressed, just as it was done against South Africa, because of the way Israel is treating her own issued reports.
As hard as it may sound to you guys, I truly think that Israel resembles the Apartheid to a great degree...


To which my dear friend Yair responded:

Avner,
Please tell me you do not support what is going on against Israeli officers in Europe. I just read about, it and about how the Hamas leaders can travel all over the world while Israeli officers can not. If you tell me you support any of this outrageous activity, it will be a new mark in our relations.
Being left wing is one thing, being anti Israeli, as you were in some events, is way way way over the limit.


So I wrote to him:

Yair,
I think that once again you confuse anti-terrorism and anti-humanism with anti-Israelism. I am an Israeli who is 100% in favor of my country, and THEREFORE I think that war criminals such as Halutz and Mofaz must be punished. Yesh Gevul has tried to bring them to court in Israel, but the supreme court has not been willing to rule in the case for a few years now. Note: they didn't say "this is not a judicial issue, therefore we wont discuss it", or: "we decree that under these circumstances, it is a necessary evil to do Targeted Killing", as you would expect if there was no case - it looks like they think that there IS a case, so they don't want to rule. Yesh Gevul didn't want to take this to the ICJ, but the "good judicial system" of Israel does not do it's duty (even to dismiss the case!), so they had no choice if they didn't want to be passive supporters of these crimes. Read Akiva Eldar for yourself! Who is supposed to take care of settlements, who the government of Israel itself declared as illegal? Where is the Attorney General? Where are the judges? This has become almost exactly like South Africa, and only international pressure can be effective here.
I am writing this with goose bumps and my hands are sweating. It's very difficult for me to be against everybody, I don't like it at all. But I truly believe in that, after thinking about this every day, a few times a day, of the past 24 years.
I once asked a Jewish lawyer who is involved in this activity, why everybody is after Israeli officers and nobody says anything about the Hamas and other terrorists. He replied that we, the Israelis, are after the Hamas, and nobody is really doing anything to Israeli war criminals. I think that he is right.
I'm sorry, our friendship is precious to me but I cannot lie to you nor to myself. I will understand you if this will be the last email you''ll read from me... Sorry for the tragic situation.

Then Yair wrote:
This is the third answer I amwriting (the previous two were not sent). I envy you Avner - you always have the answers and you always know what is right.
Let's just summarize what we do not agree upon:
Haluz = Yassin
Israel = South Africa
Avner = Mother Theresa
Yair = Kadima supporter
I believe you that your hand are shaking and I also believe that when you're older and our hands really shake you'll remember these days with shame. Just like Jane Fonda members her visit to the Vietnamese base.
Shabat Shalom


I wrote:
If you don't want to talk about this, that's fine. But your reply was unfair.
I don't have all the answers. I just have an opinion. It's different then yours, sorry about that.
Halutz is not like Yassin (he is more handsome). He is like Barguti maybe.
Israel is less racist than SA, but resembles it to the extent that deserves much criticism. Not everything that is not the holocaust, is right. The holocaust was so immense, and South Africa was SO racist, that even 1/10 of that is bad enough. Sometimes what kills an elephant, can be good to kill a fly. Mishlei Esopus.
I am no Mother Theresa. Therefore I hate, and therefore I was not sad when Arafat died, and I wont be sad when Sharon will pass away, either. That's not nice to say, and that's no Mother Theresa but that's me. You can vote Kadima if you like, no hard feelings. That's a legitimate party.
Shabat Shalosh.


Yair wrote:
One more thing.
Behind all the racism in Israel there is one thinking. WE actually do not want the Arabs in Israel to feel at home. And you know what, I can understand this. Had the Arab countries accepted us after 1948, it would have beed different, totally different. I trully believe that Israelis (all of them) would have accepted Arabs as their neighbours, their coworkers and so on. We are pretty good people inside and I truly believe we are better than others. The war situation between Arab countries and Israel (Ahmadinajad was not the first to talk like that) caused Israelis to be very suspectful towards all Arabs. That caused the discrimination (that I admit exists). And that's why comparing us to SA is wrong. You can compare us to the Greek/Turkey situation. There is not much love there and a Greek will not feel at home in Turkey. That doesn't mean Turkey is racist toward Greeks and vice versa. In SA, blacks were slaves, in Israel Israeli Arabs are not slaves, they are not first class citizens because deep inside we suspect tht they all want to get rid of us. The fact that legally they have all the rights (voting, universities and more) proves that in a perfect situation they would have been perfect citizens.
Bottom line, we (Jews) are better then other nations and that includes our army, our judicial system and more. The reason I call you Theresa is that you don't think it's enough and ignore (I think) the global reasons why things are as they are.
Having said that, we still agree that we (Israelis) have to clean the bad and rotten apples we have and we have a lot of them (because of the situation). Halutz, in my opinion, does not deserve in any context to be called one of these apples.

To which I responded:
Here you make some very good points, which I find very difficult to argue with. I agree that the Arabs did not and do not make my task as an extreme leftist very easy, because they have screwed things up much more than necessary, for their basically right cause of getting independence. The fact that they didn't accept us here 60 years (= a long time) ago is true. I can understand that they felt that they were required to pay off for the result of the holocaust, which they had nothing to do with. It is easy to get carried away by hatred when new people take over your land, even when it's done perfectly legally, and people in this situation are very much prone to instigation. Having said that, I completely don't justify taking violent measures. But I think that we can understand them, with all the evil that they (some of them) did, at least to the extent that people expect me to understand the settlers, with all the evil that they (some of them) have done. And I still believe that basically they are no different then us, but they were instigated by some evil leaders to do that. I can realte to your feeling, that we are basically good people inside, but I think that we are not aware that the Arabs feel exactly the same about themselves, and they don't understand how we can be so evil to them. This is another example of how good people can sometimes do evil things. As you know, I think that this insight applies to all people, Jews included. Sorry, but I see a complete symmetry here. This is not because I'm more sensitive than you are, I just happen to think differently for some strange reason. But in light of your good points it is very difficult for me to back this opinion of mine. I still think so but I cannot prove it. I may be just a stupid stubborn, but I think that I'm in good company of most people who wont change their minds even if you show them day from night.

We are repeating these things over and over again, but I still find it interesting.

Avner