It Is Difficult to Tear Myself Away from the TV Screen at the Moment

Yom Ha’Atazmaut 5762

Israel Independence Day 2002

It is difficult to tear myself away from the TV screen at the moment. Satellite technology has enabled me to gain access to a host of different news channels, so I can pretty well ensure continual news coverage of the situation in Israel. I finally have it more or less sorted – if you channel surf carefully enough between CNN, BBC, ITN, SKY and FOX it is possible to spend days on end in front of the television without ever hearing about anything else, which is great if you are an information obsessive, although apparently not so wonderful if you value things like social lives, relationships, etc. At times like these, however, little else seems of great significance – every twist and turn in the conflict seems critical as the crisis unfolds.

Looking back over a year, I was angry with the Israeli political and judicial system for allowing Ariel Sharon to stand as a prime ministerial candidate after his record during the Lebanon War. I don’t think any politician who has been implicated in incidents like Sabra and Chatilla should be allowed to stand for government again, and frankly, I expect better of Israel. Nevertheless, I have learned to accept that he was elected to serve as Israel’s Prime Minister in fully democratic elections, and, in that capacity, he took on a mandate to protect Israel and its citizens. I respect him in as much as he is passionately committed to the State of Israel and he clearly has Israel’s interests at heart; I was dubious, and I remain dubious about his leadership style and often non-compromising policies.

I am convinced that Sharon is not entirely innocent in the current conflict. I think he could have been done more to quieten the situation, and create more peaceful circumstances on the ground. However, to regard him as the primary cause of the current problems is nonsense; to blame him entirely for it is nothing short of outrageous.

I keep returning to the much-discussed events at Camp David and Taba in the autumn and winter of 2000. It is undisputed that Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat more than any Israeli Prime Minister ever has. Despite the contrasting versions of the events that took place at that time, Bill Clinton himself testified to the fact that at Taba, when both Barak and Clinton could almost reach out and touch the end of their terms in office, Barak went probably as far as is conceivably possible to settle the conflict with the Palestinians – practically the entire West Bank (plus compensatory land from within the pre-1967 borders), the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the right of return for a limited number of Palestinian refugees were all on the table. Arafat had a clear opportunity to accept the offer and begin the process of creating a Palestinian State. He said no.

The question is: why would he do that? I can only see two possibilities: (i) he wasn’t happy with the offer – he genuinely felt that it wasn’t enough; or (ii) he didn’t want to put an end to the conflict – it was in his and/or the Palestinian people’s interests to continue their struggle. If the offer wasn’t sufficient, presumably the appropriate way of dealing with it would have been to tell Clinton and Barak that it wasn’t enough, and to begin another round of negotiations. That didn’t happen. Instead, talks broke down, and a new intifada broke out. Regardless of whether the current intifada was prompted by Sharon’s walk up to the Temple Mount or not (the most convincing evidence seems to indicate that it was largely irrelevant), if Arafat really wanted to continue to negotiate a settlement, he would have clamped down on the Palestinian protestors without delay. But he didn’t do that. Therefore, the only possible conclusion one can reach is option (ii): that Arafat wanted to escalate the conflict. One can speculate why this might be the case – perhaps he felt he had been negotiated into a corner, and had to make compromises that his people would then hold him accountable for. Perhaps he was concerned about going down in history as the ultimate appeaser, rather than a great freedom fighter. Perhaps he wanted a new showdown with Sharon – after all, Sharon clearly won their last battle in the 1980s. His motivations remain cloudy, but one fact is absolutely crystal clear: the primary responsibility for the return to the current violence rests squarely with Yasser Arafat.

That established, it is therefore clear that this is violence imposed on Israel, and therefore a battle of ayn brera (no choice). One can criticise Israel for the way in which it has handled this war of no choice, for its uncompromising position, for its reluctance or refusal to create channels for negotiation, for its lack of vision, etc., but any such criticism should always be properly placed in appropriate context – this is a battle that has been imposed on Israel, not one that has been caused by it.

But what about the occupied territories? Surely this conflict was caused by Israel’s continual refusal to get out of the territories? Surely if Israel would just accept UN Resolutions 242 and 338, this would all just end? Isn’t Israel the last remaining occupying force in the entire world?

Hang on a minute. Some history. The United Nations did not call for Israel to simply withdraw from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Resolution 242 from 1967, also calls for the “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and “respect for or acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area, and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Furthermore, UN Resolution 338 from 1973 states that “concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.”[1]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Yitzchak Shamir, Shimon Peres, Yitzchak Rabin and Ehud Barak spent the 1990s following the example set by Menachem Begin in the late 1970s, attempting to build agreements designed to terminate belligerency and acknowledge sovereignty. They even achieved some degree of success, and, as a result returned territory: Bethlehem, Jericho, Hebron, Nablus, Jenin, etc., were all returned, as the Sinai Peninsula had been almost two decades earlier. So Israel has clearly and continually demonstrated its desire for peace. It has signed agreements with Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. Regarding acknowledgement of every state in the area, there is no problem on Israel’s side here. No Israeli has ever said that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., have no right to exist. No Israeli has ever maintained that the Arab nations have no right to live in peace within secure or recognized boundaries. The only reason this clause is included in United Nations resolutions is because these Arab states have continually and consistently refused to accept Israel’s right to exist as a free and independent Jewish State within the region.

But hold on, you argue. What does all this have to do with the Palestinians? They don’t have a state. Fair enough – Israel has not yet managed to achieve a lasting peace with various Arab nations because or those Arab nations’ refusal to accept Israel – but the occupied territories issue is not about the whole Arab world. Isn’t it simply about the Palestinians’ right to live in their own independent homeland?

On the most simplistic level, yes. And statistics show that most Israelis recognise that the Palestinians do indeed have a legitimate claim to part of the land, and a large percentage of Israeli society is willing to cede land for peace. But the United Nations resolutions that are continually quoted by Palestinian leaders, call for an end to belligerency. They call for the right of all peoples in the region to live in security and peace. Now we were well on our way to achieving that eighteen months ago, but then Arafat said no to Barak’s offer, and returned to his old belligerent tactics. Israel didn’t do that. Arafat did. So, entirely legitimately and very much in accordance with UN Resolution 338, Ariel Sharon called for a cessation of violence as a precondition for negotiations, just as the United Nations did in 1973. In fact, all he wanted initially was seven days of quiet, and he recently agreed to back down even on this demand. But the belligerency continued. The suicide attacks continued. Israelis’ continued to be murdered and maimed in their home.

Furthermore, Arafat, the Palestinian Authority and its extremist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have singularly failed to comply with Resolution 242, and the demand to recognise the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Jewish State of Israel. Indeed, the Palestinian school textbooks, that were developed in the second half of the 1990s at more or less exactly the same time Israel and the Palestinians were attempting to implement the Oslo Peace Accords, fail to recognise Israel’s existence in any graphics or illustrations. This is aside from the fact that the same textbooks also blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, and contain numerous antisemitic stereotypes tied to ancient religious disputes and enmity.[2]

In short then, it is not just Israel that has failed to comply by UN resolutions 242 and 338; the Palestinians’ belligerent tactics and their most basic failure to recognise the legitimacy of the Jewish State in spite of some of their rhetoric, clearly demonstrate that they too have much further to go before these two United Nation resolutions are finally actualised.

But these factors are generally dismissed as mere details. Much more important at the moment is the whole issue of suicide bombings, so let us briefly return to them. Hundreds of Israelis have been killed by suicide bombers in the past eighteen months. Sbarro, Moment, Matza, all familiar names of Israeli restaurants, have now become synonymous with murder and massacre. Today, Israelis live in terror. When tensions are high, many refuse to leave their homes for fear that they will never return. Palestinians argue that this is the only way to get Israel and the world to listen to their plight, yet Israel and the world are more than aware of their situation, and made every possible effort throughout the 1990s to negotiate a settlement. Yitzchak Rabin, one of the truly great leaders of Israeli history, even paid the ultimate price for his efforts – he was assassinated by an Israeli right wing extremist.

But, it is argued, suicide bombers are extremists. Surely a distinction should be drawn between the actions of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, and extremist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Well, so the Israelis thought when Rabin, Peres and Barak sat down with Arafat. But the facts have become clear. Between August 2001 and Israel’s military incursion into the West Bank in April 2002, one organisation - the Al Aqsa Brigades - was responsible for 22 attacks on Israeli citizens killing 26 people and injuring 613. The Al Aqsa Brigades, recently declared a terrorist organisation by the United States, is a cover name for Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s political faction. Fuad Shoubaki, the finance officer of the Palestinian Authority, pays salaries to known terrorists. He also funded and organized the operation to smuggle arms on board the “Karine A” ship, which contained dozens of tons of quality weapons, including anti-tank, anti-aircraft and steep projectory weapons, which were transferred to the Palestinian Authority from Iran. Similarly, Marwan Barghouti, who is head of the Fatah’s supreme council in the West Bank and operates directly under the authority of Arafat, directs the Al Aqsa Brigades, fires up his people to fight the Israelis and is directly responsible for passing concrete directives to operatives. So let’s be clear – the Palestinian Authority, headed up by Yasser Arafat, has created an organisation within itself to conduct suicide attacks on Israeli civilians.

One could argue, as some members of the British National Union of Teachers recently did, that these suicide bombers are simply so desperate that all they can now do is give up their lives in acts of martyrdom to rectify their situation. I’m sorry – I genuinely feel for the Palestinians, and passionately believe that they have every right to live in a free and independent state with dignity and all basic human rights – but let’s not forget our recent history. Statehood was there for the taking – everything Israeli could legitimately offer the Palestinians without severely compromising its own security was on offer, and Arafat not only said no, but he returned to violence. Israel teetered on the edge of civil war over these negotiations and lost one of its greatest and most courageous Prime Ministers in the process. If the Palestinians are desperate – and they clearly are – they might want to spend a few brief moments considering how and why their own leaders have failed them time and time again.

But the western world should go further than this. It shouldn’t need historical data to make the case against suicide bombings. The notion that an individual can walk into a crowded public area and murder innocent civilians is wrong. Full stop. There can be no justification for this kind of violence. There can be no tolerance for it. It is despicable, immoral and abhorrent. Quite simply, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. The moment we even begin to suggest otherwise, we start to undermine some of the most basic principles of liberal democracy – principles that millions of Allied soldiers gave up their lives for in the Second World War. If we believe that all human beings have the right to all basic freedoms, then we must also believe that Israeli civilians, both Arabs and Jews, have these rights too.

So for the extremist Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, there must be no sympathy and no understanding ever. These organisations openly claim that they are not committed to a Palestinian State alongside a Jewish State; they are committed to a Palestinian State instead of a Jewish State. It has become abundantly clear that for them this is not a conflict about territory. Rather, this is a conflict about Muslims and Jews, and the notion that no Jews should have sovereignty over any part of the region.

For evidence of this, consider the truly shocking and horrifying suicide attack in Netanya on the first night of the Jewish festival of Passover, 27 March 2002. According to the latest figures, 28 people were murdered in the Park Hotel that evening, whilst taking part in a Passover “seder”, or ritual meal. For those unaware of this fact, the “seder” commemorates the biblical exodus from Egypt, and there is no single meal in the Jewish calendar that is more religiously significant or meaningful. In Christianity, the equivalent would probably be a communal church lunch on Christmas day, although arguably even that underplays it. Historically, the Passover “seder” was the meal Jesus and his disciples sat down to at “the last supper”, but it is a tradition that dates back much further than that. So, when 250 Jews gathered together at the hotel in Netanya that evening, they were doing so to participate in one of the most ancient religious rituals known to humankind. Murdering innocent people in the midst of such worship is horrific enough; the fact that five Holocaust survivors were amongst the 28 massacred only adds to the continuing sense of shock and outrage.

I don’t know whether the suicide bomber in this particular instance fully understood what he was doing. However, I have no doubt whatsoever that Hamas as an organisation was totally aware. This was a deliberate and calculated attack not on the State of Israel, but on Judaism and the Jewish People, and as such was clearly and undisputedly an act of the most aggressive form of antisemitism possible. It was this act that broke the back of Sharon’s government. It was this act that prompted the Israel Defence Forces to begin their operation in the West Bank, because it, unlike most of the western world, is able to distinguish between the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, and blatant antisemitism.

There has been a lot of talk about antisemitism recently. Some examples are blown out of all proportion, and clearly not every criticism of Sharon, the IDF, or the State of Israel can be categorised as Judeophobia. But a shift has taken place in recent months. Research indicates that antisemitic incidents are on the rise. Perhaps most disturbingly, in the last few weeks a number of synagogues in France have been firebombed – in Marseilles, Le Havre and Montpellier. In a separate incident, a bus belonging to a Jewish school in a Paris suburb was also set ablaze. There are countless other more minor examples – in Britain, Belgium, Canada and Finland – but these incidents rarely make their way onto the national and international news. To my mind, this only serves to suggest that the western media, along with some of the western pro-Palestinian liberal “peace” activists, consistently fail to see the wider context within which the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is taking place. The fact that Arabs can firebomb synagogues in France at exactly the same time as an escalation in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is taking place, is as blatant evidence as should be needed to indicate that, for some at least, this battle is not primarily motivated by a desire for Palestinian sovereignty and independence, but is rather grounded in an uncompromising and fanatical mistrust of, or hatred for Jews.