W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New


Chapter 12

Assassination, Expectation and Consummation

NEWS 182

The Advertiser, October 18, 01

The assassination of Rehavam Zeevi, Israeli minister for Tourism, member of the National Union, according to their own reported claim, by the 'radical Palestine Liberation Organisation' group, as remittance in blood for the assassination of its leader, Mustafa Zibri in August, 2001, bears thought, and will almost assuredly bear fruit.

Baudelaire's fleurs de mal, the flowers of evil, are of course not fruit. Flowers are not fruit. Some smell very bad, however, and metaphorically, this is the fruit of their doings.

Already there is response. Sharon has decided to make a change. Thus, despite his recent yielding to US pressure in easing travel restrictions  on Palestinians and a West Bank and Gaza strip blockade, itself a result of the fact that Israel does not really like the slow death methods of Palestinian terrorists, which in the aggregate climb slowly to Tower status, and would prefer that thugs and gangsters with political associations, cease the former, whatever the latter: he now revokes it. Back to square two (the assaults on Israeli citizens, which seem so little to trouble the world, being square one).

A TV report indicated that a Palestinian authority was of the view that Sharon's response, in one respect, was not acceptable. What however was that response ? The one in question is the second which we here note. It was Sharon's ULTIMATUM. It read as follows: Facilitate the transfer to Israel of those suspected in this assassination, or be regarded as terrorists.

This seems almost mellow. The responsible individuals and organisations in this period of years are not adorned with innocence. After all, what ARE people who want, as a part of your country, duly established and coherently run, to get more of your country for themselves than they now have, or for their allies, or with their allies outside your country, or to secede with that part: when those international allies are a consortium of powerful countries of a contrary religion to your own national one, or chief one, famous for its intolerance of liberty ?

Are they political dissidents ? But to earn only that title, do you have to kill Ministers in your country's government ?

Are they vigilantes ? But to earn that title only, do you resent the death of one of a party who leads assaults on civilians, indiscriminately, except perhaps in some cases, with this distinction, that they may choose a time and place for the bomb they place, where more rather  than less people will be maimed, squalidly assaulted en masse, babies and all ? But is this the work of a vigilante ? Does he not rather KEEP the peace than KEEP the war ?

War on civilians which leaves them in wounded condition, without concern for all or any, is terrorism. It is distinguished from mere thuggery in this, that it is more massive. It is mass thuggery. It is brigandage. It is heartless self-indulgence in a political point of view/land grab, that puts life into the barrel, and lets it pour out while real estate considerations are being pushed. It is a desire for MORE, not for existence, in a place which already has LESS, named Israel. It is a desire for removal of some of the slim allocation which is now Israel's - it having given back much of what it took as a national home as promised, a promise violated - and not for the occupation of Jordan in some part, which was in substance, part of Palestine. It is not a desire to occupy what is ALREADY of its own religion and part of a vast array of territories surrounding, which is of this kind.

Perhaps, then, they would rather not be regarded as terrorists if they do not co-operate to show that they abhor such crimes. After all, co-operation against crime would help its extinction, and make for more judicial process.

It is not possible to discern, however, how it would be apt for such people not to wear such a title.

A tree is known by its fruit. While some are so generous and private in giving, that we need to beware of being judgmental, lest we ignore their good works, yet when people kill indiscriminately (except for refinements of cruelty), simply to secure their own wishes, and their own preference for their own placement: they are killers. When they do it to terrorise and induce capitulation of a government to their desires, it is terrorism as well. When they do it in order to institute their religion over people with little actual liberty, they become religious imperialists as well.

Perhaps Sharon is being irenic.

If a sovereign nation, and is this so novel an idea, has an election, should you kill those for whom you did not vote ? If you insist, should you stay as part of that nation, or be given the option as killers to remove elsewhere ? There are laws about freedom.

On the other hand, if you want people to give back what they took, let's look at the French taking over Britain in 1066, and at wars of Britain in France, and of course at complete restitution with interest, from the Vatican, from terrorism and religious imperialism and theft by the inquisition, to the kulaks sent to SIberia to labour, in Russia, and action from the Aztecs along these lines with regard to Spain, and the Yugoslav involvement in the 1940s ... (cf. SMR pp. 1032ff., 920, 951ff., Ancient Words: Modern Deeds, Ch. 14).

Who took what, moreover ? Israel took less than it was internationally accorded, won some in a most unfair and grossly improper war to extinguish the residue from Hitler and such persons from other places whose families had often suffered pogroms and discrimination for generations, and gave back some of what it took!  Now they want to remove its capital by means of killing babes and youths and others about, when they feel so moved.

Violence in this case is particularly vile. It is also predicted, as are the famous victories of Israel, AS victories against overwhelming odds; as is the coming assault on Israel, and the divine response (cf. SMR Appendix A and pp. 502ff.).

It is a pity when mangled lives are a means of discussion. It does not tend to improve the logic or the love.


For background see SMR Chs. 8 and  9, and the assemblage of volumes on the Middle East, found listed at the start of News Items.