Earlier this week, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon gave us a lesson in behavioral science. After he explained, during a discussion on the situation in the Middle East, that he opposes construction in the settlements, he went on to add that it is "human nature" to resist occupation. In crazy days such as these, when Israeli civilians have been stabbed and murdered for four months on end in this most recent wave of terror, we can only wonder if it is also "U.N. nature" to grant Palestinian terrorists the legitimacy to kill. "Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process," he said. "Some have taken me to task for pointing out this indisputable truth. Yet, as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism." Ban also condemned the acts of violence while mentioning Palestinian terror, but considering his outlandish declarations in support of terror, the only conclusion we can reach is that Ban essentially condemned and justified, justified and condemned, this terrorism. It is disgraceful, it is dangerous, it is uncouth -- but mostly it is also a testament to ignorance or hypocrisy, maybe both. On second thought, perhaps this explains why the Middle East is so dilapidated and broken. The international community and the person at the helm of the United Nations do not understand the "nature of the Middle East" or simply do not want to understand. They do not comprehend the rules of the game and the root of the conflict. They also do not want to understand the extent to which history and geography dictate our future here. Not to mention religion -- for better or for worse. The bottom line from the secretary-general's ignorant/hypocritical (take your pick) statement is that the Jewish state is the de facto punching bag, in the same week that International Holocaust Remembrance Day is being commemorated. What's new- From the perspective of French Nobel laureate Albert Camus, terror is terror, and it doesn't matter who is perpetrating it and where. It cannot be justified. Camus used his play "The Just Assassins" to brilliantly convey, through his philosophical-humane prism, the subject of terrorism and its legitimacy. The play itself is based on an actual historical event, the assassination of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich -- in Moscow, in 1905, four revolutionaries plan to assassinate the grand duke by throwing a bomb into the carriage taking him to the theater. The reason for their act is ideological; the background is the Communist Revolution and the Tsar who rules the city with an iron fist and oppresses his people. The play explores whether or not assassinating a person is a worthy act when children are also in the vicinity and could get hurt -- in this case the Tsar's niece and nephew. A disagreement emerges among the would-be assassins: Kaliayev refuses to throw the bomb and kill children (because nothing justifies the killing of children and innocents); while his partner, Stepan, believes the two children should be killed to save the millions of other children being starved. Ultimately, the assassination takes place, but at a later date. Camus ruled: The children were spared. If only Albert Camus could have written our story as well. Maybe Shlomit Krigman would still be alive.
