Even though I left Israel nearly three years ago now, I still retain some of my Israeli habits. So last night, when I came home and saw the news about the suicide bombing, I immediately picked up the phone to call my daughter in Tel Aviv and see if she was ok. [She was.]
Though the previous article talks about the decline of the Israel economy, there have been a few “rays of light.” The various phone companies in Israel no doubt have seen rising profits due to Israelis constantly calling each other and checking on one anothers whereabouts and well-being. And at least some unemployed young men have found jobs as security guards in front of every public building and nearly every private store, cafe and nightclub. Of course, this type of job is akin to Russian roulette (and in fact many of these security guards are young Russians).
Nonetheless, I have to say some things have indeed changed for the better.
For the first time since the outbreak of this intifada, the Israeli government did not blame the Palestinian Authority. Defense Minister Mofaz blamed Syria instead. Syria is the latest punching bag for the US and Israel, an easy target to blame all ills on. now that Saddam Hussein is gone. Not that I feel sorry for the Syrian government. Assad fils, despite his British education, seems to be only a marginal improvement on Assad pere. He hasn’t yet implemented major changes to the country’s authoritarian rule and it’s history of meddling in the affairs of surrounding countries. But somehow I am skeptical that Syria was involved even indirectly in this bombing (or in the recent Lebanese murder of Hariri).
In fact, Mofaz, a key partner of Arik Sharon and his approach to Palestinian violence over the past several years, shares at least part of the blame. Palestinian militant groups know how easy it will be to disrupt the very tentative cease fire now in place. They were quite successful in the past. Perpetrate an act of terror in Israel, and the IDF will come mindlessly roaring out, bent on revenge.
In an article by Ze’ev Schiff in today’s Ha’aretz, Schiff makes exactly this point:
“In another period during the military confrontation with the Palestinians, Israel’s retaliation to a suicide bombing of the kind that took place on Friday night in Tel Aviv would have been almost automatic. It would have been directed against the suicide bomber’s operators, regardless of the Palestinian Authority. The IDF would also have destroyed his house, thinking this would deter other suicide bombers.”
“…The second reason [Israel won't retaliate] comes from the conclusions of a special IDF inquiry committee that probed the effect of demolishing suicide bombers’ homes. The panel concluded there is no certainty that destroying the homes serves as a deterrent.”
Schiff understates here, perhaps deliberately, the conclusions of that report. Essentially the report says that not only haven’t house demolitions served as a deterrent, it is almost certain they have actually spurred on more terrorism. The reason why Schiff tones down the report’s conclusions, is becuase it completely undermines the justification used by Sharon and Mofaz for all their barbaric behavior over the past four years. They repeated over and over that the heavy hand against the Palestinians was a necessary (and sufficient) deterrent against terror. But any objective observer knew the exact opposite was true — Israel’s violent behavior spurred on the militants and provided them support amongst the Palestinian population.
Israel’s overreaction began with the very first acts of violence on that fateful day when Arik Sharon went up the Temple Mount. Instead of letting the Palestinian demonstrators let off steam (which the police surely would have done had they been Jewish settlers) they gun down and killed several Palestinians in cold blood. And eveything went downhill from there.
The first reason that Schiff gives in his analysis of Israel’s moderate reaction, is that Israel wants to give Abbas a chance. One may ask why Israel didn’t give Abbas (and Qureia and even Arafat) a chance the first time around? We know the answer to that. Because the Israeli leadership is committed to violence as the answer to everything.
The deeper question is what has changed now to moderate the will to violence? And the only honest conclusion one can reach is that after more than a thousand Israelis dead, several thousands more wounded, the Israeli economy in shambles, the Israeli public is worn down (this is equally true on the Palestinian side). Sharon (and Abbas) has to deliver some peace and quiet to the public, because they can’t go on with the phone calls.
And there is another “positive” contributing factor. The shambles in Iraq is motivating Bush & Co to look for “successes” elsewhere in the Middle East and the world. Hence all the talk about democracy in Egypt and Saudia Arabia and Russia (maybe no one will notice the occupation of Iraq and the undermining of democracy at home if they point out the failings elsewhere). So I have no doubt some urgent late night phone calls came from Condoleeza to Arik, telling him to hold back his dogs.
Of course, old habits die hard, and the Israeli leadership is chomping at the bit. Schiff’s article has some ominous lines in it. “However, one must not ignore the possibility that Palestinian extremists, with or without Hezbollah’s help, could carry out a much bigger attack, causing many casualties. This would probably alter Israel’s approach and its military reactions.”
The question left hanging in the air is why a larger terrorist attack should modify Israel’s behavior. If giving Abbas and the cease fire a chance is in Israel’s best interests, by what logic should Israel reward Palestinian militants “success” in attacking Israel, by destroying the cease fire?
Elsewhere in the paper it indicates that the IDF may resume targeted killings against the Islamic Jihad who it blames as the agent of Syria in carrying out this attack. Targeted killings, another name for assassinations, are even more morally abhorrent than house demolitions, and have proven equally unsuccessful in deterring the militants and equally successful in spurring on more violence. So why in gods name does Mofaz want to do this? Whose interest does it serve except those who don’t want a peaceful resolution to the conflict? Apparently, Mofaz falls into that camp.
