It’s the kind of story one would expect in a political thriller – the publisher of a respected American news outlet surmising the possibility of an Israeli plot to assassinate the the U.S. President. But this was not a movie, it was an opinion piece published in the Atlanta Jewish Times by the now former publisher, Andrew B. Adler.
“What would you do?”, published in the Atlanta Jewish Times on January 13, 2012, explored what might be going on inside the mind of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu concerning ongoing threats to Israel’s safety and security, with special reference to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. [The piece has been pulled from the AJT site, but you can read it online here.]
In the article, Adler lays out three possible scenarios for the Israeli Prime Minister. It was the third possible solution that resulted in Adler’s leaving his post at the Atlanta Jewish Times. This third option was a Mossad-led assassination of the sitting President, deemed unfriendly to Israel’s interests, in order to put in place a Vice President who would “forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.” Concerning this third option, Adler said:
If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?
David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, responded to Adler’s column in a Jerusalem Post article on January 23, 2012. In that piece he said Adler should:
…begin by asking himself whether he’s in the right business.
Owning a community newspaper and seeking to inform readers entails a larger responsibility, at least it should.
That’s not consistent, shall we say, with conjuring up scenarios for the assassination of the American president or seeking to implicate Israel in such utterly unimaginable schemes.
Clearly, Adler, for his sake and ours, ought to find a new line of work.
Freedom of speech is a cherished right that must be guarded at all costs. But it seems to me that the tone of public discourse has plummeted to new lows in recent years. While strong views make for robust discussion, there are times when some things should simply be left unsaid. Adler should never have put any such idea into the public forum.
The tongue – and writing is a form of speaking – is a powerful force for good or ill. We become what we think, and minds are informed by what we read, hear and view. From the Canadian Parliament to the corridors of the US Capital buildings; from the editorial offices of the news media to the coffee shops and pubs of our nations, the tone of conversation, and the range of ideas expressed for solving our difficulties seems depressing at best and terrifying at worst. Our tone of public discourse is very ugly these days.
On page 621 of my New International Version (1984) Bible there is a verse highlighted with a notation in the margin: “A Daily Prayer – Adopted as my life verse, January 24, 1994.” It reads as follows:
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer (Psalm 19:14 NIV).
Not everyone reading this post considers the Bible, as I do, to be the inspired, inerrant Word of the living God. Whether or not you see the Holy Bible as authoritative for your life, these ancient words speak a truth that would benefit all – that we think and speak in a manner that is upright and honorable.
Literary Commentary & Contentions: two worthwhile blogs