No one blames America for World War II. That war is blamed -- rightly -- on those who started it: on the Axis powers and especially on Germany. Yet, at the same time, it has frequently been said that some responsibility also lies with those who stood by and did nothing. Today we are facing a similar situation. No one can blame the United States for the Palestinian terror war, but the US does seem to be standing by and doing little.
The great difference between having a state and not having one is precisely this: when you don?t have a state, the only thing that you can do is to angrily blame those who attack you and those who stand by and do nothing. When you have a state, that is not a reasonable way to behave. When you have a state, you have the capability and the responsibility to do the most you can to protect your citizens yourself. While it is true that American pressure is indirectly responsible for the tragic deaths of Israeli citizens and soldiers, that is no excuse.
In response to the horrific slaying of 14 soldiers in Hevron on Friday, an attack which came directly as a result of the withdrawal of the army from Hevron a few weeks earlier, the United States has affirmed Israel?s right to defend her citizens. That is the least they could do. However, in a situation of war, there is only marginal value in purely defensive action such as the carefully pinpointed actions against known perpetrators to which America agrees. Such actions can only occur after a successful attack, which means that they cannot prevent the attack. With regard to future attacks, they can only prevent future attacks by those who have been eliminated, but they do little to prevent future attacks by others. Knowing that Israeli reprisal will be limited in nature, ?suiciders? can feel reassured that they will not bring tragedy on their people as a whole, and that surely makes it easier to kill.
Many sympathetic people believe that the war that we are confronting is primarily a public relations war and that our goal is to show that Israel is an enlightened, compassionate state, which has been victimized since its inception by uncompromising and inhumane Arab terror. All of that is true, but it is not the proper goal of a sovereign nation, particularly not in time of war. What good is wining a public relations war if you wind up watching your people destroyed while doing so? In time of war, the goal of any nation has to be to win the war as swiftly as possible, and that cannot be done while fighting with kid gloves. Obviously, there is no reason to engage in any excessive violence that does not contribute directly to the goal of attaining victory, but at the same time, there is no reason, and no excuse, for refraining from any action that will serve the interest of victory.
So far nearly a thousand families have suffered the deaths of their loved ones, and many more thousands have suffered from serious and debilitating wounding. In addition to that, every family in Israel is in a constant state of anticipatory trauma. There is a feeling that if things continue as they are, eventually every family will face the unending pain that follows the loss of dearly loved ones. Those who remain will bear the scars forever. This is the goal of terrorism, and it has worked surprisingly well. It is a burden that no modern society can bear, and that no individuals deserve to bear, particularly not a society that has offered every kind of compromise, even contemplating the most dangerous concessions to a PLO state. We can turn an accusing finger at the Palestinians, who have behaved with unrelenting cruelty and inhumanity; we can put some of the responsibility on the United States; but, as a sovereign state, our goal cannot be to find someone to blame for our suffering, but rather to put an end to it.
There are ways. The first is that the Palestinian Authority has to be disarmed completely, even if this means that Israel must take upon herself the role of policeman. Even today we are forced to be policemen, but we are doing so at a great disadvantage. In order to provide effective policing, we need to be present at the place where the bombs are being assembled, and not just at the place where they are being detonated. Today the Palestinian Authority is the single most dangerous political entity in the world. Even Iraq is afraid of American attack, and anxious not to commit suicide, but Palestinians have proved their willingness to die in order to kill. If and when they get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, what will stop them from using them? If the present level of Israeli action has not proved a deterrence to continued suicide-murdering, how will such policies restrain more serious threats that are bound to arise in the future?
We no longer live in a time when every nation can be allowed to pursue military power freely. With the development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, a new parameter has come into being that limits the rights of nations. We cannot allow other nations the freedom to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Some nations ? primarily western democracies and Israel ? have proven themselves responsible democratic regimes, committed to life and not to death, and these should be allowed to maintain such weapons. But to allow entities that demonstrate violent, suicidal tendencies the same freedom would be madness. The Palestinian Authority is surely one of those entities.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Gabriel Danzig teaches in the Department of Classics at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan
The great difference between having a state and not having one is precisely this: when you don?t have a state, the only thing that you can do is to angrily blame those who attack you and those who stand by and do nothing. When you have a state, that is not a reasonable way to behave. When you have a state, you have the capability and the responsibility to do the most you can to protect your citizens yourself. While it is true that American pressure is indirectly responsible for the tragic deaths of Israeli citizens and soldiers, that is no excuse.
In response to the horrific slaying of 14 soldiers in Hevron on Friday, an attack which came directly as a result of the withdrawal of the army from Hevron a few weeks earlier, the United States has affirmed Israel?s right to defend her citizens. That is the least they could do. However, in a situation of war, there is only marginal value in purely defensive action such as the carefully pinpointed actions against known perpetrators to which America agrees. Such actions can only occur after a successful attack, which means that they cannot prevent the attack. With regard to future attacks, they can only prevent future attacks by those who have been eliminated, but they do little to prevent future attacks by others. Knowing that Israeli reprisal will be limited in nature, ?suiciders? can feel reassured that they will not bring tragedy on their people as a whole, and that surely makes it easier to kill.
Many sympathetic people believe that the war that we are confronting is primarily a public relations war and that our goal is to show that Israel is an enlightened, compassionate state, which has been victimized since its inception by uncompromising and inhumane Arab terror. All of that is true, but it is not the proper goal of a sovereign nation, particularly not in time of war. What good is wining a public relations war if you wind up watching your people destroyed while doing so? In time of war, the goal of any nation has to be to win the war as swiftly as possible, and that cannot be done while fighting with kid gloves. Obviously, there is no reason to engage in any excessive violence that does not contribute directly to the goal of attaining victory, but at the same time, there is no reason, and no excuse, for refraining from any action that will serve the interest of victory.
So far nearly a thousand families have suffered the deaths of their loved ones, and many more thousands have suffered from serious and debilitating wounding. In addition to that, every family in Israel is in a constant state of anticipatory trauma. There is a feeling that if things continue as they are, eventually every family will face the unending pain that follows the loss of dearly loved ones. Those who remain will bear the scars forever. This is the goal of terrorism, and it has worked surprisingly well. It is a burden that no modern society can bear, and that no individuals deserve to bear, particularly not a society that has offered every kind of compromise, even contemplating the most dangerous concessions to a PLO state. We can turn an accusing finger at the Palestinians, who have behaved with unrelenting cruelty and inhumanity; we can put some of the responsibility on the United States; but, as a sovereign state, our goal cannot be to find someone to blame for our suffering, but rather to put an end to it.
There are ways. The first is that the Palestinian Authority has to be disarmed completely, even if this means that Israel must take upon herself the role of policeman. Even today we are forced to be policemen, but we are doing so at a great disadvantage. In order to provide effective policing, we need to be present at the place where the bombs are being assembled, and not just at the place where they are being detonated. Today the Palestinian Authority is the single most dangerous political entity in the world. Even Iraq is afraid of American attack, and anxious not to commit suicide, but Palestinians have proved their willingness to die in order to kill. If and when they get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, what will stop them from using them? If the present level of Israeli action has not proved a deterrence to continued suicide-murdering, how will such policies restrain more serious threats that are bound to arise in the future?
We no longer live in a time when every nation can be allowed to pursue military power freely. With the development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, a new parameter has come into being that limits the rights of nations. We cannot allow other nations the freedom to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Some nations ? primarily western democracies and Israel ? have proven themselves responsible democratic regimes, committed to life and not to death, and these should be allowed to maintain such weapons. But to allow entities that demonstrate violent, suicidal tendencies the same freedom would be madness. The Palestinian Authority is surely one of those entities.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Gabriel Danzig teaches in the Department of Classics at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan