(THE SHEEP AND THE WOLF - 5)

against us. But we shall find it very difficult to forgive the Arabs
for making us kill Arabs. This will be more difficult."

Any elementary course in political science makes a distinction
between power or force used by a state, and violence committed by indi-
viduals.

If we are going to put an American pilot who is flying a bombing
mission over Vietnam in the same category as an Arab terrorist mailing
a bomb or kidnapping a plane, then one should despair of the meaningful
use of language, or in the future of the reasonable mind.

In an imperfect world human institutions share imperfection, and even
the power of state is subject to corruption and misuse. But in a demo-
cratic state there are non-violent means of effecting change of govern-
ment without bombing banks, government buildings or laboratories, and
without kidnapping and hijacking. And this is the primary distinction
between the FBI, with all of their revealed failings, and the Weather-
men of the SDS, with all of their implied virtues. If someone tells
us in all seriousness that the Weathermen and the FBI and the Black
Panthers are morally in the same boat, for they are all violent, then
one should despair of the fate of rationality and the meaningful use
of language.

A police department may beat up demonstrators, but they also maintain,
however imperfectly, the city's peace. Do we really see no moral dis-
tinction between these established agencies of force and those who feel
that they are justified to use force to annihilate innocent civilians?

Those who condemn the terrorists and then proceed to hedge their con-
demnation by referring to parallel violence committed by the police or

(THE SHEEP AND THE WOLF - 6)

the FBI or the army or society, create a climate of understanding which only serves to encourage the further tactics of terror.

Public figures have fallen into this trap, and so have ministers of religion, and so have candidates for high public office, and so have columnists who, on many issues, are able to think clearly and logically. Let me give you an example in the column of William Raspberry who asks whether England would be justified in attacking Algeria if a group of Black Panthers living in Algeria made a raid on England.

In a letter to Mr. Raspberry, Monroe H. Freedman, Professor of Law at George Washington University, writes: "The analogy won't hold up, as becomes obvious if we move the situation closer to home and add some relevant facts, omitted by Mr. Raspberry. Let's assume that a group of Mexican extremists insists upon the return of Texas to Mexico, on the ground that we originally took the territory by force. Assume further that a band of terrorists, operating from strongholds in Mexico, lob mortars into Texas cities and towns, blow up American children on the way to school, plant bombs in American supermarkets, and hire Japanese mercenaries to machine gun everyone in the lobby of National Airport - and boast that they will continue to commit similar barbarities as long as the United States exists. Assume also that the Mexican government provides support for the terrorists, justifies their goals and their acts in international forums, treats them as heroes, and refuses to act to curb their atrocities. - Could there be any doubt in such a situation that the United States would - and should - take direct action itself against the terrorist bases to protect American lives?"

The Rev. Francis B. Sayre deplores all violence, including Israeli violence. This is the response that came to him from a correspondent who

(THE SHEEP AND THE WOLF - 7)

prefers to remain anonymous: "You have taken no steps to balance off your
criticism of Israel with even a single world of criticism of those Arab
states who harbor and protect terrorists, and who day after day preach
ugly hatred against the Jews, and thus contribute to the terrorist men-
tality. Even opponents of capital punishment can make the distinction
between the actions of a murderer and those of the policeman or the
executioner."

"Compassion for all victims of violence is not only understandable, but the only possible reaction. But even-handed compassion for victims is different from even-handed condemnation of those who practice violence or react to it. And your excoriation of Israel and benign ignoring of the other States is less than even-handed. If you had chosen yesterday only to invoke God's mercy and guidance on behalf of all of us, victims as well as dispensers of violence, there could be no faulting of your mission. But when you enter the field of judging the actions of your fellowmen or their governments, you bear a responsibility not to permit those judgments to be affected by your obviously unremitting and unrelenting hatred of Israel, and perhaps even of the Israeli people."

Clearly, then, even clear thinking people find it very difficult to
think clearly upon the issues of violence and power. Those who are able
to make a distinction between Arab violence and Israeli reaction to it,
must take care not to lose their clarity of mind. Under no circumstances
must they give way to the urge to justify counterviolence. For under no
circumstances, no matter what the conditions, is terror justifiable. And
that must be our position. After all, not all homeless refugees turn to
violence. Not all oppressed people become terrorists. And not all slum
dwellers turn to crime. We must stop excusing these acts of terror, and

(THE SHEEP AND THE WOLF - 8)

seeking to find reasons to justify acts of desperation, when these acts
destroy the sanctity of life. And above all, we must take care to
muffle any sympathy for the Jewish Defense League, for under their
demagogue cry of "Never Again!" they can only remove the moral dis-
tinction between us and those who seek to destroy us.

Sukkot reminds us of the ambivalence of power. Power may corrupt;
yet the absence of power only invites violence. And against violence,
power is the only defense.

When it comes to violence, the pacifist denies its necessity, and
Michiavelli denies its evil. But both the pacifist and Michiavelli
make violence inevitable. One does it deliberately; the other does it
by his inviting and enticing helplessness.

Our task is to remain cool in a world that has gone hot in madness;
to remain logical in a world that is pathological.

We prize the sanctity of the human being; the terrorist does not.
That is our distinction.

Those who value human life are at a disadvantage when facing the
challenge of those who place little value on human life...their own
of another's.

Human decency makes us vulnerable and makes us the potential victims. But their advantage is only short-range. Human decency is our immediate weakness. But human decency is our ultimate strength. In the long run, to hold life sacred is to our advantage. And in the long run, it is the justification for the legitimate use of power.

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500

I shall attend the musical evening and dinner on Wednesday, February 18, 1970.

I shall bring with me as guest(s)

MA

FEB 10 '70

Signed

JEAN SAINTENY

13 Février 1969

KISSINGER, HENRY A.,

/S

5 RUE POMEREU
PARIS XVI
TÉL. KLÉBER 77-23

Cher Ami,

En rentrant de voyage, je trouve votre lettre du 7 Février m'annonçant la visite à Paris du Sous-Secrétaire d'Etat Elliott Richardson.

J'aurais été moi-même très désireux de faire sa connaissance et de m'entretenir avec lui, mais je pense qu'il a été très pris par la réunion de l'O.C.D.E., car je n'ai jusqu'à ce jour reçu aucune nouvelle de lui.

Je suis par ailleurs très heureux d'apprendre que, comme je le souhaitais, vous accompagnerez le Président à Paris à la fin de ce mois, et naturellement, nous es-pérons beaucoup vous rencontrer à cette occasion.

Dans cette attente,

Je vous prie de croire, Cher Ami, à tous nos sentiments très fidèles.

Monsieur le Conseiller Henry A.Kissinger
La Maison Blanche
WASHINGTON

RECEIVED

FEB 19 1969

CENTRAL FILES

EMBASSY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Paris, France

February 19, 1970

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Monsieur Jean Sainteny has asked if we would
forward the enclosed envelopes to you, which we
are happy to do.