After September 11, 2001, the issue of coping with terrorism has assumed an urgency that few of us could ever have imagined.

Our definitions of decency, of ethics, of justice, and of compassion are tested as at no time since World War II. This guide represents a first feeble step in the monumental process of learning to think and act ethically within a world that has lost its moral compass.

To the degree that we succeed, we provide our children with the tools to better the environment in which they live. That modest goal represents the purpose of this work.

Michael A. Myers

Discussion as an educational tool is fundamentally different from a reading assignment or a lecture. By its very nature, discussion implies that all parties involved contribute to a better understanding of the topic. The participants may reach a consensus, or they may not. In a discussion, subjectivity, rather than objectivity, is the dominant force. The concepts of "correct" or "incorrect" apply only as they relate to factual accuracy or the presentation of another's opinion.

The differentiation between fact and feeling, between occurrence and opinion, must be clear to the student. The fact is that 55,000 US soldiers died in military action in Vietnam between 1964 - 1973. How one feels about that fact or the contributing cause to that piece of information are subject to discussion.

A discussion that has no direction or guidance will result in students and teachers feeling that "nothing was accomplished." The following acronym, DREAMS, is designed to help the teacher identify the components of a meaningful class discussion:

1. The learner will be able to define "terrorism."
2. The learner will be able to differentiate between a terrorist act and a legitimate political battle.
3. The learner will discuss his/her feelings about terrorist attacks directed against Jewish vs. non-Jewish targets.
4. The learner will identify the unique relationship and responsibilities among Jews toward each other.
5. The learner will discuss some traditional Jewish responses to terrorism.

Instructional time: 2 - 4 hours

Have the students (collectively or individually) DEFINE a "terrorist act.” This definition will form the essential framework for the following discussion:

One definition of terrorism defines a terrorist act as one that is intended to intimidate or cause property damage, injury or death to innocent individuals for the purpose of achieving a political goal.

IF students omit an element or add an irrelevant element to the definition, the teacher can help the student toward a clearer understanding.

Example: If the student includes the element of intimidation or death to an innocent person BUT does not include "to achieve a political goal," then ask, "How, then, is this different from a robbery?"

In World War II, US planes bombed certain key German military targets in densely populated areas. Many German citizens were knowingly killed in the process.

When a terrorist group kills people by putting a bomb on an airplane, they claim that they are no less justified than the US was when the (then)Army Air Force bombed German cities during World War II. "This is war," they say.

DISCUSSION GUIDE:

The key to understanding this question rests with the words "military targets." War is a collective "self-defense" against those people on the side of those who pose a threat to you. Soldiers and political leaders pose the greatest immediate threat. Thus, a policy that advocates attacking a military target is the most morally defensible. Policies that dictate the attack on random segments of the population, many of whom pose little or no immediate threat, are terrorist in nature. TO THE DEGREE THAT AN ATTACK AVOIDS HARMING NON-THREATENING INDIVIDUALS, it is morally defensible.

Students must be helped to understand that war is repugnant precisely because most people who are injured and killed are not the initiators of the conflict. The tragedy of war is that, most often, a few leaders or demagogues are capable of involving, in varying degrees, large numbers of people into a conflict desired by a relatively small percentage of people on both sides.

Many groups that carry out terrorist acts use military names as a part of their title:

DISCUSSION GUIDE:

By adopting a military title, these groups hope to:

1. Show they are a legitimate organization and not a rag-tag group.
2. Be involved in the noble goal of collective self-defense.
3. Imply that their enemy is menacing and formidable.
4. Act out their fantasies of glory.

DISCUSSION GUIDE:

One may have a legitimate cause and still resort to terror.

Many groups involved in terrorist activities insist that they are "freedom fighters." Their objective is to justify their abhorrent actions by pairing them with socially acceptable motives. No one identifies with terror. Everyone identifies with freedom. In effect, the terrorist wishes you to accept the belief that the end (his freedom) justifies the means (terror). The civilized world is repulsed by this argument. Yet, it is essential to note that, in essence, the term "freedom fighter" refers to an attractive goal, whereas terrorism is the ugly means of achieving it. The student must learn to separate the two and thereby remove the smoke screen by saying, "Of course, you are fighting for freedom from your perspective. Otherwise you are just a vandal, a madman. The issue isn't your goal -- it is your unacceptable means of achieving it."

It is important to discuss and understand the principle relating to the deliberate murder of innocent people. Whether or not alternate political methods have been tried and failed should have no bearing on this basic principle. Every terrorist group claims that their "operations" are the only effective means to achieve their goal.

Students may feel that one could ethically employ terrorism if faced with physical destruction. That is a complicated issue. However, our definition of terrorism is “ an act that seeks a political objective." A political objective, however noble, is not comparable to facing physical destruction.

Terrorism as it relates to the Jewish people:

Many Jews claim that when they hear that other Jews are victims of terrorism, their pain intensifies.

EXAMPLE: When a synagogue in Istanbul was bombed in 1986, resulting in the deaths of innocent Jews, similar terrorist bombings against non-Jewish targets were also carried out in France. However, Jewish communities worldwide focused their attention and grief upon the Istanbul bombings.

DISCUSSION GUIDE:

1. ISTANBUL SYNAGOGUE - Two Arab terrorists enter a synagogue on Shabbat morning, lock the doors and kill 22 worshippers with machine guns and hand grenades. (September 6, 1986)
2. KOTEL - Two Arabs toss hand grenades into a crowd of newly sworn-in Israeli soldiers and their families at a parking lot near the Kotel, killing the father of one soldier. (October 15, 1986)
3. ATTACK IN GAZA - Palestinians kill six Israelis, including three soldiers, in the Gaza Strip. (August 25, 2001)
4. ATTACK ON THE US WARSHIP COLE - Seventeen US sailors were killed when a suicide bomber, who was part of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror network, blew a hole in the hull of the Navy destroyer. (October 12, 2000)
5. SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS IN THE US - Planes hijacked by members of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network hijack four planes. Two crash into the World Trade Center, one crashes into the Pentagon and one crashes in Pennsylvania, after its passengers re-take the plane from the terrorists. (September 11, 2001)

DISCUSSION GUIDE:

NOTE: As part of the anticipatory set of this problem, the teacher may elect to find and use articles describing the four attacks mentioned above. If so, the students should first READ the articles and then DISCUSS the facts prior to the questions.

The four circumstances are:

1. US (and international) civilians
2. Jewish worshippers
3. Israeli soldiers and their families
4. US servicemen

The next step is for the students to categorize or group these segments. Two basic groups should become evident: Civilians vs. Military and Jews vs. Non-Jews. In general, people feel the most outrage at the murder of innocent civilians. As Jews, we also feel an additional closeness to our fellow Jews. Therefore, most students probably will have the greatest negative feeling or anger about the murder of the Jewish worshippers.

The next two segments of society present a greater challenge. Do your students feel a greater loss at the death of civilians? Would it matter if soldiers were killed in a swearing-in ceremony vs. the "line of duty?" How do your students feel about the tragic deaths of the families of the soldiers? To what extent do they feel "Kol Yisrael araivim zeh bazeh?" (All Israel is responsible for one another)?

An Arab terrorist organization has been carrying out terrorist activities on Israeli citizens both inside and outside the borders of Israel. Twenty Israelis have died as a result of these attacks. The Israeli government launches an air attack upon this organization’s headquarters, which are located inside a refugee camp in a foreign country. Sixty people die. Thirty are terrorists, thirty are civilians in the camp.

The terrorist organization claims that Israel is guilty of a terrorist attack.

Israel claims that the deaths of the thirty civilians were unavoidable and collateral (unintended victims).

DISCUSSION GUIDE:

Israel claims that its targets were military. It is a common practice for Arab terrorist groups to deliberately place their military installations in the heart of civilian areas. The thirty civilian deaths, while regrettable, were unavoidable. Israel claims the targets were military and the deaths, incidental (i.e., unintended). Implied within the term "incidental" is the understanding that, at the time of the attack, Israel knew that civilian deaths were possible or even likely.

Students may understandably weigh the loss of innocent life against the benefits of striking a military target. Some may claim that the high ratio of innocent deaths to terrorist deaths made the raid morally unacceptable. There are no objective moral standards that, with finality, can confirm or invalidate such a claim. However, such an argument is valid and bears strong consideration in any discussion.

DISCUSSION GUIDE:

There are no correct answers to any of these questions. The most important point to remember is that the students must provide reasons for their responses. Yet, these questions present a series of serious dilemmas, such as:

1. How far can one act in "self-defense"?
2. Is a "preemptive act" also self-defense?
3. Can we grant special privileges to fellow Jews defending them- selves, but, in so doing, set a moral double standard of behavior?

A very successful technique that can be used is to present these points as the basis for a mini-debate. A mini-debate provides focus for the issues and presents valid alternative responses for the students to create. Furthermore, it also forces the students to listen to what others say by creating a "response" segment.

The format of the debate would entail:

1. A 10-minute preparation period.
2. A 3-minute opening argument by each group.
3. A 5-minute response, limited to answering specific positions voiced by other groups.
4. A 2-minute closing argument (optional).

Following the mini-debate, each student should take a personal position, providing one reason to the class why s/he believes in that position. The purpose of this final activity is not to decide the correct position, or "take a vote," but to allow each student an opportunity for self-expression and internalization of a position.

Our Torah is a guide for living a proper Jewish life. Most of the Torah is a book about how human beings in a Jewish society must relate to each other. We are given appropriate Jewish responses to numerous situations. Below are four verses taken from Tanach. Look them up and read them in the context of the books in which they are found. The more you study them, and the more you study what others have said about them, the better you will be able to use them to help you understand Jewish responses to violence and terror.

1. "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18)
2. "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls" (Proverbs 24:17)
3. "Whoever kills another man shall be killed by man" (Genesis 9:6)
4. "And you should remove the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:6)

DISCUSSION GUIDE:

This activity should cause the students to apply many of the themes that have been developed through the previous sections. The primary consideration when comparing these two groups of verses is the circumstances of the specific case. When one threatens another's existence, must a person continue to offer his or her love? Aren't there differences between an individual's obligation and a communal obligation?

The application of the general principle of "Love your neighbor" is not as absolute within Judaism as it may be within other religions. To Judaism, "Love your neighbor" is an ideal. However, "your neighbor" must maintain his/her right to your love. Actions of "your neighbor" which threaten you can cause him to forfeit your love.

DISCUSSION GUIDE:

1. "Will you destroy the righteous along with the wicked?" (Genesis 18:23)
2. "Far be it from you to destroy the righteous along with the wicked (making) no difference between righteous and wicked." (Genesis 18:25)

ITEM 1:
In June 2001, more than twenty young Israelis were killed and dozens seriously wounded at a popular youth entertainment center in Tel Aviv when a suicide bomber maneuvered his way into the crowd and detonated a bombed packed with nails that was strapped to his body. The bomber knew that his victims would be young and intent upon a weekend evening of fun.

ITEM 2:
On a sunny afternoon in August 2001, 15 people were killed and dozens seriously injured when a suicide bomber detonated a bomb packed with nails strapped to his body at the popular Sbarro Restaurant in downtown Jerusalem. The bomber knew that his victims would be men, women, and children eating lunch as families.

ITEM 3:
The city of Hebron is sacred to both Jews and Moslems. Both faiths revere Abraham as their genetic and spiritual patriarch. The tomb of Abraham is found in Hebron beneath an imposing shrine called the M’arat HaMachpela or the “Double Cave.” In 1994, just prior to the Jewish holiday of Purim, a Jewish man from the neighboring town of Kiryat Arba, entered a room in the Double Cave and opened fire, killing thirty-nine Arabs as they were praying. The gunman knew that his victims would be men and children.

ITEM 4:
In November 2000, Palestinian militants exploded a bomb beneath a school bus carrying Israeli children on their way to school. Two teachers were killed, nine children were wounded, and at least three children lost limbs as a result of the explosion. The militants knew that the bus carried school children, many of whom were under the age of nine.

ITEM 5:
In November 2001, in an effort to kill Palestinian militants who used a field to fire mortars upon Israeli citizens living in the area, the Israeli army placed a land mine in that field. Five Palestinian children on their way to school were killed when they discovered the device, kicked it, and detonated it. When planting the mine in that area, Israel knew that there was a chance that an innocent person could accidentally detonate it.

ITEM 6:
In December 2001, the United States sent a high level emissary to the Middle East to help negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Within one week, Palestinian gunmen killed two Israelis in the center of the Israeli town of Afula; eighteen Israelis were killed on busses; and terrorists set off two powerful explosions in a popular Jerusalem outdoor mall, killing ten and wounding 180.

ITEM 7:
In August 2001, Palestinian militants penetrated an Israeli army base in Gaza. They killed two Israeli soldiers and were themselves killed in the ensuing battle.

ITEM 8:
Hamas is a militant organization operating within the Palestinian Authority. Its goal is to continue the armed struggle against Israel until the entire occupation is ended. Hamas has claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings in Israel and vows to carry out more such acts. Its leader was lured to the rooftop of his home, where he was killed by Israeli sharpshooters waiting in ambush. At the time of his death, he posed no immediate danger to any innocent victims.
Palestinian claim: Murder
Israeli claim: Self-defense