In my seminars, I often demonstrate how I teach people (particularly children, because it happens more among them) to respond to being hit or pushed, when the hit or push is not meant to cause injury. I ask a volunteer to push me hard, and to respond to me the way that comes naturally. After the push, I just move back next to him (or her - but more about this later) and do nothing. He stands there confused, and nothing more happens. Then I ask him to push me hard again. This time I push him back. Then he pushes me back even harder, and we end up in an escalating pushing contest.

I ask the audience what ancient religious principle I just taught, and they correctly answer, "Turn the other cheek." It demonstrates that when I do nothing back, I am the winner and get the respect, while the pusher stands there confused and feeling foolish for having pushed me in the first place.

After one such demonstration, a psychologist in the audience excitedly told me that this is exactly what he has been recommending to governments as a response to 9/11. He does research on warfare and works for a company that gives advice to governments and the UN. He has been trying to convince the US government that based on psychology, the right way to respond to 9/11 was to do nothing because responding to terrorism can only result in more terrorism. He saw my demonstration as support for his position.

I wish it were that simple. It would be truly wonderful if all we had to do when our enemies attacked us is not to react and then peace would result. I'm afraid, though, that this is naïve thinking. There is danger when we over-generalize, and use one policy for all types of situations. In this newsletter I will attempt to identify three different types of response to aggression and the situations when each is appropriate.

The three general responses to aggression, in decreasing severity, are 1) Hit Me and I'll Hit You Back Ten Times Harder, 2) An Eye for an Eye, and 3) Turn the Other Cheek.

1. Hit Me and I'll Hit You Back Ten Times Harder
This approach represents the way to win in the lawlessness of the jungle. In the wild, creatures eat each other for food and may fight to the death in conflicts. It is "Eat or be eaten." There are no artificial laws, policemen, courts or jails in nature, so creatures have to defend themselves and fight their own battles. In the jungle, if others are nice to us, it is safe to be nice back. But if they are mean, they are probably looking to hurt or kill us. To survive in the lawlessness of nature, it is necessary to be even meaner to our enemies than they are to us, or we may end up their dinner. "Hit me and I'll hit you back ten times harder" is the right way to go.

2. An Eye for an Eye
"An eye for an eye" comes from the Old Testament of the Bible, which says, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand," etc. (Exodus 21:24) While many people have understood this to be a prescription for revenge, and have contrasted it with the supposedly more moral prescription of "turn the other cheek" of the New Testament, this is not its meaning at all. "An eye for an eye, etc." is specifically an instruction for courts of law on how to punish those who have injured others. When someone injures you, you don't take matters into your own hands, but you go to court and have qualified judges decide if a crime has been committed and what punishment needs to be meted out.

A punishment ideally serves two purposes. It should be a deterrent, so that people will be afraid to break the law. And it has to have a corrective function, making people feel sorry for doing evil so that they will want to be good. To accomplish this, the perpetrator must be made to experience the pain and loss he inflicted on others, and then he can feel remorseful. If the punishment is too lenient, it doesn't serve as a deterrence, for it makes crime pay. On the other hand, it can't be too severe or it won't serve a corrective function. If the punishment is substantially worse than what the perpetrator did to his victim, then he becomes an even bigger victim, and victims dont' feel remorse. Victims want revenge.

Can you imagine a justice system based on "turning the other cheek"? If someone causes you damage, would you go to a court whose policy is to let offenders repeat the crime against you? Of course not! You would want the perpetrator to suffer the way he made you suffer (or to compensate you monetarily).

Nor would you wouldn't want to go to a court that punishes too harshly. For instance, how would you feel about having your hand chopped off as punishment for shoplifting. Sure, the punishment will make you regret having stolen and you certainly wouldn't want to do it again. But you wouldn't feel REMORSE over your theft; you would HATE the system that treated you so cruelly. And don't think such inordinate punishments are a thing of the past, or only happen in corrupt dictatorships. Thousands of people are languishing in US jails for such crimes as possession of small quantities of marijuana. While fear of incarceration may serve the purpose of scaring people away from marijuana use, the perpetrators finish their sentences not with an appreciation of the evil of their ways but of the evil of the system that punishes them so unfairly.

So the Bible instructs that a punishment should fit the crime; neither too harsh nor too lenient.

3. Turn the Other Cheek
Jesus said, "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." (Matthew 5:39) This is not a prescription for a court of law or for foreign policy of governments in warfare. A slap in the face is meant to humiliate or provoke you, and "turning the other cheek" works beautifully in such a situation. It stops further aggression and turns the situation into a win/win. But it doesn't work in a situation where your opponent is dead-set on injuring or killing you. "Turning the other cheek" would be foolish and quickly turn you into a big loser.
        
The Correct Policy in Warfare
Warfare is largely a return to the laws of the jungle. When two countries go to war, they relinquish the rules against using violence to resolve conflicts. Instead, the conflict is ended when one country's army is overpowered and gives up to the victor, who then dictates the conditions of peace. When facing an enemy that is dead-set on destroying us, "turning the other cheek" is not a recipe for winning. It merely hastens the enemy's victory over us. Nor is "an eye for an eye" going to end the conflict. It would only prolong the war indefinitely, or until we have both wiped each other out.

Since warfare is a return to the laws of the jungle, winning wars requires the principle that works in the jungle, namely, hitting back many times harder than they are hitting us. If we succeed in doing this, then the enemy surrenders and we dictate the terms of peace.

How this Applies to Terrorism
Terrorists are not looking to merely humiliate or provoke us. They have been brainwashed by their governments, and by the religious leaders that are given sanction by their governments, to hate us and to want us dead. They consider us to be devils that are responsible for their people's misery They believe we deserve anything they do to us and that we make them do it to us. They feel no remorse for the lives they take. On the contrary - the more of us they kill, the happier they are. When we do nothing back, they see it as a victory over us cowards, and this encourages them to commit additional murderous acts. They intend to do so until the enemy is totally annihilated.

I repeat that unfortunately I can't say turning the other cheek is the solution to terrorism. The US is trying to hit the terrorists back ten times harder than they hit us, but this is not a simple matter because terrorists target civilians while we try to avoid targeting civilians. Furthermore, the war against terrorism is not like a "civilized" war against an enemy that abides by the Geneva Convention; such a war COULD be won by hitting back ten times harder. Terrorism is like a beast that grows more heads the more you cut off. And it is phenomenally cheap. Terrorist organizations financed with a few million dollars can take on countries with armies that cost trillions.

So how can we defeat terrorism? I'm not optimistic. I may address this question in a future newsletter (as though anyone in power will actually listen to me!) if I decide it's worth the effort.