In recent weeks, many military and political experts on the continent have turned their attention to the war with Iraq that was waged by George Bush, Sr. back in 1991. And some of these experts say that Bush, Sr. made a mistake by ending the war too soon. They say that he deserves praise for having liberated Kuwait, but that he also should have captured Baghdad, and removed Saddam Hussein from power once and for all. Certainly if he had done that back then, we wouldn’t be involved in this war today.

 

Perhaps. Hindsight is always 20/20. And Bush, Jr. clearly doesn’t wish to pursue the same policy that his father did. So, he’s emphasized that this time the goal is “to create a unified Iraq, with democratic institutions”. He’s said that the goal of this war is “to help the Iraqi people, build a free Iraq”. On the day before the war began, he ordered the US Air Force to drop more than two million leaflets over Iraq, telling the Iraqi people that this isn’t a war against them — only against their leader — and that, when it’s all over, he wants to help them create a new kind of society.

 

I’m sure that this is far easier said than done. It’s much easier to bomb Iraq, and destroy its armed forces, than to bring democracy to its people. After all, democracy is almost unknown in that part of the world. There are no parliaments, no representative assemblies, and no free press anywhere in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel. So if this is what President Bush intends to do, I wish him the best of luck, because it won’t be easy. Perhaps Bush, Sr. can’t be blamed for not trying to bring democracy to Baghdad.

 

But before we say which Bush may be right — Bush, Sr., who stopped the war and stayed out of Baghdad — or Bush, Jr., who wants to restructure Iraq, so that its people can live in a democratic way — you should know about the first war that took place in Iraq. No, not Desert Storm, which took place in 1991. But one that took place at the dawn of Jewish history, about 3,600 years ago; one that was led by our father, Abraham. There’s a section of the Abraham story that most people tend to overlook. We all know how Abraham stood up to God on behalf of the people of S’dom. We all know how Abraham left his land — which happens to be present-day Iraq — and journeyed to the land that God would show him. And we all know how Abraham bound his son, Isaac, upon the altar.

 

But the story found in Genesis 14, the story of Abraham the general, is rarely studied. So let’s take a look at this chapter, and see if it can shed any light on the war in which we’re now engaged. Let’s see if it can help us understand which President Bush — the father or the son — may be right, in our own time.

 

Genesis 14 describes the very first war recorded in the Bible. Four kings, led by the tyrant of Shinar — the ancient name of Iraq — go to war against the five kings of the land of Canaan. In the course of this conflict, Lot, the nephew of Abraham, who lives in Sodom, is captured. Thus Abraham goes to war with the sole motive of rescuing his nephew, Lot.

 

He assembles ‘a coalition of the willing’, composed of 318 soldiers. And, fighting against tremendous odds, Abraham is victorious. Lot is rescued, and ancient Iraq defeated. Then the question comes up: What do we do now? Now that the enemy has been defeated, what should we do with them?

 

Abraham goes to a conference with the king of Sodom to discuss these questions. The king offers Abraham a reward — a fair share of the booty. He says to him: “Teyn li ha-nefesh, v’ha-r’chush, kach l’cha”… “Give me the prisoners; and you take the booty.”

 

But Abraham turns the deal down. Evidently, Abraham is a high-minded, idealistic person. He only went to war to rescue Lot, and he has no desire to profit from it personally. So he says to the king of Sodom: “Keep the prisoners and keep the booty. All I want is Lot. I don’t want you or anyone else to be able to say: I made Abraham rich. So, I won’t take so much as a shoestring from you in payment for winning this war.”

 

Isn’t this great? Shouldn’t we be proud of Abraham, and proud of the answer he gave? Well, maybe not. Because in the Talmud, in the Tractate on Vows (Nedarim), Rabbi Eliezer asks: Why was our father Abraham punished in that his children, the Israelites, were enslaved in Egypt for two hundred and ten years?

 

And the Sages give various responses to this question. But the most surprising answer comes from Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yochanan says that Abraham was punished, and the Israelites enslaved, ‘Sheh-hifrish b’ney adam, mi-l’hika-nes ta-chat kan-fey ha-sh’chinah,’ — ‘BECAUSE ABRAHAM PREVENTED HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENTERING THE DIVINE PRESENCE’, by turning down the king of Sodom’s offer. He should have said: “You take the booty and I’ll take the prisoners of war, so I can teach them the proper way to serve God.” According to Rabbi Yochanan, Abraham had an opportunity to mold this captive population; he had an opportunity to educate them, to bring them into a proper relationship with God, and he turned it down.

 

This isn’t to say that it would have been an easy task. The people of Shinar weren’t very nice people, just putting it mildly. But Rabbi Yochanan is saying that even a corrupt culture, even a wicked people, can change. And if you have the opportunity to facilitate that change, you must try to do so. So, if you defeat a corrupt nation in battle, but abandon them to their own devices, without guidance or education, you’re committing a sin.

 

This is quite a bold statement. Rabbi Yochanan is saying that it’s not enough to conquer evil countries; that you also have an obligation to do whatever you can to transform them, to re-educate them, to reshape them, so that they become good. And if you don’t do this, then you’ve sinned.

 

It’s hard to be absolutely certain, but it seems that according to this Midrash, Rabbi Yochanan would agree with Bush, Jr., and not with Bush, Sr. It would seem that Rabbi Yochanan would say that the Iraqi people shouldn’t be regarded as inherently evil, or hopelessly enslaved to their culture. It would seem that Rabbi Yochanan would say that they can be liberated, both in mind and body, and that they can be turned into the first democrats in Arab history — if the US wills to do so.

 

After all, the US transformed two autocratic states — Japan and Germany — into democracies after World War II. Isn’t it possible that the US can accomplish it again, in the case of Iraq? It took years to accomplish in Japan and Germany. It will probably take many more years to accomplish in Iraq, but if there’s a will to stay the course, perhaps it can be done.

 

One has to be careful in applying Biblical passages to current events. If the devil can quote scripture, he surely can cite the Talmud. And yet, Rabbi Yochanan’s teaching is fascinating. It strongly implies that it isn’t enough for the US to flex its military muscle; that it must stay the course after it wins militarily until it creates a new kind of community in Iraq — one that can be a model for the rest of the Middle East, and the world — a model of democracy, pluralism, and hope.

 

Some will say that the US should never have attacked Iraq and that the routine of UN weapons inspections was working. Others will say that Abraham was right to refuse to profit from the war, and that the US should go in, destroy whatever weapons of mass destruction it finds in Iraq and then leave as quickly as possible. Others will say that Abraham was wrong not to bring people under the wings of the Shechinah; that the US shouldn’t make that same mistake that he did; that the US should stay the course, and use this opportunity to create a new kind of Iraq.

 

Whatever your opinion about the war, let’s pray that it should be over soon and that there’s a minimum of bloodshed on both sides of the conflict. Let’s pray that whatever happens in the aftermath of battle will be the right choice, and that it will find favour in the sight of God.