Sayeret
10-02-2004, 07:28 PM
In recent weeks Israel has suffered a wave of criticism for what has come to be known as a “Policy of Liquidation.” It has been argued that it is immoral, undemocratic, unjust, and inefficient. Let us examine these claims within the context of the Middle East realities.
It must be understood that the current violent confrontation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority did not simply break out spontaneously but was premeditated and pre-planned by the Palestinian Authority in order to improve the Palestinian position in the international political arena vis-?-vis Israel. The P.A. calculated that the use violence would undermine Israel’s determination to strive for peace and an end to the conflict. Up until this point Israel had gained sympathy in the international arena for its approach to the peace process. The P.A., in a bid to improve its bargaining position, used the then-opposition leader and today Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon’s controversial visit to the Temple Mount as a pretext for the adoption of a new strategy. The P.A.’ s strategic goal was to bring an international force into the equation—preferably a European one. They opposed the choice of an American contingent, as they did not want a “single” player, especially one whom they regard as favorable to Israel’s approach and policies.
In light of this decision, the P.A. chose to institute a policy of violence, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare.
In order to address specific arguments that criticize Israel’s “liquidation policy,” some basic factors concerning Israel’s security situation must be clearly spelled out:
Israel is currently at war. At this point, it is a limited war (on the part of both sides), and although it is still a low-intensity conflict, events prove it to be very aggressive in its nature.
It is a war of attrition whose express purpose is to force an exhausted Israeli population to submit to every extreme Palestinian demand. Among these demands is the most dangerous one—the so-called “right of return”—which, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to Israel’s participation in its own destruction.
The belligerent activity of the Palestinians combines “classic” guerrilla and terror tactics along with sophisticated manipulation of the mass media for propaganda purposes. Attacks on vehicles driving on central roads between Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, as well as sniper fire directed towards the civilian population in Israeli neighborhoods from adjacent Palestinian towns (only several hundred meters away) are every day occurrences. Parallel activities such as car-bombs and the planting of explosive charges in buses and in populated commercial areas are also being employed to kill, and terrorize innocent civilians.
In an attempt to get the peace process back on track, and to curtail the violence, Israel has done what it could to keep channels open between its own security personnel and its Palestinian counterparts. In cases where Palestinian violence exceeded particular “accepted” levels, Israel was forced to respond militarily, albeit in a limited manner.
In order to exert pressure on the P.A. and the Palestinian population to reduce the level of violence and to prevent attacks directed at its citizens, Israel has used a combination of military and economic measures: the encirclement of Palestinian towns, the imposition of closure on Palestinian areas, and the prevention of Palestinians from entering into Israeli territory.
Moral considerations and the concern over international opinion tend to result in only partial closures on P.A. areas. For this reason, the effectiveness of these measures, from the Israeli point of view, is limited.
Arafat’s addiction to a pattern of Machiavellian behavior and his repeated miscalculations are gambling with the fate and well being of his people. Instead of following the political track he vowed to keep by pledging his word and by lending his signature to the Oslo Accords, reiterated later at Camp David, Arafat chose the course with which he is most familiar—violence and terror. The Palestinian population has suffered the consequences of his irresponsible and unrepentant—though completely, consistent—behavior.
It is not in Israel’s interest to promote the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, but it is faced with a number of serious dilemmas. On the one hand, Israel cannot encourage Arafat’s policy of “entity-support terrorism,” but on the other hand, Israel’s moral standards have been compromised when it has been compelled to institute “collective punishment” for hard-working Palestinians who would prefer to find a peaceful political solution to an extremely complex problem.
Frequent shootings at Gilo neighborhood in Jerusalem, carried out by small cells composed of PA officials, have terrorized the inhabitants for the last four months. The actions of these terrorists have also affected the lives of the people in the Palestinian town of Beit Jala, from where they conduct their shooting.
Israel, therefore, faces two choices in this situation: Massive counter-fire or surgical removal of the perpetrators.
In order to avoid collective punishment for the Palestinian people—an inevitably result from massive counter-fire—other selective punitive means should be applied. One of them is to identify and then carefully single out those who are responsible for the violence directed at Israelis. Given these two choices, the latter approach is both legally and morally justifiable.
It should be noted that every sovereign democratic state, at some point or another, comes face to face with a particularly complicated and thorny issue that is inevitably bound to create moral and legal questions.
Some of the most respectable democratic states in the world who have faced such dilemmas, and who have been in far less of an existential situation than that in which Israel currently finds itself, have opted to solve these dilemmas in much more forceful ways.
Israel, after exhausting all political efforts at its disposal, chose to resort to a highly selective means of retaliation in order to intercept and eliminate specific individuals responsible for this violence and terror against Israelis.
Each and every one of the fifteen men who were reportedly killed by Israel up till now were directly involved in commanding, planning, or executing acts of terror and murder against innocent Israeli civilians.
Because the P.A. has ignored its promises and obligations under the Oslo agreement to prevent acts of terror, and furthermore, because its officials have encouraged supervised, and carried out acts of terror, Israel cannot rely on the cooperation of the P.A. All attempts by Israel to legally bring Palestinian terrorists to justice in Israeli courts would require a breach of Palestinian sovereignty. Israeli operatives would be forced to enter Palestinian self-rule areas, to abduct them, and to bring them back to Israel for legal proceedings—all of which constitute unlawful activities under international law. Unfortunately, repeated violations of signed agreements by the PA leaves the government of Israel with no other choice but to protect the safety and well being of its citizens.
Whether or not a “liquidation policy” is an effective course of action is a complicated question, depending on many variables. The policy must be analyzed within the context of the overall strategy of counter-terrorism
In a democratic state, this particular modus operandi should be limited to a short span of time, although it may be repeated at some point in the future if necessary. It should be very selective in its choice of targets and should be very carefully checked, case by case, by authorized senior personnel operating under strict judicial supervision.
The hypocritical complaints against Israel by Palestinian officials and their supporters condemning a so-called Israeli policy of terror, reminds me of a situation where the neighborhood bully freely terrorizes the more docile and peaceable people of the neighborhood, beating them up whenever it suits his fancy. When at lastconfronted with one good “punch” by someone who stands up to him, the bully turns around and, shrinking cowardly behind a fictitious cloak of “victimhood,” condemns this person as the genuine “bully.”
Israel should keep seeking every means to bring the Palestinians back to political dialogue. Both sides should prefer an honorable and peaceful solution to the historical dispute between them over the violent confrontation and unnecessary bloodshed that has characterized events in recent months. But until the P.A. returns to solemn pledges and undertakings it made on the world stage, and until it resumes fighting against terrorism—rather than aiding and abetting it—Israel has the right to prevent these acts of terror and to intercept and neutralize anyone who perpetrates these callous deeds against innocent civilians.
It must be understood that the current violent confrontation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority did not simply break out spontaneously but was premeditated and pre-planned by the Palestinian Authority in order to improve the Palestinian position in the international political arena vis-?-vis Israel. The P.A. calculated that the use violence would undermine Israel’s determination to strive for peace and an end to the conflict. Up until this point Israel had gained sympathy in the international arena for its approach to the peace process. The P.A., in a bid to improve its bargaining position, used the then-opposition leader and today Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon’s controversial visit to the Temple Mount as a pretext for the adoption of a new strategy. The P.A.’ s strategic goal was to bring an international force into the equation—preferably a European one. They opposed the choice of an American contingent, as they did not want a “single” player, especially one whom they regard as favorable to Israel’s approach and policies.
In light of this decision, the P.A. chose to institute a policy of violence, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare.
In order to address specific arguments that criticize Israel’s “liquidation policy,” some basic factors concerning Israel’s security situation must be clearly spelled out:
Israel is currently at war. At this point, it is a limited war (on the part of both sides), and although it is still a low-intensity conflict, events prove it to be very aggressive in its nature.
It is a war of attrition whose express purpose is to force an exhausted Israeli population to submit to every extreme Palestinian demand. Among these demands is the most dangerous one—the so-called “right of return”—which, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to Israel’s participation in its own destruction.
The belligerent activity of the Palestinians combines “classic” guerrilla and terror tactics along with sophisticated manipulation of the mass media for propaganda purposes. Attacks on vehicles driving on central roads between Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, as well as sniper fire directed towards the civilian population in Israeli neighborhoods from adjacent Palestinian towns (only several hundred meters away) are every day occurrences. Parallel activities such as car-bombs and the planting of explosive charges in buses and in populated commercial areas are also being employed to kill, and terrorize innocent civilians.
In an attempt to get the peace process back on track, and to curtail the violence, Israel has done what it could to keep channels open between its own security personnel and its Palestinian counterparts. In cases where Palestinian violence exceeded particular “accepted” levels, Israel was forced to respond militarily, albeit in a limited manner.
In order to exert pressure on the P.A. and the Palestinian population to reduce the level of violence and to prevent attacks directed at its citizens, Israel has used a combination of military and economic measures: the encirclement of Palestinian towns, the imposition of closure on Palestinian areas, and the prevention of Palestinians from entering into Israeli territory.
Moral considerations and the concern over international opinion tend to result in only partial closures on P.A. areas. For this reason, the effectiveness of these measures, from the Israeli point of view, is limited.
Arafat’s addiction to a pattern of Machiavellian behavior and his repeated miscalculations are gambling with the fate and well being of his people. Instead of following the political track he vowed to keep by pledging his word and by lending his signature to the Oslo Accords, reiterated later at Camp David, Arafat chose the course with which he is most familiar—violence and terror. The Palestinian population has suffered the consequences of his irresponsible and unrepentant—though completely, consistent—behavior.
It is not in Israel’s interest to promote the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, but it is faced with a number of serious dilemmas. On the one hand, Israel cannot encourage Arafat’s policy of “entity-support terrorism,” but on the other hand, Israel’s moral standards have been compromised when it has been compelled to institute “collective punishment” for hard-working Palestinians who would prefer to find a peaceful political solution to an extremely complex problem.
Frequent shootings at Gilo neighborhood in Jerusalem, carried out by small cells composed of PA officials, have terrorized the inhabitants for the last four months. The actions of these terrorists have also affected the lives of the people in the Palestinian town of Beit Jala, from where they conduct their shooting.
Israel, therefore, faces two choices in this situation: Massive counter-fire or surgical removal of the perpetrators.
In order to avoid collective punishment for the Palestinian people—an inevitably result from massive counter-fire—other selective punitive means should be applied. One of them is to identify and then carefully single out those who are responsible for the violence directed at Israelis. Given these two choices, the latter approach is both legally and morally justifiable.
It should be noted that every sovereign democratic state, at some point or another, comes face to face with a particularly complicated and thorny issue that is inevitably bound to create moral and legal questions.
Some of the most respectable democratic states in the world who have faced such dilemmas, and who have been in far less of an existential situation than that in which Israel currently finds itself, have opted to solve these dilemmas in much more forceful ways.
Israel, after exhausting all political efforts at its disposal, chose to resort to a highly selective means of retaliation in order to intercept and eliminate specific individuals responsible for this violence and terror against Israelis.
Each and every one of the fifteen men who were reportedly killed by Israel up till now were directly involved in commanding, planning, or executing acts of terror and murder against innocent Israeli civilians.
Because the P.A. has ignored its promises and obligations under the Oslo agreement to prevent acts of terror, and furthermore, because its officials have encouraged supervised, and carried out acts of terror, Israel cannot rely on the cooperation of the P.A. All attempts by Israel to legally bring Palestinian terrorists to justice in Israeli courts would require a breach of Palestinian sovereignty. Israeli operatives would be forced to enter Palestinian self-rule areas, to abduct them, and to bring them back to Israel for legal proceedings—all of which constitute unlawful activities under international law. Unfortunately, repeated violations of signed agreements by the PA leaves the government of Israel with no other choice but to protect the safety and well being of its citizens.
Whether or not a “liquidation policy” is an effective course of action is a complicated question, depending on many variables. The policy must be analyzed within the context of the overall strategy of counter-terrorism
In a democratic state, this particular modus operandi should be limited to a short span of time, although it may be repeated at some point in the future if necessary. It should be very selective in its choice of targets and should be very carefully checked, case by case, by authorized senior personnel operating under strict judicial supervision.
The hypocritical complaints against Israel by Palestinian officials and their supporters condemning a so-called Israeli policy of terror, reminds me of a situation where the neighborhood bully freely terrorizes the more docile and peaceable people of the neighborhood, beating them up whenever it suits his fancy. When at lastconfronted with one good “punch” by someone who stands up to him, the bully turns around and, shrinking cowardly behind a fictitious cloak of “victimhood,” condemns this person as the genuine “bully.”
Israel should keep seeking every means to bring the Palestinians back to political dialogue. Both sides should prefer an honorable and peaceful solution to the historical dispute between them over the violent confrontation and unnecessary bloodshed that has characterized events in recent months. But until the P.A. returns to solemn pledges and undertakings it made on the world stage, and until it resumes fighting against terrorism—rather than aiding and abetting it—Israel has the right to prevent these acts of terror and to intercept and neutralize anyone who perpetrates these callous deeds against innocent civilians.