I recently came across this article that basically comes to the same conclusions that our sages did millennia ago: If you need to execute someone, b’ror lo mitha yafa, choose the cleanest and quickest way to do it, and ideally, there should be no death penalty, especially if it ceases to be a deterrent. It’s good to see that progressive Western civilization is catching up to classical Jewish civilization.
In the spirit of Memorial Day, I thought it was worth mentioning that earlier I argued that Ariel Sharon, the architect of the Disengagement from Gaza, is to be held liable for the subsequent deaths of many Jews. After he finally passed away, considerable ink was spilled discussing his “legacy.” It was only then that I realized that perhaps had he not been smitten by his Creator, the postscript to the Disengagemnt would have been written much differently.
The talking heads went on about how Sharon was a “bulldozer,” always doing what he wanted to do, with a heavy hand and much force, and usually to the military benefit of the people of Israel. Sharon wanted to disengage, so it was going to happen no matter what. Now, the people of the right, and today, anyone with a drop of wisdom, know that deciding to cede territory to one’s sworn enemies is never a good idea. What was the “rationalization” for such a move back in 2004 and 2005? It was this: once Israel disengages from Gaza, granting its denizens their independence, if they then decide to attack Israel, like they of course did, then Israel would have the full right to strike back with full force, which of course it did not. However, I believe that Sharon fully intended to unleash the IDF’s wrath against Gaza in such a case, except that when he was rendered comatose, his political heirs, led by the convicted criminal Ehud Olmert, lacked the moral clarity and guts necessary to do what Sharon would have done.