Israeli voices

Christian Century, Jan 2, 2002 by James M. Wall

EPISODE TWO of the war on terror, the highly successful American media miniseries, has already begun. And it is not set in Iraq. That episode could come later in the series, and, if the hard-liners in the Bush administration have their way, there will be other episodes in Somalia and Sudan. Meanwhile, episode two is being played out in the Palestinian territories. Thanks to the effective work of the Bush-Sharon spin doctors and a supportive pro-Israel media, the American public will find itself supporting a second military assault on an already devastated people.

How could the generally compassionate American people, whose positive virtues poured out so much affection and support for victims of the September 11 assault, tolerate a massive military attack on a population that has been under occupation since 1967? You won't find an answer in many American media outlets, but you will find answers in Israel, where an articulate and passionate minority writes with considerable alarm about a strategy that is being sold to us as the next phase of a war on terror.

Alex Fishman, security commentator for Yediot Acharonot, Israel's largest-circulation newspaper, deplored Israel's decision to "liquidate" Mahmud Abu Hunud, who Fishman describes as the "No. 1 wanted Hamas terrorist." As a result of Abu Hunud's death, Fishman wrote, Israel had better prepare for a new mass terrorist attack within the Green Line (Israel's pre-'67 border). Only a few days later, three suicide bombers struck at targets inside Israel, killing 30 civilians.

"Whoever gave a green light to this act of liquidation," says Fishman, "knew full well that he was thereby shattering in one blow the gentlemen's agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority." Under this agreement, Hamas was to avoid suicide bombings inside the Green Line, bombings such as the one that occurred at the Dolphinarium discotheque in Tel Aviv.

Neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas would admit it publicly, but the two Palestinian factions had agreed that it would be better not to play into Israel's hands by perpetrating mass attacks on population centers. Israel knew this, yet its military and political leaders discussed the possibility of assassinating Abu Hunud even though they knew that his death would destroy the gentlemen's agreement that had thus far protected Israel citizens from attack by suicide bombers. Fishman praises the action against Abu Hunud as an "impressive Israeli operational achievement."

At the same time, however, Fishman wonders if such liquidations make any difference in the campaign against terrorism or in the political arena. "Do these liquidations ... detract even a little from the motivation of the terrorist organizations?" In the "pockets of despair" that cover the West Bank/Gaza territories, there are many more potential suicide bombers.

Jeff Halper, coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, argues that Prime Minister Sharon has received a green light from President Bush "to bring quiet to the [occupied territories] through military means, to be followed ... by negotiations that will give the Palestinians a mini-state while leaving Israel in control of the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean."

This strategy is proceeding according to plan, and is conveniently pushed along by the fear of terrorism now gripping the Western world. Lev Grinberg, a political sociologist teaching in Negev, Israel, writes in Ma'ariv that the United States and the European Union have adopted the Israeli view that core of Israel's problem is Yasir Arafat, who has been conveniently branded as a terrorist who won't "control his people." And since he is the problem, so the reasoning goes, he doesn't have to die, just be moved aside. According to former CIA political analyst Kathleen Christison, President Bush contributed to this undermining of Arafat's public image by treating him "like a terrorist, denying him, and therefore the Palestinian people, any legitimacy, and allowing Israel to define the Palestinians."

Taking his cue from the world's obsession with the war on terror, Sharon has called Arafat "our bin Laden" and has officially labeled the Palestinian Authority an integral part of "world terrorism." The spin has worked with the American public in spite of the obvious differences. Osama bin Laden's terrorist acts are ideologically driven; whatever the merits of Hamas's actions, they are at least carried out as resistance to military occupation.

So Arafat, who has alternated in the media spin from terrorist to peace partner, is once again a terrorist to be removed as a legitimate leader so that Israel can crush the more militant Hamas as a terrorist enemy. Sharon and Bush will then be free to create a weak and compliant Palestinian state.

The strategy may work for a time. Military force can accomplish a great deal in the short run. But there are other Israelis who see Israel's imposed Palestinian "civil war" as a dangerous long-range strategy. Israeli peace activist Nurit Peled-Elhanan believes that the most astonishing thing about the terrorist attacks in Jerusalem is that Israelis are amazed that such attacks are happening.