Ronen Nakash was born in Israel and currently lives in Los Angeles, California. He has a B.Sc. in Business Management from the University of Phoenix and is working as a fundraiser for non-profit organizations. Mr. Nakash has written a weekly column dealing with current events for the Israeli newspapers Israel Shelanu and Hadshot L.A.

But there is a horrible premise underlying the government's approach to such threats. It is the premise that we must be severely attacked first in order to be able to retaliate. The implication of this mesmerizing premise is that our government is willing to sacrifice some of us so it would have an excuse to defend the rest of us.

The proof that the American government is oblivious to the principle of justice is demonstrated by the distinction it makes between "bad terrorists" like Osama Bin Laden, and "good terrorists" like Yasser Arafat. This double standard is exercised despite extensive knowledge about the ideological match between these two criminals. The result: It is perfectly legitimate for America to invade Afghanistan, but Israel is prohibited from invading the areas controlled by the Palestinian dictatorship; it is just for President Bush to instruct U.S. special forces to assassinate Bin Laden, but Sharon is harshly criticized after each successful assassination of known terrorists; it is absolutely legitimate for the U.S. government to take any measure to protect its own citizens, but the Israeli government must confine itself only to a worthless, self-destructive negotiation process.

Justice, the dictionary tells us, is "the assignment of merited rewards or punishments" and "conformity to truth, fact, or reason." What does it mean to oppose terrorism based on the principle of justice? It means that the moral condemnation of terrorism is the fundamental truth upon which your entire opposition is founded; it means that this is the beacon guiding your actions against terrorism and that no action that you take as part of your opposition would undermine this fundamental truth.

Using justice as its guide in the war on terrorism would have led the American government to an outright condemnation of Yasser Arafat and the tyranny he has founded in Gaza and the West Bank; it would have led the American President to urge Israel to eradicate all terrorist organizations in the Middle East; it would have led to complete cooperation with Israel based on the understanding that Israel is holding the front line in a war America is also fighting.

But instead, the American government has been playing a major role in granting Arafat the status of a peacemaker and a world leader; instead, Arafat's infamous record of bloodshed as an international terrorist has been dismissed despite the fact that his victims list exceeds that of Osama Bin Laden; instead, the State Department publicly objects to Israel's targeted assassination of terrorist leaders; instead, America forces Israel to negotiate with Islamic terrorists and show restraint when Israelis are murdered and their cities are bombed.

The principle of justice doesn't distinguish between a single victim of terrorism or 6,000; it is not "triggered" only when evil hits close to home; and it certainly doesn't permit the sacrifice of others in exchange for saving oneself. A healthy sense of justice is capable of distinguishing between good and evil and then provides the conviction and motivation to protect the good and to eradicate evil, wherever they exist.

A principled and outright moral condemnation of terrorism permits only one course of action: identifying the individuals and regimes that embrace terrorism, targeting them and "taking them out." Nothing else has proven itself as an effective means of deterrent because nothing else is. Terrorists, all terrorists, hold that they can gain values by inflicting terror on their victims. They need to realize that they cannot. Moreover, they need to realize that the punishment for even expressing intent to engage in acts of terrorism is as unforgiving as the harm they wish to inflict on their victims.

The choice in the war against terrorism is either-or: either we fight terrorism everywhere or we don't fight it at all. The current "war" is tantamount to not fighting at all since it permits leniency towards some terrorists and terrorist states for pragmatic, "coalition related" reasons.

In the war against terrorism there is no room for compromise simply because any compromise means that we are willing to tolerate some terrorism when in fact we can -- or want to -- tolerate none.

This war can be won only after the American government clearly distinguishes between allies and enemies, and treats each side -- for better or worse -- with the justice it deserves.

Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.

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