Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘al-qaeda’

Obama’s Civics Lesson on 9/11, Burning Books, Moving Mosques, and Religious Freedom

Friday, September 10th, 2010

cordoba initiative bannerBarack Obama clearly is a born teacher.  In fact, in some ways he may be a far better teacher than president.  The proof is in this civics lesson he taught at today’s press conference, where he answered a question about the wisdom of building a mosque (known as Cordoba House) near Ground Zero, and the wisdom of moving it:

…There’s no doubt that when someone goes out of their way to be provocative in ways that we know can inflame the passions of over a billion Muslims around the world, at a time when we’ve got our troops in a lot of Muslim countries, that’s a problem.  And it has made life a lot more difficult for our men and women in uniform who already have a very difficult job.

With respect to the mosque in New York…this country stands for the proposition that all men and women…have certain inalienable rights — one of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely. And what that means is that if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site, if you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site.

Now, I recognize the extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11.  I’ve met with families of 9/11 victims in the past.  I can only imagine the continuing pain and anguish and sense of loss that they may go through.  And tomorrow we as Americans are going to be joining them in prayer and remembrance.  But I go back to what I said earlier:  We are not at war against Islam.  We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts.

And we’ve got to be clear about that.  We’ve got to be clear about that because if we’re going to…successfully reduce the terrorist threat, then we need all the allies we can get.  The folks who are most interested in a war between the United States or the West and Islam are al Qaeda.  That’s what they’ve been banking on.

And fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world are peace-loving, are interested in the same things that you and I are interested in:  How do I make sure I can get a good job?  How can I make sure that my kids get a decent education?  How can I make sure I’m safe?  How can I improve my lot in life?  And so they have rejected this violent ideology for the most part — overwhelmingly.

And so from a national security interest, we want to be clear about who the enemy is here.  It’s a handful, a tiny minority of people who are engaging in horrific acts, and have killed Muslims more than anybody else.

The other reason it’s important…is because we’ve got millions of Muslim Americans, our fellow citizens, in this country.  They’re going to school with our kids.  They’re our neighbors.  They’re our friends.  They’re our coworkers.  And when we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?

I’ve got Muslims who are fighting in Afghanistan in the uniform of the United States armed services. They’re out there putting their lives on the line for us.  And we’ve got to make sure that we are crystal-clear for our sakes and their sakes they are Americans and we honor their service.  And part of honoring their service is making sure that they understand that we don’t differentiate between them and us.  It’s just us.

And that is a principle that I think is going to be very important for us to sustain.  And I think tomorrow is an excellent time for us to reflect on that.

If only his policies and administration ran on principles this clear, he’d undoubtedly be another Lincoln.

After a very shaky start in which its news reporting on the Islamic center was quite negative–highlighting, for example, Abe Foxman’s opposition as if it were a decisive blow to the project and polls finding that New Yorkers wanted it moved–today the Times published numerous highly sympathetic stories about the loss of Muslim life on 9/11, and the loony-tunes nature of Pastor Jones and those Islamophobes weighing in against it.  It also published an impassioned op-ed by Imam Rauf himself.  Good to see that it’s coming around slowly.  They even published a story on rabbis who were contemplating whether or not to address the subject in their Rosh Hashana sermons.  It has not, though, yet followed up on Politico’s reporting about the funding behind the attacks on the Park51 project from right-wing American Jews like Joyce Chernick. It should.

Hassan and the Failure of U.S. Counter-Terror Policy

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

In a N.Y. Times op-ed, Robert Wright, portrays the Ft. Hood attack from quite an interesting perspective that is different from what mine has been.  I’ve argued that while Hassan clearly had Islamist sympathies, his crime was more the fruit of deep mental illness.  Wright argues that even if we accept that Nidal Hassan’s assault was motivated more by motives of Islamist terror than by mental illness, that is all the more reason to declare the current U.S. approach to fighting terror an abject failure:

In the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre, the verdict has come in. The liberal news media have been found guilty — by the conservative news media — of coddling Major Hasan’s religion, Islam.

The good news for [the conservative media] is that there is truth in their indictment. The bad news is that their case against the left-wing news media is the case against right-wing foreign policy. Seeing the Fort Hood shooting as an act of Islamist terrorism is the first step toward seeing how misguided a hawkish approach to fighting terrorism has been.

…Dovish liberals have warned…that killing terrorists is counterproductive if in the process you create even more terrorists; the object of the game isn’t to wipe out every last Islamist radical but rather to contain the virus of Islamist radicalism.

…When American wars kill lots of Muslims, inevitably including some civilians, incendiary images magically find their way to the people who will be most inflamed by them.

This calls into question our nearly obsessive focus on Al Qaeda — the deployment of whole armies to uproot the organization and to finally harpoon America’s white whale, Osama bin Laden. If you’re a Muslim teetering toward radicalism and you have a modem, it doesn’t take Mr. bin Laden to push you over the edge. All it takes is selected battlefield footage and a little ad hoc encouragement: a jihadist chat group here, a radical imam there — whether in your local mosque or on a Web site in your local computer.

Wright continues by applying these ideas specifically to the case of Hassan who, by all accounts, was driven over the edge by the U.S. killing of Muslims in the Middle East and the fact that he was about to be deployed to the war zone to support U.S. soldiers who were doing the killing:

The Fort Hood shooting, then, is an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here Wright discusses the issue of how U.S. anti-terror policy can affect the most psychologically vulnerable (or ill) and foment more terror, as in Hassan’s case:

It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme? Like all viruses, terrorism infects people with low resistance. And surely Major Hasan isn’t the only American Muslim who, for reasons of personal history, has become unbalanced and thus vulnerable. Any religious or ethnic group includes people like that, and the post-9/11 environment hasn’t made it easier for American Muslims to keep their balance. That’s why the hawkish war-on-terrorism strategy — a global anti-jihad that creates nonstop imagery of Americans killing Muslims — is so dubious.

Wright subverts the notion that has underpinned U.S. policy toward Islamic fundamentalism since 9/11–that we must hunt down and eradicate every last vestige of the Talibans and Al Qaedas of the Muslim world in order to vanquish their message.  The case of Hassan indicates that not only does this unending war against Al Qaeda, along with the concomitant charges of torture and killing of innocent civilians, transform unstable individuals into cold-blooded killers; the Hassans of the world don’t require any physical base or direct support from Al Qaeda.  The information that motivated Hassan didn’t come from a place or training camp or headquarters.  There were no orders for him to act delivered from an external source.  If you eradicate all the Taliban/Al Qaeda hideouts on the Afghan-Pakistani frontier you won’t stop the Hassans of the world.  On the contrary, you will create more of them.

In support of this, Wright warns of a likely increase in homegrown–as opposed to external Al Qaeda–terror :

…Contrary to right-wing stereotype, Islam isn’t an intrinsically belligerent religion. Still, this sort of stereotyping won’t go away, and it’s among the factors that could make homegrown terrorism a slowly growing epidemic. The more Americans denigrate Islam and view Muslims in the workplace with suspicion, the more likely the virus is to spread — and each appearance of the virus in turn tempts more people to denigrate Islam and view Muslims with suspicion. Whenever you have a positive feedback system like this, an isolated incident can put you on a slippery slope.

And in fact, our policy may be the single greatest boost to Osama bin Laden’s message:

Sept. 11, 2001, though a success for Osama bin Laden, was in the scheme of things only a small tactical triumph…Maybe he feels that our descent into the carnage of Iraq and Afghanistan has moved him a bit closer to his goal. But if he succeeds in tearing our country apart along religious and ethnic lines, he will truly be able to declare victory.

Lots of food for thought.

Will Torture Taint Al Qaeda Prosecutions?

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

One of the ongoing mantras of the left during the Bush torture years was that, aside from the fact that torture produces little in the way of reliable intelligence, torturing Al Qaeda suspects might cause a future court to throw out the cases against them.

There is one wonderful thing and one frightening thing about Eric Holder’s announcement of civilian trials for the main Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo: this development marks the close of the Bush doctrine which argued that terror suspects should be tried before military tribunals with truncated rights.  Bush’s claim was a betrayal of American constitutional values.  Largely ending the practice, means we can turn our jurisprudence back to a more normative mode.  Terror is no longer a war and no longer a matter solely for military consideration.  Terror is no longer an existential threat.  Instead, it is a criminal matter, a very serious one, but not one that threatens the Republic with extinction.

This is a repudiation nine years in the making and it couldn’t come a moment too soon.  Many of us have been concerned by the Obama administration’s overly sympathetic approach to some remnants of Bush era thinking when it comes to constitutional, human rights and terror matters.  This new tack will send the pendulum back in a direction that makes us more comfortable.

But this is what’s frightening:

Mr. Mohammed’s initial defiance toward his captors set off an interrogation plan that would turn him into the central figure in the roiling debate over the C.I.A’s interrogation methods. He was subjected 183 times to the near-drowning technique called waterboarding, treatment that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has called torture.

If we tortured Mohammed and torture is illegal and unconstitutional, then do we lose the right to try him for his crimes?  Might he go free simply because we betrayed our own constitutional values?  And if the courts somehow figure out a way to finesse this issue and find that his rights (however those might be defined) were NOT infringed, then aren’t we still betraying our values?  This would certainly not be a betrayal on the magnitude of Bush’s since it would be motivated by the desire to prosecute Mohammed in a civilian and constitutionally protected setting.  But how do we get around the fact that whatever the motivation for torturing him, that it was unconscionable and more importantly for the court system, unconstitutional?

No one in this country wants Khalil Mohammed to go free.  But how do you try him while acknowledging the injustices that were committed against him?

Finkelstein to Shin Bet: Osama Sent Me

Sunday, May 25th, 2008

In the course of writing this blog, I’ve chronicled some really dumb moves by the Shin Bet. But their decision in arresting and deporting Norman Finkelstein from the country really takes the cake:

Finkelstein said he was asked whether he had met with Al Qaida operatives, whether he had been sent to Israel by Hezbollah and how he intended to finance his stay in Israel.

“I was kept in a holding cell at the airport for approximately 24 hours…” Finkelstein said.


The Shin Bet apparently doesn’t understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Or perhaps it pretends it doesn’t know the difference in order to smear people like Finkelstein. But actually, such questions only show the utter stupidity of the agent who asked them. And since he was following a scenario sketched out for him by his superiors, I presume we can blame the entire agency for this line of questioning.

The idea that Norman Finkelstein was imprisoned by the Shin Bet is an outrage. Even if you disagree with Finkelstein’s views on Hezbollah and think that Finkelstein is an intellectual provocateur, he is a respected academic with a large international audience. In banning him, Israel has made itself look petty, small and mean.

In an exchange of e-mails with fellow progressives I was shocked to discover that several people I thought would respond positively on this issue essentially said: “Finkelstein can go to hell for all I care.” I can understand why they don’t like Finkelstein. He is prickly person who tends to argue his case in extreme terms. In the passion of his argument, he gets carried away and overstates his case.

But the amount of misinformation forwarded even by Jewish progressives about Finkelstein was astonishing. One person who works for an Israeli human rights group said he praised Hezbollah as “heroes.” He didn’t. Another who is a senior staffer for a Jewish peace group said Finkelstein “celebrated the murder of Israelis.” He didn’t. The same person said Finkelstein made him “want to vomit.” What is especially astonishing about the argument advanced by these people is their claim that Finkelstein’s deportation is not a blemish on Israeli democracy. That Israel did what any democratic country can and should do in denying entry to someone it views as hostile to its interests.

It’s also ironic that when deported, Finkelstein was on his way to visit a Palestinian activist for the very same Israeli human rights group whose staffer I referred to above. The latter essentially said Finkelstein deserved what he had coming to him. I’m continually astonished that even so-called liberals can wear such blinders.

I’m not saying Finkelstein is my favorite human being or even my favorite analyst of the Israeli-Arab conflict. But if we allow the petty, small-minded spooks of the Shin Bet to determine that a he can be banned for criticizing Israel then any one of us can be similarly denied.

Remember Martin Niemoller. He began his career hating Jews. Then he became a critic of Hitler and was imprisoned by him for eight years. By the end of his imprisonment he understood that Jews were the canary in the coal mine. By not standing up for them when he should have, he made it that much easier for Hitler to come for him later on. I am simply shocked that I should have to say this to people who work for Jewish peace groups and Israeli human rights groups. It seems like an elementary and fundamental point that should be understood by anyone sensitive to these issues. Yet it isn’t.

In thinking of this case, I am reminded of a very similar one here in the U.S. in which the Department of Homeland Security revoked a visa for Tariq Ramadan, the European Muslim scholar who intended to teach a course at Notre Dame. DHS made a similarly vague statement that Ramadan was denied entry on security grounds. His U.S. government interrogators similarly noted that he had donated money to groups affiliated with Hamas (before that group was listed as a terror organization). Daniel Pipes had argued publicly that Ramadan supported Islamic terror and the former had forwarded his claims to DHS. It is likely that Pipes’ false claims about Ramadan’s sympathy for terrorism played a similar role in his exclusion from the U.S.

My question to these erstwhile Jewish progressives who’ve deserted Finkelstein is: if DHS actually, but mistakenly sees Ramadan as a supporter of terrorism, why is this agency’s action any worse than Israel’s? In short, if a government wishes to ban someone for their political views, they should show cause how those views will actually do real harm to the nation. They should allow the victim to appeal the ruling in an expedited way: that is, they shouldn’t imprison someone like a Ramadan or Finkelstein as a common criminal until their case can be heard.

Finally, just as the Bush Administration should be made to pay a price for its ludicrous decision in the Ramadan case, so the Israeli government should be made to pay a similar price. If you want to deny a Jew the right to enter Israel simply because he says things that your own citizens say (and who are not prosecuted for saying them), but which are inconvenient to hear–then you deserve to become the laughingstock of democracies the world over.

Jerry Haber has also written a terrific post on this subject.

Israeli Confusion Over Gaza Policy: Rot in Hell or Provide Humanitarian Assistance?

Monday, June 18th, 2007

“All assistance and aid for the Gaza Strip should be stopped,” National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told Army Radio on Sunday. “I am stopping everything until I understand what is happening over there. We simply have to increase the isolation of Gaza from Judea and Samaria; close them off completely. The only opening that should remain open is toward Rafah.”

–Binyamin Ben Eliezer, Infrastructure minister, Haaretz, June 17th

“We will take into consideration all humanitarian needs in Gaza. We will not intervene, we will not move forces…”

–Ehud Olmert, Ynetnews, June 17th

Hat tip to Middle East Progress for noting these two contradictory Israeli government responses to the Gaza crisis. One can attribute this to a momentary confusion among government bureaucrats as to what Israel’s short vs. long-term strategy should be vis a vis Gaza. But make no mistake, Israel will do the absolute minimum, if that, to ensure Gazans don’t drop like flies in the street from malnutrition and other diseases. The long-term Israeli approach to Gaza will be to let them rot. As soon as the international media spotlight is off Gaza, the Israeli spigot will dry up to a trickle, if that.

But I predict that if this is what Israel pursues that Gaza will become the rotting sore of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Imagine the teeming refugee camps of Lebanon, where Al Qaeda has been reported to have made significant advances in recruiting budding young terrorists and where a standoff has been going on for weeks now between the army and Fatah al Islam. Then transfer this resentment to a Gaza shorn of all hope and freedom. If we think that Qassams are bad, I hate to think what new tactics might be in store for Israel and the world. At least Hamas has kept the conflict confined to Israel. Can we confidently predict that an Al Qaeda-influenced Gaza-based cell would do the same? New attacks on Egypt might be just a start. From there, who knows?

And please don’t make the mistake of believing that I relish this prospect, far from it. But it seems almost ineluctably guaranteed to happen given the absolute bankruptcy of Israeli and U.S. policy choices.

Justice Department: ‘We Didn’t Drive Padilla Crazy, But Even If We Did, He’s Too Crazy to Prove It’

Wednesday, December 13th, 2006
jose padillaJose’s trip to the dentist (photo: NYT)

The Justice Department has gradually shifted–and lessened–the charges against Jose Padilla. He started as an Al Qaeda ‘dirty bomber.’ Now, he’s accused of providing material support to Al Qaeda as a member of a “North American terror cell.” I predict it’s only a matter of time before its entire case against him collapses like a house of cards.

Recently, the NY Times reported on a horrific video of the government’s mistreatment of him while he was imprisoned as an enemy combatant. Many of us find a trip to the dentist to be torture. But for Padilla, it’s getting to the dentist that is torture. The actual treatment was probably a pleasure as long as he got to remove those sensory deprivation goggles (see image).

Keep in mind this is a man who is a U.S. citizen. But the feds treated him, a docile, rule-observing prisoner, like he was a radioactive Al Qaeda operative. And in the process it broke his will and possibly drove him insane. His attorneys claim he has absolutely no ability to help with his own defense. They now wish a judge to determine his status. A finding of incompetence would prevent the government from continuing to try (read “persecute”) him.

But the irony of the government’s position is that they “vehemently deny” they mistreated him. However, if they did and Padilla is incompetent to defend himself–then he’s also incompetent to attest to his own mistreatment:

But the government said yesterday that it would be pointless to discuss accusations of government misconduct based on Mr. Padilla’s word if his competence was in question. The government vehemently denies that Mr. Padilla was mistreated in military custody.

This is doublespeak worthy of Orwell or perhaps Alice in Wonderland.

Here is how defense lawyers characterized his treatment in the earlier NYT article which reported on the video’s contents:

The images represent the latest and most aggressive sally by defense lawyers who declared this fall that charges against Mr. Padilla should be dismissed for ”outrageous government conduct,” saying that he was mistreated and tortured during his years as an enemy combatant.

Now lawyers for Mr. Padilla, 36, suggest that he is unfit to stand trial. They argue that he has been so damaged by his interrogations and prolonged isolation that he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to assist in his own defense. His interrogations, they say, included hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of ”truth serums.”

…Andrew Patel, one of his lawyers, said his isolation was not only severe but compounded by material and sensory deprivations. In an affidavit filed Friday, he alleged that Mr. Padilla was held alone in a 10-cell wing of the brig; that he had little human contact other than with his interrogators; that his cell was electronically monitored and his meals were passed to him through a slot in the door; that windows were blackened, and there was no clock or calendar; and that he slept on a steel platform after a foam mattress was taken from him, along with his copy of the Koran, ”as part of an interrogation plan.”

Mr. Padilla’s situation, as an American declared an enemy combatant and held without charges by his own government, was extraordinary and the conditions of his detention appear to have been unprecedented in the military justice system.

Philip D. Cave, a former judge advocate general for the Navy and now a lawyer specializing in military law, said, ”There’s nothing comparable in terms of severity of confinement, in terms of how Padilla was held, especially considering that this was pretrial confinement.”

And this is what a defense psychiatrist found regrading his mental competence:

”It is my opinion that as the result of his experiences during his detention and interrogation, Mr. Padilla does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness, i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation,” Dr. Hegarty said in an affidavit for the defense.

…”During questioning, he often exhibits facial tics, unusual eye movements and contortions of his body,” Mr. Patel said. ”The contortions are particularly poignant since he is usually manacled and bound by a belly chain when he has meetings with counsel.”

We made him crazy. But it wasn’t the torture that did it. And even if it did, there’s no way he can prove it since he wouldn’t be competent to build a case against the government anyway. That’s Catch 22-thinking of which Yossarian and Joseph Heller would be proud.

CIA: Permitting Guantanamo Detainees Access to Lawyers Endangers National Security

Sunday, November 5th, 2006
rooker cartoon(cartoon: Rooker)

The Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department have told a federal court that permitting lawyers access to high-level Qaeda suspects without tighter secrecy procedures could damage national security by revealing harsh “alternative interrogation methods” used in secret C.I.A. prisons overseas.

But lawyers for the suspects say the government’s insistence on secrecy is an effort to “conceal illegal conduct,” including the torture of the 14 accused Qaeda suspects who were moved from C.I.A. custody to the military’s detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in September.
NY Times

So allowing Al Qaeda detainees access to their lawyers will damage national security because it might reveal that they’ve been tortured (“harsh alternative interrogation”). Or to put it differently: you can’t let ‘em talk to their lawyers because then they might find out what the prisoners have really gone through. Much better to keep everyone in the dark, don’t you think? I recall somewhere in the deep dark recesses of my memory that we once had this piece of paper that forbade “cruel and inhuman punishment” and we once claimed we honored something with the name “Geneva” in it which forbade torture. But those days were long ago and far away. Now, we’re not encumbered by any of that rigamarole.

The Golem and the IDF

Monday, September 11th, 2006
der golemscene from Der Golem (1920) (credit: Kino International)

Edward Rothstein’s wonderfully suggestive essay on the Golem myth in today’s Times got me thinking. He addresses the myth in the context of the 9/11 anniversary and the very human desire to lash out at our enemies and make them pay the ultimate price for their perfidy:

So the Golem, as an embodiment of resistance or defense, has taken on new metaphorical resonance. And today, on Sept. 11, as commemorations of a major terror attack take place accompanied by continuing debates over responses to it, the nature of the Golem is not just an abstract question.

The Jews of medieval Prague must’ve grappled with these turbulent emotions too in the midst of the blood libel accusations and anti-Jewish violence that rocked that city in the 16th century:

…The creature is brought to life for a specific purpose: to defend the Jews against the pogroms associated with the notorious blood libel. That libel asserted that before every Passover the Jews used the blood of Christian children to bake matzoh.

But the Golem involves more than just legend. It also embodies a strategy: to meet irrational hatred head on, to undermine terror and mitigate its impact with resolve and persistence. Death is the threat; the Golem is the response.

It may seem difficult to imagine the terrors that sprang from the libel, but accounts of massacres, including one elegy from Prague written in 1389, are chilling.

So the Golem in some senses becomes our rock and our redeemer, our Dick Cheney if you will. He represents resistance to evil and the will to avenge the evil deeds we have suffered.

But unlike in American circa 2006, the Jewish Golem is not a perfect antidote to terror. He is flawed as were the emotions of the Jews who made him. After all, Rabbi Judah Low went down to the Moldau to dig clay which he used to form the figure. And from Jewish liturgy we understand that clay is the very symbol of imperfection.

And so, after saving the Jewish community from violent attacks, in some versions of the legend, Rabbi Low loses control of the being. He runs amok causing great hardship for the Jews. He goes too far in avenging Jewish blood. He becomes a liability. At that point, Rabbi Low erases a single latter, aleph, from the word emet (“truth”) inscribed on the Golem’s forehead so that the word now reads meyt or “dead.” Just as he was meant to save Jewish lives and avenge Jewish dead, the Golem’s time to die has come. For the sake of the community’s future relations with its neighbors, the figure must be sacrificed.

Lewis Libby seems to have heeded this message in falling on his sword for his boss. But I only wish Cheney himself would heed it too and realize that if there ever was a purpose for him in the Bush Administration after 9/11 (debatable), his use has long since passed.

The IDF too plays the role of Golem within Israeli society. It is the 900 lb. gorilla which Israelis have entrusted with their very lives. Just as with the Jews of medieval Prague, Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood. Instead of a blood libel, we have murderous hatred (on both sides). So Israel created its own Golem to fight for it when times required it. Until 1967 (and even after), the IDF-Golem was largely a benign force within Israeli society. It was an honor and privilege to serve rather than an obligation. Its officers were seen as the cream of the nation. It honored the principle of tohar neshek, purity of arms by which arms were only to be used in defense of the nation but never in offense.

This principle was, of course, largely a mirage as illustrated by the seminal Israeli writer, S. Yizhar, who passed away last week. In brutal, powerful stories like Hirbet Hiza, he ripped the drapes off the national illusions and reported what life was really like in the field for the Palmach during the 1948 war. It was not a pretty picture.

But this worship of the IDF began turning after the Six Day War. Gradually, Israelis began to see that they had given away much by thrusting such grave responsibility onto the IDF. For they had essentially given it carte blanche to fight its battles against Israel’s enemies. While not having such grave responsibility might’ve comforted the average Israeli, it also took out of their hands the ability to influence the important security and survival decisions the army made in its name.

This was when Israel, like Rabbi Low, began to realize it had perhaps made a Faustian bargain in creating this avenging angel. Now, to many Israelis (though certainly not all or perhaps even a majority) it is clear that the IDF has become more a monster like the out of control Golem than a savior. The army has become a twisted caricature of what Israel is or wants to be. It represents Israel as a cold, bloodthirsty and inhumane nation. In truth, many Israelis are still quite comfortable with having a strong Golem attacking Israel’s “enemies.” But others have begun to wonder whether the IDF might be finding enemies where there may be none; and that it may be creating new enemies through its heavy-handed militarist approaches to every problem Israel faces with its Arab neighbors.

So in the view of this blogger, the IDF has become the out of control Golem which must be reined in if Israel is ever to find peace with its neighbors. There was a time when having a strong, avenging protector was the right thing for Israel. But now the time has come to face the future on a note of peace and hope rather than with rockets and bombs.

Unlike in the Golem story, Israel can never and will never erase the aleph in the IDF’s “forehead” to kill it off. Unfortunately, the Mideast is still a dangerous neighborhood and promises to remain so for the foreseeable future. There will be a need for the IDF. But it must be an IDF under civilian control; an IDF in which leaders are accountable to the nation; not an IDF run amok in the killing fields of Lebanon or Gaza.