Reuven Koret is publisher of israelinsider and CEO of Koret Communications.
More from Reuven Koret
	Dealing with the devil
	A plea for forgiveness
	A caution before the crusade
	Time to face Mecca
	What the world can learn from Israel
	Israel should be grateful for Durban
	Do good fences really make good neighbors?
	Sexual fantasies of a suicide bomber
	Re-Orienting Israeli policy
	Before the boom
	Old enough for a new gas mask
	Renaming for peace
	Israeli airspace: Who's flying, who's not
	Before the storm
	Avoiding future catastrophes
	Facing the faceless enemy
	A tale of two doormats
	Replacing Humpty Dumpty

He gets away with a bank robbery, and murder, though the people killed are either out to get him, or are done in by well-meaning but stupid peacekeepers (cops). The billions he siphons off are from an illegal government slush fund. He spouts American patriotism, and tries to rationalize the calculus of killing: If one bullet can save many lives, shoot. If the death of one child can save hundreds, kill that child. He wraps hostages in explosive belts filled with metal bearings, Hamas style. But in the end, he lets the hostages go.

In the last scene, after he and his girlfriend have been killed (apparently), and billions transferred to some offshore account, they show up in a boat bound to blow up an Arab terrorist, as the voiceover reads the news report that the Arab -- Ibn ben something-or-other -- was responsible for blowing up an American embassy among other nasty deeds.

The strange dissonance is that throughout the film Gabriel's seen as a sadistic villain. In the last scene, as you see the terrorist's boat go up in flames, you see the logic of his cause. He appears an avenging angel, cutting down the wicked, as his name suggests.

This evening I heard U.S Vice President Dick Cheney talking about Israel's "preemption" policy. He was cautiously sympathetic, expressing understanding why Israel may find it necessary to protect its citizens against terrorists planning attacks.

CHENEY: In Israel, what they've done, of course, over the years, occasionally, in an effort to preempt terrorist activities, is to go after the terrorist. And in some cases, I suppose, by their lights, it is justified. If you've got an organization that had plotted or is plotting some kind of suicide bomber attack, for example, and they have hard evidence of who it is and where they're located, I think there's some justification in their trying to protect themselves by preempting.

Clearly, it would be better if they could work with the Palestinians and the Palestinian authorities and the terrorists of whatever stripe could be headed off and imprisoned and tried, rather than having them actually assassinated.

Interviewer: Have they given us any indication that these are, in fact, preemptive strikes?

CHENEY: I think that's their claim. I do know, in some cases, they have, in fact, gone to the Palestinian authorities with names and locations and asked that the Palestinians take action against the terrorist in Palestinian territory. And when the Palestinians have failed to do that, then the Israelis have gone forward and launched a strike.

Later the White House issued a statement reiterating opposition to Israel's "targeted killing" policy. Spokesman Ari Fleischer said Cheney's remarks had been taken out of context and were in fact consistent with U.S. policy: "What the vice president was reflecting on is how both parties see justification in the actions they take. It is the policy of the United States to oppose these killings. What the vice president was suggesting is Israel sees justification for their actions. The Palestinians see a justification for their actions,'' he told reporters.

Every side has its justifications. But how can you equate the massacre of twenty-two young people at a disco with the elimination of those who planned the attack, and are planning more to come? Dick Cheney does not.

Unfortunately, terribly, innocents may be killed in the course of what the Israeli government euphemistically calls "active defense." But what is the alternative to fighting back and preempting terror? Dick Cheney understands what makes Israelis tick. He doesn't endorse it, but he understands it. And, I suggest, he speaks for most Americans.

A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Friday: "Our policy against targeted assassinations hasn't changed. I wouldn't argue with Israel's need to deal with the problem of terrorism. We do think they have to deal with it. But we don't think this is the right way to do it.'' He didn't mention what is "the right way."

There is a right and a wrong here. The masterminds of murders forfeit their right to life. If the Palestinian authorities don't arrest and imprison them, the Israelis have the natural right to bring the killers to justice, because they've killed before, or before they kill again.

In the non-stop action-thriller that is the Middle East, there are good guys and there are bad guys. True, it's a complex thriller where lines are fuzzy, not black and white. The good guys are no angels, and the bad guys are human beings, too--human beings out to kill innocent people. The Israelis play by the rules of a brutal game forced upon them. They don't target innocent people, and they don't cover for those who do.

It is a role that the United States and Israel both have been forced to play all too often. No surprise that Israel plays second fiddle to "The Great Satan" in Arab propaganda, and the Star of David burns together with the Stars and Stripes on the Arab street. Standing up to neighborhood bullies has been the common mission of Americans and Israelis, much to the frequent chagrin of equivocating Europeans and obfuscating UN "peacekeepers."

It's a familiar theme in Hollywood. Think Charles Bronson. Think Clint Eastwood. It also recalls a 1986 flick entitled "The Sword of Gideon," in which Mossad agents hunt down the terrorists who killed Israelis at the Munich Olympics. Of course, the masterminds of the Munich Massacre are now top officials in the Palestinian Authority.

In "Swordfish," it's not clear in the end whether Travolta really is Gabriel Shear. It seems Shear may have been killed so that his body could be identified, so the real avenger could go free to kill more terrorists. Israeli or American, he and his lovely partner in crime sail off into the sunset after obliterating Ibn's yacht. It was a Hollywood happy ending.

But who does he think he is, presuming to use lethal force to prevent and punish killers? Maybe this avenging angel is really not such a bad guy. Maybe he is Israeli, after all.

© 2001 Koret Communications Ltd. All rights reserved. Terms of Use.