Last night, I had the wonderful opportunity to hear Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States speak at an event sponsored by Hillel, PLA, Schreyer and others. I was very impressed with the way he spoke--the poise, insight, passion and education on the history of the relationship between Israel and the United States. Some of his metaphors were ones I had not considered before--the promised land of New England as the promised land the Israelites entered after being freed from the hands of Pharaoh. The biblical references seemed a little out of place for a political speech, but I appreciated the connection and comparison.      

What impressed me more than the 30min speech he gave was the manner in which Dr. Oren answered and fielded questions from the audience. The questions seemed to be more accusations rather than questions. However, Dr. Oren answered them with the respect and dignity he felt they deserved. His background in Islamic studies as well as his experience serving in the Israeli Defense Forces gave him a perspective to which many in that room could not compare. I was impressed by the way he responded to Rishi's question about leadership--that he leaves his personal opinions behind and works to represent the platforms and positions of the state of Israel. 
     
I wish there was time for more questions and I had hoped that the people asking questions would be more interested in a discussion than in an attack. It's very hard to talk to someone who won't hear a word you have to say. There's no room to grow and learn more about a situation if you are not willing to hear what the other side has to say. This issue is not black and white (what issue ever is?) and the complexities involved mean that no side is ever going to be fully satisfied. However, the will to talk, discuss and compromise is the only way any sort of resolution could possibly be achieved. 

This week, Mohammed Mereh opened fire and killed three young children, a school teacher (also the father of two of the children) and three French soldiers before jumping to his death following a police raid of his apartment. This is one of the worst terrorist attacks France has seen since 1995. How horrible that three children had to lose their lives. May all of the victims rest in peace. 

I'm curious to know what you think about the following question: Is a "lone wolf" attack is worse than an organized attack? Mereh was described as acting on his own, without the influence or encouragement of an organized terrorist association (while he did claim ties to Al Queda). Is someone who gathers their own resources and puts together their own plot a bigger or worse threat than an entire organization working on an attack? I wonder what made that a "lone-wolf" put the facts together in such a way that he felt he had to take action? Are other people thinking in this same way? Where are they getting their information? 

On the other hand, a "lone wolf" is only one man. An entire organization could be so much more effective in their destruction (not that Mereh was at all ineffective). An organization could have multiple people working towards the same goal and replace an attackers that end up being killed while a person working on their own might not necessarily have that immediate replacement. However, only one man plotting an attack would be harder to detect and prevent. 

So, do you think a lone wolf attack is better or worse (while none are good) than an organized attack? Why?