There has never been a more dangerous time in Israel?s history, with rockets pointing at every artery and America?s war on terrorism shifting its crosshairs from Afghanistan to the Middle East. Considering this, and the fact that numerous terrorist groups operate within Israel?s disputed territories, the timing of leftist reservists refusing to serve there is certainly astonishing. However, it becomes understandable when viewed in conjunction with the larger leftist campaign, as it is transformed from the ?Peace Camp? into the ?War Crimes Camp?.
The leftist ?Peace Camp? has lost all credibility. Most Israelis now believe that the assorted Arab immigrants who suddenly, in 1964, adopted the identity ?Palestinians? are committed to a ?plan of stages? to replace Israel with Palestine. ?Self-rule? would provide the launching pad for real war backed by Arab neighbors against a smaller Israel, further demoralized by an internal fifth column.
There are many indicators of Palestinian intent to replace Israel, rather than live peacefully alongside it, from their textbooks to their turning down the Israeli offer of the territories. Consequently, most Israelis no longer believe that relinquishing the territories will bring peace. In fact, most feel it will expressly not bring peace, but rather Karine B, C, D and so on, until the Palestinians? ultimate goal of destroying Israel is achieved. As one formerly left-leaning kibbutz member put it ?If the Palestinians get a state of their own and have open borders with other Arab countries, we?ll be in the same pickle we?re in now. Imagine how many guns and rockets they would bring in to start this battle again in a few years?? Even Israelis in favor of separation or a ?wall? have no illusions that this will bring peace or satisfy the Palestinian aspirations. They simply hope that the ?wall? will contain the aggressions of terrorism and war.
Therefore, leftists can no longer claim that they are leading the way to peace. The name ?Peace Camp? was always a misnomer anyway, implying that anyone who disagreed with the leftist agenda wanted war. The truth is that everyone in Israel wants peace, left, right and center. They just disagree on how to achieve it. The left was more accurately the ?Appeasement Camp?, because they believed that giving up land and granting self-rule would lead to peace. Yet, after the eight year Oslo experiment, appeasement has clearly not worked and the majority of Israelis know it. Accordingly, leftist ranks have shrunk to a small minority among Jewish Israelis, barely attracting dozens to rallies where previously thousands had come. They?ve even taken to importing cohorts from Europe in order to create any kind of presence.
Therefore leftists have had to unveil an entirely new campaign, one not based on promises of peace: ?Leave the territories. Return to Ourselves.? The demands are the same as ever. However, the supporting rhetoric skirts the issue of peace, insinuating that just being in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is somehow ?corrupting Israeli society.? It is an old leftist argument from 1967, one whose greatest champion, left-wing Hebrew University professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, stridently advocated until his death in 1992. Is it wholly coincidental that just prior to the launch of the new campaign came the splashy publicity of reservists refusing to serve in the territories, a position also based on Leibowitz?s theories? It certainly dovetailed nicely. It certainly internationalized their platform, riveting Israeli and world attention to the messages of their new campaign: ?Get out of the territories! End the occupation! We will not defend the settlements!? Leftist reservists, led by Lt. David Zonshein and Lt. Yaniv Itzkovitz, drafted a petition, gathered 52 names and ran a newspaper advertisement explaining that they refuse to serve beyond the ?Green Line?, so as not to have to obey what they called ?illegal orders.? They charge the IDF with committing acts that were ?unconscionable? in the territories, although many were hearsay, and many signatories admitted that they were not referring to specific incidents, but simply to being there, ?occupying the land?, echoing Leibowitz?s philosophy.
Are there atrocities going on in the territories? Stan Goodenough, a journalist residing in Israel and a close observer of the IDF?s actions for over a decade, notes that all armies must deal with instances of excess and abuses of power, but the key is how these are addressed. A conscientious objector himself from the South African army, and a highly moral Christian, his opinion carries some weight: ?Whereas my SADF officers outspokenly defended all actions committed by the men they commanded, the IDF holds its soldiers up to a high standard of moral conduct; internal investigations, disciplinary committees, and rebuked, demoted or otherwise disciplined IDF soldiers are certainly not the exception here.? He concludes that ?light years separate the IDF from the SADF.?
Yet many leftist signatories gave detailed interviews to reporters very publicly airing criticisms of the army. Naturally these have found their way into the international media, damaging Israel?s reputation, feeding into the hands of its enemies and jeopardizing Israel?s very security at this critical time. Yet why now? Leibowitz?s philosophies have been around since 1967. Whatever would possess reservists to choose now to say such things?
Israel?s Supreme Court headed by Aharon Barak has played a role. The Supreme Court recently decided, using ad hoc criteria rather than legal precedent, to deny ex-Shin Bet Officer Ehud Yatom a civil service position, because 17 years ago he followed orders to kill two terrorists caught in the act of hijacking a bus in order to kill the women in it. All security personnel involved had received a Presidential pardon based the stake they had in defending the security of the nation. However, when Yatom was recently appointed Sharon?s advisor on terrorism, Yossi Sarid, left-of-center Meretz leader, brought the case before the Supreme Court, sniffing that the 17 year old incident smelled like a ?war crime? to him. Aharon Barak denied Yatom the post, brazenly signaling his court will not stand behind security orders, even ones that have previously received pardon by the President of Israel.
Naturally, the left has been having a field day ever since, ?warning? individuals against following military orders. Beginning with releasing the gory transcripts of the file to the Ma?ariv newspaper the next day, in order to sensationalize the ?war crime.? Militant leftist activist groups, like Gush Shalom, led by Uri Avnery, immediately began ominously ?warning? Israeli military personnel that anywhere in the world, anytime, even sixty years hence, they may be charged with ?war crimes? for not defying commanders? orders and second-guessing present and future Israeli courts, and even world courts, will deem ?proper? or ?legal?. Avnery also seized upon Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?s potential Belgium ?war crimes? trial, anticipating these Belgium-style courts being cloned around the world and warning various Israeli military leaders, including IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen Shaul Mofaz, that soon they won?t be able to set foot outside of Israel for fear of being tried for ?war crimes?. Further, warned Avnery, Israeli laws may change with the left coming to power, so they may not be ?safe? even at home.
Scant weeks later, the ?reservists? campaign emerged. Leftist groups like Yesh Gvul began flooding the country with leaflets warning reservists that they could some day be charged with ?war crimes? if they served in the territories. Zonshein and Itzkovitz began further campaigning for ?five hundred? signatories in order to, by their own admission ?prod the government to withdraw troops from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.? Why five hundred? Because left-wing professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz had postulated that if five hundred reservists would simultaneously refuse to serve in the territories, then Israel would be forced to abandon the area. After a few weeks Zonshein and Itzkovitz?s campaign had convinced over 200 to sign and they triumphantly declared, ?The decision is in our hands!? They were identifying their campaign positively as a politically motivated attempt to force the government?s hand.
The problem is that ?decisions? in a democracy are only legitimately made through the democratic process. Mofaz correctly accused the signatories of undermining Israel?s security in wartime, insinuating that left-wing political groups were behind the movement. In that case, he charged, the offense is ?worse than refusal, it?s incitement to rebellion.? One might have expected all Israeli leaders to defend the high moral standards of the IDF, as did Goodenough and an outraged majority of reservists, who countered the ?refusal letter? with a patriotic one of their own. Yet, many leftist leaders, although carefully disapproving refusal to serve, were surprisingly supportive of aspects of the reservists? resistance, publicly seconding doubts about the ?legality? of commanders? orders and encouraging individuals to defy those orders, feeding into the leftist campaign based around the fear of ?war crimes?.
The ?reservists? letter? is undemocratic, anti-military and appears largely to be the result of some members of the left attempting to bypass the majority and force their agenda onto the country, even if it means risking anarchy, weakening Israel?s ability to defend itself and damaging Israel?s reputation in the world.
Could all this damage to Israel be for a little publicity, to boost the numbers in leftist ranks? ?For every person willing to get arrested, ten take their slippers off and get off the couch and go to a rally?, noted one leftist. Sure enough, several weeks after the letter campaign began, a rally was held in Tel Aviv, proudly gathering leftists from all over Israel for the cameras. Now, more rallies are planned. One shudders to think what other irresponsible moves the left may attempt in order to get publicity for their ?war crimes? platform in the critical months ahead.
?The Peace Camp ? is waking up!? announced Yossi Beilin. Except the old leftist campaign to relinquish the territories is clearly no longer based on the idea of peace, but on the idea that serving in the territories could land you in war crimes court ? somehow, someday, some way. Is the ?Peace Camp? becoming the ?War Crimes Camp?? It certainly appears so. And it appears that the ?War Crimes Camp? has no real answers, certainly no promise of peace, just ominous warnings of ?war crimes? and ?corrupt societies?. In these dangerous times Israel requires more allegiance than that.
--------------------------------
Charlotte West is an Arizona-based columnist. The author can be reached at snoozalarm@hotmail.com.
The leftist ?Peace Camp? has lost all credibility. Most Israelis now believe that the assorted Arab immigrants who suddenly, in 1964, adopted the identity ?Palestinians? are committed to a ?plan of stages? to replace Israel with Palestine. ?Self-rule? would provide the launching pad for real war backed by Arab neighbors against a smaller Israel, further demoralized by an internal fifth column.
There are many indicators of Palestinian intent to replace Israel, rather than live peacefully alongside it, from their textbooks to their turning down the Israeli offer of the territories. Consequently, most Israelis no longer believe that relinquishing the territories will bring peace. In fact, most feel it will expressly not bring peace, but rather Karine B, C, D and so on, until the Palestinians? ultimate goal of destroying Israel is achieved. As one formerly left-leaning kibbutz member put it ?If the Palestinians get a state of their own and have open borders with other Arab countries, we?ll be in the same pickle we?re in now. Imagine how many guns and rockets they would bring in to start this battle again in a few years?? Even Israelis in favor of separation or a ?wall? have no illusions that this will bring peace or satisfy the Palestinian aspirations. They simply hope that the ?wall? will contain the aggressions of terrorism and war.
Therefore, leftists can no longer claim that they are leading the way to peace. The name ?Peace Camp? was always a misnomer anyway, implying that anyone who disagreed with the leftist agenda wanted war. The truth is that everyone in Israel wants peace, left, right and center. They just disagree on how to achieve it. The left was more accurately the ?Appeasement Camp?, because they believed that giving up land and granting self-rule would lead to peace. Yet, after the eight year Oslo experiment, appeasement has clearly not worked and the majority of Israelis know it. Accordingly, leftist ranks have shrunk to a small minority among Jewish Israelis, barely attracting dozens to rallies where previously thousands had come. They?ve even taken to importing cohorts from Europe in order to create any kind of presence.
Therefore leftists have had to unveil an entirely new campaign, one not based on promises of peace: ?Leave the territories. Return to Ourselves.? The demands are the same as ever. However, the supporting rhetoric skirts the issue of peace, insinuating that just being in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is somehow ?corrupting Israeli society.? It is an old leftist argument from 1967, one whose greatest champion, left-wing Hebrew University professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, stridently advocated until his death in 1992. Is it wholly coincidental that just prior to the launch of the new campaign came the splashy publicity of reservists refusing to serve in the territories, a position also based on Leibowitz?s theories? It certainly dovetailed nicely. It certainly internationalized their platform, riveting Israeli and world attention to the messages of their new campaign: ?Get out of the territories! End the occupation! We will not defend the settlements!? Leftist reservists, led by Lt. David Zonshein and Lt. Yaniv Itzkovitz, drafted a petition, gathered 52 names and ran a newspaper advertisement explaining that they refuse to serve beyond the ?Green Line?, so as not to have to obey what they called ?illegal orders.? They charge the IDF with committing acts that were ?unconscionable? in the territories, although many were hearsay, and many signatories admitted that they were not referring to specific incidents, but simply to being there, ?occupying the land?, echoing Leibowitz?s philosophy.
Are there atrocities going on in the territories? Stan Goodenough, a journalist residing in Israel and a close observer of the IDF?s actions for over a decade, notes that all armies must deal with instances of excess and abuses of power, but the key is how these are addressed. A conscientious objector himself from the South African army, and a highly moral Christian, his opinion carries some weight: ?Whereas my SADF officers outspokenly defended all actions committed by the men they commanded, the IDF holds its soldiers up to a high standard of moral conduct; internal investigations, disciplinary committees, and rebuked, demoted or otherwise disciplined IDF soldiers are certainly not the exception here.? He concludes that ?light years separate the IDF from the SADF.?
Yet many leftist signatories gave detailed interviews to reporters very publicly airing criticisms of the army. Naturally these have found their way into the international media, damaging Israel?s reputation, feeding into the hands of its enemies and jeopardizing Israel?s very security at this critical time. Yet why now? Leibowitz?s philosophies have been around since 1967. Whatever would possess reservists to choose now to say such things?
Israel?s Supreme Court headed by Aharon Barak has played a role. The Supreme Court recently decided, using ad hoc criteria rather than legal precedent, to deny ex-Shin Bet Officer Ehud Yatom a civil service position, because 17 years ago he followed orders to kill two terrorists caught in the act of hijacking a bus in order to kill the women in it. All security personnel involved had received a Presidential pardon based the stake they had in defending the security of the nation. However, when Yatom was recently appointed Sharon?s advisor on terrorism, Yossi Sarid, left-of-center Meretz leader, brought the case before the Supreme Court, sniffing that the 17 year old incident smelled like a ?war crime? to him. Aharon Barak denied Yatom the post, brazenly signaling his court will not stand behind security orders, even ones that have previously received pardon by the President of Israel.
Naturally, the left has been having a field day ever since, ?warning? individuals against following military orders. Beginning with releasing the gory transcripts of the file to the Ma?ariv newspaper the next day, in order to sensationalize the ?war crime.? Militant leftist activist groups, like Gush Shalom, led by Uri Avnery, immediately began ominously ?warning? Israeli military personnel that anywhere in the world, anytime, even sixty years hence, they may be charged with ?war crimes? for not defying commanders? orders and second-guessing present and future Israeli courts, and even world courts, will deem ?proper? or ?legal?. Avnery also seized upon Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?s potential Belgium ?war crimes? trial, anticipating these Belgium-style courts being cloned around the world and warning various Israeli military leaders, including IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen Shaul Mofaz, that soon they won?t be able to set foot outside of Israel for fear of being tried for ?war crimes?. Further, warned Avnery, Israeli laws may change with the left coming to power, so they may not be ?safe? even at home.
Scant weeks later, the ?reservists? campaign emerged. Leftist groups like Yesh Gvul began flooding the country with leaflets warning reservists that they could some day be charged with ?war crimes? if they served in the territories. Zonshein and Itzkovitz began further campaigning for ?five hundred? signatories in order to, by their own admission ?prod the government to withdraw troops from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.? Why five hundred? Because left-wing professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz had postulated that if five hundred reservists would simultaneously refuse to serve in the territories, then Israel would be forced to abandon the area. After a few weeks Zonshein and Itzkovitz?s campaign had convinced over 200 to sign and they triumphantly declared, ?The decision is in our hands!? They were identifying their campaign positively as a politically motivated attempt to force the government?s hand.
The problem is that ?decisions? in a democracy are only legitimately made through the democratic process. Mofaz correctly accused the signatories of undermining Israel?s security in wartime, insinuating that left-wing political groups were behind the movement. In that case, he charged, the offense is ?worse than refusal, it?s incitement to rebellion.? One might have expected all Israeli leaders to defend the high moral standards of the IDF, as did Goodenough and an outraged majority of reservists, who countered the ?refusal letter? with a patriotic one of their own. Yet, many leftist leaders, although carefully disapproving refusal to serve, were surprisingly supportive of aspects of the reservists? resistance, publicly seconding doubts about the ?legality? of commanders? orders and encouraging individuals to defy those orders, feeding into the leftist campaign based around the fear of ?war crimes?.
The ?reservists? letter? is undemocratic, anti-military and appears largely to be the result of some members of the left attempting to bypass the majority and force their agenda onto the country, even if it means risking anarchy, weakening Israel?s ability to defend itself and damaging Israel?s reputation in the world.
Could all this damage to Israel be for a little publicity, to boost the numbers in leftist ranks? ?For every person willing to get arrested, ten take their slippers off and get off the couch and go to a rally?, noted one leftist. Sure enough, several weeks after the letter campaign began, a rally was held in Tel Aviv, proudly gathering leftists from all over Israel for the cameras. Now, more rallies are planned. One shudders to think what other irresponsible moves the left may attempt in order to get publicity for their ?war crimes? platform in the critical months ahead.
?The Peace Camp ? is waking up!? announced Yossi Beilin. Except the old leftist campaign to relinquish the territories is clearly no longer based on the idea of peace, but on the idea that serving in the territories could land you in war crimes court ? somehow, someday, some way. Is the ?Peace Camp? becoming the ?War Crimes Camp?? It certainly appears so. And it appears that the ?War Crimes Camp? has no real answers, certainly no promise of peace, just ominous warnings of ?war crimes? and ?corrupt societies?. In these dangerous times Israel requires more allegiance than that.
--------------------------------
Charlotte West is an Arizona-based columnist. The author can be reached at snoozalarm@hotmail.com.