Rough Justice?

The story of Sgt. Elor Azaria has captured the imagination of many Israelis, and has succeeded in dividing opinions very sharply.  Sgt. Azaria is an IDF soldier in the Kfir brigade, who was on duty near Hebron on a day in February when a terrorist stabbed and wounded another IDF soldier friend of his.  According to the most reliable eye-witness accounts of the story, Sgt. Azaria shot at the terrorist some time after the terrorist had already been neutralised and was under the full control of other IDF soldiers.  The shot fired from Sgt. Azaria's gun resulted in the death of the terrorist.  As a result of this incident, Elor has been court-martialed, and charged with the offense of manslaughter.

The entire episode has played itself out in the public eye.  This is due to the intervention of the human rights organisation Btselem, who miraculously had somebody on the scene to record the events, and decided that it was appropriate to publicly air a video taken of the incident.  The video turns out to have been edited before being publicised, and without full disclosure of that fact.  The act of airing the video in public pushed the matter, and the debate, into the public arena.  The IDF was forced to respond publicly saying that it would investigate the incident, and take actions against the soldier if appropriate.  This, in turn, sparked a great deal of public support for the soldier, explaining that he has been forced to operate in extremely dangerous conditions as a result of the recent wave of terrorist violence in the West Bank and Israel.  It was put forward that his actions should be understood in the context of the situation that has been imposed upon Israel and her soldiers.  Israel's prime minister, minister of defense, chief of general staff and other ministers in government all felt the need to make public statements on the matter in criticising the soldier's actions.  In turn, this drew in the family of the soldier and many others who felt the need to defend him.  The incident degenerated into a classic public free-for-all.

The considerations on each side of the argument are clear, and convincing.  Israel is a country that is constantly under threat from those who wish to destroy her and her people.  This forces all of Israel's citizens to serve in the army as protection against those who desire to reap destruction.  Israel's soldiers are placed in danger's way each and every day.  This is not a normal or acceptable situation, and places enormous stress on young people who serve in the country's military.  Little consideration seems to be given by the international community to this fact.  Instead, Israel's soldiers are constantly under close scrutiny.  Organisations like Btselem ignore the human rights abuses that are inherent in the constant threats to Israel, and they find it only necessary to hold Israel and her soldiers accountable for their reactions in the spur of the moment.  This background forms the basis for the support that Elor has received from the public.  The fact that he was placed in a difficult situation having to protect his country at such a young age, has elicited sympathy and respect for him, and support for his actions.  Elor and his brigade spent many long hours on patrols, knowing that somebody could try to kill them at any moment.  Why should terrorists be afforded human rights, when they have no respect for the human rights of others?  There are many who believe that the fact that this person was trying to kill another individual in an orchestrated terror attack, immediately removes his right to being treated with respect and removes his human rights.  So, for many Israelis, it is inconceivable that a soldier can be tried on charges of killing a terrorist.  This is, after all, the job that soldiers are trained to do.

Despite many indications to the contrary, the IDF has strict disciplinary rules that it enforces.  These rules have been developed to fit with the environment in which its soldiers are forced to operate, and are designed to take advantage of the Israeli culture to extract the most from each conscripted soldier.  The rules are also highly influenced by our Jewish heritage, and the values that come with that.  The IDF's view is that we have the obligation to separate ourselves and our behaviour from those who seek to destroy us, and who behave without compassion or humanity in their quest to achieve this.  Even though the IDF's objective is to protect the people and the State of Israel, this should be achieved in a manner that is true to our cultural and religious teachings.  We should never lose sight of the fact that our soldiers are human beings before they are soldiers.  It is for this reason that the IDF discipline affords human rights not only to soldiers, but also to terrorists and enemies.  When responding to terrorists and enemy fighters, IDF soldiers have strict rules of engagement that are closely policed.  While giving IDF soldiers freedom to do almost anything that is required in the protection of Israeli lives, the rules of engagement strictly forbid shooting anybody unless an order to do so has been given or unless a victim's life is in immediate danger.  Failure to abide by the rules of engagement is taken seriously.  An army that has to counter the threats that the IDF sees daily, is forced to have a zero tolerance policy on operational transgressions.  There is no room for any soldier to have his or her own agenda or ulterior motive while he is in the service of the IDF.  If there is any suspicion that Elor has overstepped the well-kown and highly drilled rules of engagement, the correct action is to investigate the matter and give the soldier the right to defend his or her actions.  If the soldier felt fear or threat at the moment that he fired his shot, or believed that another life was in imminent danger, he will have his opportunity to present this defence.

I feel confident that the court-martial system will allow the charges to be put to the soldier, while also allowing him the opportunity to defend them in a democratic manner.  No external party or member of the public, whether it be Btselem, the minister of defense, the chief of general staff and even the prime minister can, or should pre-empt or interrupt this process.  It is extremely regrettable that this process is being played out in public, and it would be far more effective to allow the IDF to do its job internally in the manner that it is accustomed to doing.  It is clear that the act by Btselem of bringing this into the public domain effectively forced some of our leadership to respond to this in public.  The response, however, to the Btselem accusations was way beyond what was required.  Some believe that this was designed to pander to the international community, rather than considering the impact on the soldier and on the IDF as a whole.  Elor Azaria has become a villain in the eyes of some, while being a hero in the eyes of others.  I regard this act of forcing him into such a high public profile is possibly as stressful as the job that he was doing in the field near Hebron.

There is no doubt that Israel's young soldiers are forced to endure more stress than other young people of their age, and perhaps even more than professional soldiers in the armies of other countries.  Israel is currently the only country in the developed world that is being forced to fight a war within its borders, and the only country whose very existence is constantly questioned and threatened.  In spite of this fact, the international community seems to hold Israel to standards that are far in excess of the standards expected of other countries.  All of this is extremely unreasonable and even discriminatory, but standing up and shouting about it from the rooftops appears futile.  It does not help Israel secure her future, which is the most important task at hand.

It is thanks to the enthusiasm of those like Elor Azaria that Israel is able to protect herself against the constant threats of destruction.  Israel's young soldiers show incredible loyalty and patriotism when serving their country.  This enthusiasm needs to be allowed to show itself within a very stringent framework.  The framework is not only important for the discipline in the IDF, it is important for our soldiers and our country to retain their humanity.  This is the key difference that distinguishes Israel from her enemies, and is something that we would never wish to lose.  We would never wish to sink to the levels of those who seek to destroy Israel.

It is important now to allow the court-martial to conduct its work according to the rules and democratic principles under which it operates.  No external parties should be allowed to influence this process in any way.  No doubt, the verdict of the court-martial will be received with controversy, whatever its outcome.  We are forced to accept the verdict, and understand that this is the way in which our democracy operates.  Whatever the outcome may be, I feel immensely proud that we are able to retain our humanity even under the most extreme conditions.  And I am proud that we demand this humanity of our soldiers, even if the international community does not acknowledge this.

Peace for Peace

The shocking news received last week that the bodies of the three missing teenagers were found in a shallow grave near to where they were kidnapped, has left me with a feeling of utter despair.  My heart breaks for the parents and the families of the three young men who will never see them grow to full adulthood.  We mourn for three lives that were taken in a random, unnecessary and evil way.

When news of the kidnapping broke, we all knew deep in our hearts that it could end like this.  We prayed and desperately hoped that the story would somehow end well.  That we would see the boys, once again, in the arms of their parents and rejoice like we did upon the return of Gilad Shalit.  We hoped all of this, despite the concern that we all felt for the safety of Eyal, Gil-Ad and Naftali.  In this case, however, the smiles that we all hoped to see have turned to tears and despair.  They have also turned to anger, bitterness and calls for retaliation and revenge.

I feel immense mourning and sadness for the murder of three children long before their time.  My despair, however, comes from a different place than the source of my mourning.  I keep thinking about the type of person or people that could have carried out this horrifying act.  Who are they?  Who are the members of their families that support them in these acts?  Who are their colleagues in the organisations that stand behind them and their ghastly murderous acts?  My great despair comes from the reality that these are the people that we have been sitting around the negotiating table with over many years.  These are the people who are being released from our prisons in prisoner exchange deals, only to re offend.

If these were the people that lived in my street, I would probably prefer to move to live elsewhere, in order to escape their vile influence.  The neighbourhood in which I live,  however, is the only one for me.  Instead of moving away, I continue to live where I really wish to be, in the hope that somehow the government will clean up my local area to allow me to live here in peace and security.

The source of my despair comes from the fact that I feel isolated in my fear about the neighbours that I live with.  The international community is forcing me to find a way to co-exist with such monsters, despite their unashamed desire to kill me off.  After I clean up my street by placing such unwanted people in prison in response to heinous crimes that they have committed, the international community thinks that it is acceptable to force my hand to release them.  All of this in the name of creating a better future.  Why can they not understand that releasing murderers, no matter what the reason for their murder, cannot create a better future?  It simply makes it acceptable for the murderers to commit their horrible acts over and over again.  Those who force me to litter my neighbourhood with unwanted individuals seem to understand the need to keep their own streets clean.  Why are we not justified in keeping our streets clean too?

Despite the fact that we are in mourning for three of our children who were murdered by those who were released to kill again, we will not allow ourselves to mourn for the future that we plan to build.  While we would prefer to have a good, peaceful co-existence with our neighbourhoods, we will protect ourselves when this is not the situation.  And we will not allow ourselves to give up on our vision for the future, even if this cannot be achieved right now.  The time has come for us to stand up to the international community and say that we will give peace in return for peace, and we will keep criminals in their rightful place.  If our neighbours do not value the peace that we offer in return for peace, there is no deal to be done.

It is my hope that three innocent lives were not lost totally in vain.  The unity that they brought to the people of Israel and Jews around the world, while we prayed for their safe return, is unparallelled.  Let us hope that this unity will allow us to overcome the obstacles that lie in our way to build a better future for ourselves and our children.

A Unilateral Palestinian State is a Reward for Bad Behaviour

With the current attempts to resurrect the peace discussions between Israelis and Palestinians not making any progress, the Palestinians have renewed their intentions to "go it alone". For them this means going to the United Nations Security Council to ask this body to approve the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. The Palestinians have already started a PR campaign and have approached a number of countries, mostly those who are not members of the UN Security Council, to recognise this state. Many countries have come out in recognition of a Palestinian state on this basis. But why is this tactic one which the Palestinians prefer to genuine negotiation, compromise and agreement?

The first time that there was a call for a Palestinian state was after the Six Day War in 1967, in which Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Israel succeeded in attacking the Arab armies immediately just before they initiated an attack on the Jewish state to try to destroy it. Until 1967, the focus of the Arab countries (and the Palestinians as part of this) was to remove any signs of a Jewish country in the Middle East. The Arab armies were lined up to attack Israel to try to achieve this, but were surprised by the pre-emptive strike by Israel to the point that , not only did they not make any progress towards their goal, they actually regressed in their objective by losing additional land in the process. In recognition of the change in their situation, the Arabs decided to change their tactics. For the first time, a "Palestinian" people was born and a state for the Palestinian people was demanded in the West Bank and Gaza, which were lost in the war. Many Jews regard this is as a tactic to regain lost ground in order to allow the Palestinians to return to their original objective of completely destroying Israel. This view has been substantially supported by actions, statements and writings of Palestinians without shame or embarrassment.

The Israeli government formally agreed for the first time to negotiate with the Palestinians with a view to a "two-state solution" as part of the Madrid Conference in 1991. This was also the central tenet of the Oslo process which followed the Madrid conference, and has been at the heart of all subsequent talks, discussions and negotiations held with the Palestinians since then. The concept of a two-state solution is almost regarded as a foregone conclusion despite the still-prevalent view that it is intended to be used as a springboard to destroy Israel. The details of the talks between Israel and the Palestinians since then have centred on terms and conditions for the establishment of the two-state solution, in a way that will satisfy Israel's requirements for the peace and security that she seeks while giving the Palestinians self-government over their own country. There are those who are unsurprised that such a formula has not yet been found, when considering that the main objective of a Palestinian state remains the destruction of Israel.

The latest attempts by the Americans to bring the parties to the negotiating table have failed due to two main issues: 1) the unwillingness of the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and 2) the ongoing construction in the West Bank. While the Palestinians have never agreed to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, the Israelis did agree to a unilateral freeze in construction in the West Bank despite the ongoing housing shortage in Israel. More than this, Israel entered into negotiations with the Americans to renew the construction freeze as a gesture to facilitate the next round of talks. Unfortunately, the Palestinians did not take advantage of the original freeze to progress the talks, and were not prepared to make the required compromises to match those proposed by the Israelis in the negotiations with the Americans. The resulting deadlock is plain for all to see. The Israeli government is under significant internal political and economic pressure to continue to build new homes in the West Bank. In particular, the government is under pressure not to undertake any further unilateral steps where the Palestinians are not also making gestures to show their willingness to compromise.

The unwillingness on the part of the Palestinians to recognise Israel as Jewish state is central to the ongoing lack of progress. It seems inconceivable that they should be so insistent on withholding their consent to what is the current reality and status quo. Does this represent a new tactic that, if they cannot destroy the Jewish state by force, they will destroy it politically by insisting that Israel not be recognised as a Jewish state? How does this tie in to the reality that, despite promises to do so over many years, the PLO has still not removed from its charter the clause calling from the destruction of the State of Israel?

The Palestinians have succeeded in garnering the sympathy of the world for the wretched state of their people. Many are unemployed and living in miserable conditions which is, of course, blamed neatly on the "Israeli occupation". While the ongoing military situation does not make for easier living conditions for anybody, particularly those in economically poor situations, the truth is that the leaders in the Palestinian Authority are guilty of acting only to improve the economic situation of themselves and their own families. It is in their interests to keep the rest of their people downtrodden to continue to enjoy sympathy and financial donations from countries with a conscience. This tactic has reached the point where they feel that it may even help to ease the path of the establishment of a Palestinian state via UN resolution. It is difficult not to see the parallels with the UN resolution in 1947 that agreed to partition Palestine and established the State of Israel. Many of the members of the UN will be feeling that a poor, downtrodden nation has the right to a country of its own.

By taking the route of going to the UN, the Palestinians think that they will be able to have their cake and eat it. They believe that they can get their state without recognising Israel as a Jewish state. Many of those sitting around the UN Security Council table may be inclined to agree in the interests of removing the Palestinian issue from the world's to-do list. If this was agreed upon by the UN, it would be the equivalent of rewarding the Palestinians for bad behaviour. Instead of being prepared to compromise in the interests of achieving a viable peace with Israel, they are essentially blackmailing the world into agreeing to their demands without requiring them to take on the responsibilities. This is surely bad diplomacy, and does not lay the groundwork for any sort of peace arrangement.

Any Palestinian state created in this way would essentially be an enemy state of Israel. Security will not have been agreed upon, the status of Jerusalem would be an ongoing disagreement, large towns inhabited by Israeli Jews would wind up in the middle of the Palestinian state and the return of the refugees would continue to be a point of contention. The truth is that the Palestinian state would have little more than it has now under the self-government arrangement, except for an enemy called Israel. Besides proving to Israel that it has the support of influential countries in the world to vote upon the creation of such a state, it is quite difficult to see what the Palestinians would really achieve by going down this route. They have proven over the years that, even with huge international assistance, they have made little progress towards creating the internal mechanisms required to run a country that is truly independent of Israel.

Fortunately for sanity in the Middle East, it appears as though the Americans would exercise their veto to any vote at the UN Security Council, thereby killing off the establishment of an independent Palestinian state via this route. The time has come for the Palestinians to accept their responsibilities along with the rights to a state that they believe they have. I think that the creation of a this state is a lot closer via the path of negotiations than they wish to acknowledge. The first step in this direction, however, has to be taken by them.

Are the Settlements an Obstacle to Peace?

I recently read an interview with Professor Alan Dershowitz that was published in the Jerusalem Post. Dershowitz has been a very vocal defender of Israel in his native USA, and has been particularly outspoken in his criticism of fellow juror, Judge Richard Goldstone, and the UN report into Operation Cast Lead that he authored. I could closely identify with most of the sentiments expressed by Dershowitz in the interview. One view that he expressed, however, gave me cause for a greater thought and reflection.

Dershowitz describes himself as "making the 80% case for Israel". By this, he means that he does not blindly support everything that Israel does, and the policies that the Israeli government pursues. In particular, he is opposed to the settlements. Although he is opposed to returning to the pre-'67 lines (especially relinquishing the Old City of Jerusalem and the Kotel), he makes no bones about his opposition to maintaining civilian settlements in the West Bank. The issue of the settlements has been on the forefront of all criticisms directed at Israel by the Palestinians and Israel's enemies over many years. It has been held up as the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

Over the years, I have regarded this criticism by the Palestinians in the same way as I have regarded other accusations levelled against Israel - an attempt to discredit Israel in the Palestinian pursuit to completely destroy the Jewish state. The settlement issue has been an additional and important bow in their quiver. When Dershowitz raised the issue of the settlements as something that he cannot support, it caused me to give the issue a second and deeper consideration.

Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) were captured along with East Jerusalem, Sinai, Gaza and the Golan Heights during the 1967 Six Day War. The war was launched by Israel as a pre-emptive strike on the forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria when Israel was on the verge of being attacked by these countries in an attempt to destroy her. The land that was captured during the war was regarded as an essential expansion of Israel's modest territory, thereby creating more distance between Israel's hostile Arab neighbours and the most populous part of Israel. Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were formally annexed following the war, the remaining captured lands were not. Some attribute this decision to the demographic problem that annexation would have created for Israel, due to the large number of Arab inhabitants in the newly captured areas.

Following the 1967 war, successive Israeli governments have pursued a policy of establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank in order to strengthen the security buffer between central Israel and the Arab enemies. This objective, and the building of settlements in pursuit of the objective, are entirely logical under the circumstances and can easily be defended. Only those who wish to see Israel destroyed, or those trying to destroy her would accept an argument that this additional land has not added to the security of Israel.

The policy of establishing settlements has also created its fair share of problems. It has been the root of many conflicts between the Arab residents of the West Bank and their Jewish neighbours, due to disagreements over the legal ownership over individual pieces of land. This, in turn, has been the source of many international diplomatic incidents. Jews have been accused of taking over land that is owned by private Arab individuals, or taking land which denies access to Arab-owned land. The army has been called out on more than one occasion when fights have broken out over olive groves, which provide vital income in an area which has otherwise little economic activity. There can be no doubt that the Arabs have used an uncertain situation to their advantage in creating diplomatic incidents and negative publicity for Israel. There is also no doubt that Jewish settlers have frequently overstepped their lines, and the government and the army has been forced to dismantle unauthorised settlements more than once.

The fact that Jewish settlers have behaved in a way that cannot be supported by their own government and army has certainly contributed to weakening the Israeli claim to its continued presence in the West Bank. This has allowed the Palestinians to exploit the situation to capture the hearts and minds of many governments and private individuals around the world. Most importantly, successive US governments have pressurised Israel to abandon its policy of settling the West Bank. Along with this view, it is also clear to me that unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, similar to what was done in Gaza, will only relocate the border conflicts nearer to the heart of Israel. It will certainly not magically create a fix for the Middle East conflict. Although there may be some Palestinians who would be completely satisfied if Israel withdrew from the West Bank, most of them would only feel satisfied if this withdrawal was accompanied by a withdrawal from Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya and the rest of Israel.

For now, maintaining an Israeli presence in the West Bank means that Israel is able to ensure that the border conflict is kept to the periphery of the country, and away from the main part of the country. This is vital for the safety of Israel. Leaving the West Bank will not bring any magical solution for peace, so there seems little reason to do so. In fact, it may create significantly more problems for Israel by putting its population at more risk. In the event that a comprehensive peace can be achieved, I would personally not oppose relinquishing the West Bank. This would only be in the context of a binding and comprehensive peace (if, in fact, such a thing exists). Having said that, I do understand the argument of those who oppose any land for peace arrangements. Their valid question is, what will happen if the peace is broken? Do we get the land back? For now, the Israeli government is taking the middle of the road approach which is not to relinquish any parts of the West Bank, but also not to actively create new settlements.

I can fully understand Dershowitz's 80% case that he is making for Israel. With such widespread opposition to Israel's continued presence in the West Bank, and with the ongoing attempts by Jewish settlers to act against the Israeli government and army, it is clearly difficult for him to defend this in the US. By defending the West Bank presence, he is in danger of discrediting and diluting the message of the other 80% which he wishes to promote. On balance, I think that his approach is probably the right one. At least he is able to convincingly promote an 80% message which Israel desperately needs. Israel needs more people like Alan Dershowitz in the USA to intelligently make the 80% case.