RSS
The Torah Is Clear: Terrorism Is Never Acceptable
The Argentinian-born revolutionary, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, was assassinated in Bolivia in 1967 — but his memory endured for decades after his death, and for many he remains an iconic hero of the anti-establishment movement.
I still vividly recall the fascination with Che — bordering on obsession in certain circles — during the 1970s and 1980s. The famous 1960 photograph of him taken by photographer Alberto Korda featured prominently on t-shirts and posters.
John Lennon and Yoko Ono had a picture of Che in their kitchen, and the Argentinian football legend Diego Maradona had a Che tattoo on his right arm. Journalist Tom Wolfe coined the term “radical chic” to describe the promotion of radical figures such as Che by celebrities and the elite, who cheerfully used revolutionary icons as a fashion statement without any hint of irony.
Che Guevara transcended global borders as a unifying symbol of the global progressive left’s commitment to anti-establishment struggles and transnational solidarity. His resolute image somehow came to represent universal egalitarian aspirations and the hope for a global socialist revolution.
Progressive politics has always been riven with rivalries and hatreds, but notwithstanding the enmities, wherever someone found themselves on the map of the left, Che Guevara bridged all the many diverse movements across continents, serving as a powerful conduit for shared sentiments of resistance and revolution. Che literally embodied the perfect ideal of internationalist resistance.
In real life, however, Che Guevara was a monster. Despite Che’s global reputation as a lovable revolutionary, there was a very dark side to him, marked by immoral behavior and ruthless brutality. Behind the romanticized image of the charming rebel lay a man deeply embedded in the brutal and bloody violence of armed struggle. In the mountains of Cuba, and later in Bolivia, Guevara was not merely a theorist of guerrilla warfare but an active participant.
Crucially, Che was personally responsible for overseeing the wanton execution of numerous individuals — executions he saw as necessary for the cause, but which by any objective standards would be labeled as cold-hearted terrorism.
One victim of Che’s brutality was Eutimio Guerra, a Cuban peasant who acted as a guide and informant for Fidel Castro’s rebel army. At some point, he was suspected of being the traitor providing information about the position of Che’s militants to the Batista regime.
According to Che, as recorded in his diaries, Guerra eventually admitted his betrayal — although, that was only after he had been sadistically tortured for days. As soon as Guerra confessed, Che pulled out his pistol and shot him dead. Similar stories are many, attesting to Che’s ugly side — and yet he continued to hold the affection of many during his lifetime and afterward, and it goes on to this day.
The adulation of Che Guevara is the perfect example from history exhibiting both the stupidity and superficiality of ideologues. Once it has been decided that someone or something represents the ideals they hold dear, whether that someone or something fits the bill or not, they are put up onto the highest pedestal to be idolized as objects of veneration and celebration.
And you don’t have to look at history to find an example: Hamas and the Palestinian cause have become the latest and most current iteration of this jarring phenomenon. Twenty-first-century radical chic is wearing a Palestinian checkered kaffiyeh as a scarf or shawl, while publicly lionizing the marauding monsters who murdered, raped, and kidnapped Jews and non-Jews in southern Israel on October 7th.
These terrorists, and their murderous leaders, such as the arch-terrorist Yahya Sinwar, are now being held up as the ultimate icons of a virtuous cause: namely, the obliteration of so-called white oppression and colonialism.
Truthfully, I fully support anyone’s right to espouse whatever ridiculous cause they consider worthy. What troubles me is when people claim to want a “ceasefire,” and then see no contradiction between that aspiration and the fact that they support animals who rape and butcher women, burn babies, joyfully kidnap old and young alike, and say that they would merrily do it again and again.
At what point does it become clear that pacifist progressivism is nothing more than a mirage that masks and protects, and even promotes, the same ugly violence its greatest advocates claim to despise? Those with an eye on history are clued in; they have heard of Che Guevara.
But even those who are clueless about history, and embrace radical causes out of naivete, should understand that claiming you hate despots when you support something far worse than despotism requires mental gymnastics that is nothing short of Olympic gold-medal standards.
In the Torah portion of Vayechi, there is a poignant moment of moral clarity illustrating this exact point. As Jacob lies on his deathbed, he rebukes his sons Shimon and Levi for their violent retaliation after their sister Dinah was wronged by Shechem. In a murder spree against the town of Shechem, the brothers dispatched the entire male population, took the women and children into captivity, and plundered the flocks and possessions.
Jacob’s critique was not of their cause, which he rightly felt was just, but rather of their brutal methods. His parting words underscore a timeless lesson: the ends cannot justify the means. As Jacob put it: “Cursed be their anger, so fierce; and their wrath, so cruel!” (Gen. 49:7). His curse is against the ferocity of their violence, not the veracity of their cause.
Jacob, the great patriarch, can parse the situation: he supports the cause, but not if it employs violence as a first measure. Self-defense — even if it means using mortal force — is always justified, but premeditated murder is an inexcusable transgression, regardless of its motivation, especially if a resolution can be reached without it.
This ancient wisdom seems to elude many on the progressive left. The glamorization of violent revolutionaries like Che Guevara and Hamas overlooks the crucial distinction between fighting for justice and committing acts of terrorism.
Che, much like Shimon and Levi, might have started out with what he and others perceived as noble intentions, but the path he chose was marred by indiscriminate brutality. Hamas similarly wraps itself in a cloak of righteous fervor, but in the final analysis is nothing more than a vicious terrorist group that seeks the death of Jews, and anyone associated with Jews — even if they are fellow Arabs.
The allure of radicalism often blinds its adherents to the moral cost of their actions, and they forget that, above all, what they seek must always be achieved via preserving the sanctity of life. Jacob understood the perils of falling into the trap of endorsing violence by supporting those with whom one has sympathy, but who resort to violent methods as a matter of course.
Jacob’s rebuke of Shimon and Levi carries within it a message for today — that supporters of the Palestinian cause must never romanticize violence and its perpetrators. It is one thing to sympathize with the plight of the oppressed, but it is quite another to be an apologist for terrorism.
The author is rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post The Torah Is Clear: Terrorism Is Never Acceptable first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Letter from Vancouver: A monument draws on Jewish tradition to remember victims of Oct. 7
The garden of Temple Sholom Synagogue in Vancouver is a serene and contemplative place to remember the horrific events of Oct. 7, 2023—and the Israeli civilians, soldiers and foreign nationals who […]
The post Letter from Vancouver: A monument draws on Jewish tradition to remember victims of Oct. 7 appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Deal ‘Tantamount to a Hezbollah Defeat,’ Says Leading War Studies Think Tank
Israeli tanks are being moved, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, in the Golan Heights, Sept. 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Jim Urquhart
The terms of the newly minted ceasefire agreement to halt fighting between Israel and Hezbollah amounts to a defeat for the Lebanese terrorist group, although the deal may be difficult to implement, according to two leading US think tanks.
The deal requires Israeli forces to gradually withdraw from southern Lebanon, where they have been operating since early October, over the next 60 days. Meanwhile, the Lebanese army will enter these areas and ensure that Hezbollah retreats north of the Litani River, located some 18 miles north of the border with Israel. The United States and France, who brokered the agreement, will oversee compliance with its terms.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project (CTP), explained the implications of the deal on Tuesday in their daily Iran Update, “which provides insights into Iranian and Iranian-sponsored activities that undermine regional stability and threaten US forces and interests.” Hezbollah, which wields significant political and military influence across Lebanon, is the chief proxy force of the Iranian regime.
In its analysis, ISW and CTP explained that the deal amounts to a Hezbollah defeat for two main reasons.
First, “Hezbollah has abandoned several previously-held ceasefire negotiation positions, reflecting the degree to which IDF [Israel Defense Forces] military operations have forced Hezbollah to abandon its war aims.”
Specifically, Hezbollah agreeing to a deal was previously contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza, but that changed after the past two months of Israeli military operations, during which the IDF has decimated much of Hezbollah’s leadership and weapons stockpiles through airstrikes while attempting to push the terrorist army away from its border with a ground offensive.
Additionally, the think tanks noted, “current Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem has also previously expressed opposition to any stipulations giving Israel freedom of action inside Lebanon,” but the deal reportedly allows Israel an ability to respond to Hezbollah if it violates the deal.
Second, the think tanks argued that the agreement was a defeat for Hezbollah because it allowed Israel to achieve its war aim of making it safe for its citizens to return to their homes in northern Israel.
“IDF operations in Lebanese border towns have eliminated the threat of an Oct. 7-style offensive attack by Hezbollah into northern Israel, and the Israeli air campaign has killed many commanders and destroyed much of Hezbollah’s munition stockpiles,” according to ISW and CTP.
Some 70,000 Israelis living in northern Israel have been forced to flee their homes over the past 14 months, amid unrelenting barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah began its attacks last Oct. 8, one day after the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel. The Jewish state had been exchanging fire with Hezbollah but intensified its military response over the past two months.
Northern Israelis told The Algemeiner this week that they were concerned the new ceasefire deal could open the door to future Hezbollah attacks, but at the same time the ceasefire will allow many of them the first opportunity to return home in a year.
ISW and CTP also noted in their analysis that Israel’s military operations have devastated Hezbollah’s leadership and infrastructure. According to estimates, at least 1,730 Hezbollah terrorists and upwards of 4,000 have been killed over the past year of fighting.
While the deal suggested a defeat of sorts for Hezbollah and the effectiveness of Israel’s military operations, ISW and CTP also argued that several aspects of the ceasefire will be difficult to implement.
“The decision to rely on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and UN observers in Lebanon to respectively secure southern Lebanon and monitor compliance with the ceasefire agreement makes no serious changes to the same system outlined by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war,” they wrote.
Resolution 1701 called for the complete demilitarization of Hezbollah south of the Litani River and prohibited the presence of armed groups in Lebanon except for the official Lebanese army and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
This may be an issue because “neither the LAF nor the UN proved willing or able to prevent Hezbollah from reoccupying southern Lebanon and building new infrastructure. Some LAF sources, for example, have expressed a lack of will to enforce this ceasefire because they believe that any fighting with Hezbollah would risk triggering ‘civil war,’” the think tanks assessed.
Nevertheless, the LAF is going to deploy 5,000 troops to the country’s south in order to assume control of their own territory from Hezbollah.
However, the think tanks added, “LAF units have been in southern Lebanon since 2006, but have failed to prevent Hezbollah from using the area to attack Israel.”
The post Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Deal ‘Tantamount to a Hezbollah Defeat,’ Says Leading War Studies Think Tank first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future
A Torah scroll. Photo: RabbiSacks.org.
Here’s a fact from history you may not know. In 1667, the Dutch and the British struck a trade deal that, in retrospect, seems so bizarre that it defies belief.
As part of the Treaty of Breda — a pact that ended the Second Anglo-Dutch War and aimed to solidify territorial claims between the two powers — the Dutch ceded control of Manhattan to the British.
Yes, that Manhattan — the self-proclaimed center of the universe (at least according to New Yorkers), home to Wall Street, Times Square, and those famously overpriced bagels.
And what did the Dutch get in return? Another island — tiny Run, part of the Banda Islands in Indonesia.
To put things in perspective, Run is minuscule compared to Manhattan — barely 3 square kilometers, or roughly half the size of Central Park. Today, it’s a forgotten dot on the map, with a population of less than 2,000 people and no significant industry beyond subsistence farming. But in the 17th century, Run was a prized gem worth its weight in gold — or rather, nutmeg gold.
Nutmeg was the Bitcoin of its day, an exotic spice that Europeans coveted so desperately they were willing to risk life and limb. Just by way of example, during the early spice wars, the Dutch massacred and enslaved the native Bandanese people to seize control of the lucrative nutmeg trade.
From our modern perspective, the deal seems ridiculous — Manhattan for a pinch of nutmeg? But in the context of the 17th century, it made perfect sense. Nutmeg was the crown jewel of global trade, and controlling its supply meant immense wealth and influence. For the Dutch, securing Run was a strategic move, giving them dominance in the spice trade, and, let’s be honest, plenty of bragging rights at fancy Dutch banquets.
But history has a funny way of reshaping perspectives. What seemed like a brilliant play in its time now looks like a colossal miscalculation — and the annals of history are filled with similar trades that, in hindsight, make us scratch our heads and wonder, what were they thinking?
Another contender for history’s Hall of Fame in ludicrous trades is the Louisiana Purchase. In 1803, Napoleon Bonaparte, who was strapped for cash and eager to fund his military campaigns, sold a vast swath of North America to the nascent United States for a mere $15 million. The sale included 828,000 square miles — that’s about four cents an acre — that would become 15 states, including the fertile Midwest and the resource-rich Rocky Mountains.
But to Napoleon, this was a strategic no-brainer. He even called the sale “a magnificent bargain,” boasting that it would “forever disarm” Britain by strengthening its rival across the Atlantic. At the time, the Louisiana Territory was seen as a vast, undeveloped expanse that was difficult to govern and defend. Napoleon viewed it as a logistical burden, especially with the looming threat of British naval power. By selling the territory, he aimed to bolster France’s finances and focus on European conflicts.
Napoleon wasn’t shy about mocking his enemies for their mistakes, once quipping, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” But in this case, it’s tempting to imagine him swallowing those words as the United States grew into a global superpower thanks, in no small part, to his so-called bargain.
While he may have considered Louisiana to be a logistical headache — too far away and too vulnerable to British attacks — the long-term implications of the deal were staggering. What Napoleon dismissed as a far-off backwater turned out to be the world’s breadbasket, not to mention the backbone of America’s westward expansion.
Like the Dutch and their nutmeg gamble, Napoleon made a trade that no doubt seemed brilliant at the time — but, with hindsight, turned into a world-class blunder. It’s the kind of decision that reminds us just how hard it is to see past the urgency of the moment and anticipate the full scope of consequences.
Which brings me to Esav. You’d think Esav, the firstborn son of Yitzchak and Rivka, would have his priorities straight. He was the guy — heir to a distinguished dynasty that stretched back to his grandfather Abraham, who single-handedly changed the course of human history.
But one fateful day, as recalled at the beginning of Parshat Toldot, Esav stumbles home from a hunting trip, exhausted and ravenous. The aroma of Yaakov’s lentil stew hits him like a truck. “Pour me some of that red stuff!” he demands, as if he’s never seen food before.
Yaakov, never one to pass up an opportunity, doesn’t miss a beat.
“Sure, but only in exchange for your birthright,” he counters casually, as if such transactions are as common as trading baseball cards. And just like that, Esav trades his birthright for a bowl of soup. No lawyers, no witnesses, not even a handshake — just an impulsive decision fueled by hunger and a staggering lack of foresight.
The Torah captures the absurdity of the moment: Esav claims to be “on the verge of death” and dismisses the birthright as worthless. Any future value — material or spiritual — is meaningless to him in that moment. All that matters is satisfying his immediate needs.
So, was it really such a terrible deal? Psychologists have a term for Esav’s behavior: hyperbolic discounting — a fancy term for our tendency to prioritize immediate rewards over bigger, long-term benefits.
It’s the same mental quirk that makes splurging on a gadget feel better than saving for retirement, or binge-watching a series more appealing than preparing for an exam. For Esav, the stew wasn’t just a meal — it was the instant solution to his discomfort, a quick fix that blinded him to the larger, long-term value of his birthright.
It’s the classic trade-off between now and later: the craving for immediate gratification often comes at the expense of something far more significant. Esav’s impulsive decision wasn’t just about hunger — it was about losing sight of the future in the heat of the moment.
Truthfully, it’s easy to criticize Esav for his shortsightedness, but how often do we fall into the same trap? We skip meaningful opportunities because they feel inconvenient or uncomfortable in the moment, opting for the metaphorical lentil stew instead of holding out for the birthright.
But the Torah doesn’t include this story just to make Esav look bad. It’s there to highlight the contrast between Esav and Yaakov — the choices that define them and, by extension, us.
Esav represents the immediate, the expedient, the here-and-now. Yaakov, our spiritual forebear, is the embodiment of foresight and patience. He sees the long game and keeps his eye on what truly matters: Abraham and Yitzchak’s legacy and the Jewish people’s spiritual destiny.
The message of Toldot is clear: the choices we make in moments of weakness have the power to shape our future — and the future of all who come after us. Esav’s impulsiveness relegated him to a footnote in history, like the nutmeg island of Run or France’s control over a vast portion of North America.
Meanwhile, Yaakov’s ability to think beyond the moment secured him a legacy that continues to inspire and guide us to this day — a timeless reminder that true greatness is not built in a moment of indulgence, but in the patience to see beyond it.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login