Assassinations
Yes, of course, I was delighted to hear that Sinwar met the violent end that he deserved.
Jeremy Rosen
As the prophetess Deborah said, “ so should our enemies perish”. But I wonder. Will it really make any difference politically?
For hundreds of thousands of years human beings have been killing each other for all different kinds of reasons. And primary amongst these reasons have been power and politics. And it’s a moot point as to whether these killings in themselves have had very much impact on the course of history.
“Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown,” wrote Shakespeare. The term Assassin is relatively recent. A medieval Order of Assassins, a Shia Muslim sect, that was active in Persia and Syria from 1090–1275. A derogatory name for a crazed group of hashish-eating Muslim jihadis, members of a Levantine sect that took the drug before killing their rivals or heretics. And during the Crusades they attacked the Christian invaders. And from them came the Italian Assassino that has been used ever since for political killing in contrast to a simple murder.
Egyptian pharaohs were killed for political ends long before the Judean king Joash was assassinated by his servants in 798 BCE. The Assyrian Sennacherib was assassinated by his sons in 681 BCE. From Japan to China, from Greece to Rome and including the Sicarii, Jewish fanatics around the end of the Second Temple, on through the various Muslim dynasties. Assassination was common. In the Ottman empire until barely hundred years ago brothers who were passed over for power were assassinated to ensure they would not pose any threat.
The Europeans loved to assassinate troublesome rivals. In the nineteenth century, assassins tried to kill nearly every major European ruler and head of state, including Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, the Kaisers Wilhelm I, Friedrich III and Wilhelm II of Germany, the Tsars Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II of Russia, Victor Emmanuel II. Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s Assassination1914 in Sarajevo sparked off the First World War. And think of the many millions tortured and killed by Fascist and Marxist regimes around the world to get rid of inconvenient rivals, from Africa to Russia to China.
Americans assassinated four sitting presidents: Abraham Lincoln in 1865, James Garfield in 1881, William McKinley in 1901, and John F Kennedy in 1963. Attempts were made on Theodore Roosevelt 1912, Ronald Regan 1981, Robert Kennedy 1968 and several attempts on Donald Trump. In the middle East, Anwar Sadat 1981, and Yitzchak Rabin in 1995. In none of these cases did the perpetrators achieve their declared aim. And one can find no evidence of a change for the better. More often it was for the worse.
Israel uses targeting, killing, or assassination only in response to violence committed against it and its citizens and in pursuit of deterrence. Even so if it worked for a while, in general the effect has not been permanent.
During the 16th and 17th centuries, international lawyers began to voice condemnation of assassinations of leaders. The great Dutch lawyer and philosopher Hugo Grotius strictly forbade assassinations, arguing that killing was only permissible on the battlefield. But then, Israel can indeed be described as a battlefield. In the modern world, the killing of important people began to become more than a tool in power struggles between rulers themselves and was also used for political symbolism, and Machiavelli was not against assassination as a tool of rule.
Attempts to define, justify or forbid and condemn such acts have been about as effective as United Nations peacekeepers in stopping violence. Indeed, whether in Africa or Lebanon, UN Peacemakers have often actually supported violence and assassination and ignored their remit.
From a Jewish point of view, we rely on the Talmudic dictum ( Sanhedrin 72a) that if someone tries to kill you, pre-empt it, kill him first. Given Iran and its lackeys’ open declaration that they wish to and intend to destroy Israel and kill its population, there is absolutely no logical or ethical reason why Israel should not use assassination as a legitimate tool of self-defence, regardless of what hypocrites the world over, have been gulled into not taking seriously.
I do not believe this is the end. Heads of Hamas have been assassinated before. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a founder of Hamas, was assassinated in Gaza City in 2004. Whether Sunni or Shiite jihadis they do not disappear, they are not completely eliminated, they simply reinvent themselves. There is no sign of either Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran modifying their stance.
Despite the pathetic delusions of Western appeasers. If leaders say they intend to kill you, I suggest one might just take that seriously. And so far, there is no evidence that Hamas is willing to return the hostages. In the meantime, assassination is a cleaner tool with far less collateral damage and loss of human life.
I am a liberal. I hate violence and extremism, and I desperately want to see peace in the Middle East. But as King Solomon says, “There is a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes/Kohelet 3:8) So, if anyone is unhappy about assassination, I recommend smoking some Hashish!!!
PS Should we dance on Simchat Torah this year? There is a well-known custom that on those occasions when we recite the yizkor memorial prayer for our parents and other relatives who have died, those with parents still alive, leave the synagogue for the prayer and then return afterwards. My father always objected to that custom. In his communities and school, he insisted we all stay in, and those whose parents are still alive, should be grateful and thank God for the gift of their lives. In the same spirit, I believe this year, when so many of us might not feel like rejoicing, we should rejoice and be thankful that we are still alive and that we have been spared the horrible fate that so many of our brothers and sisters have been subjected to.
May we see the hostages back home with their families and their people.
Rabbi Jeremy Rosen lives in New York. He was born in Manchester. His writings are concerned with religion, culture, history and current affairs – anything he finds interesting or relevant. They are designed to entertain and to stimulate. Disagreement is always welcome.
