Israel responds to terror attacks: 5 comments
1.
Three large scale terror attacks took place in the last week – not one of them in Israel. There was the one in Istanbul, the one in Bangladesh, and the horrific attack in Baghdad. There were also three notable attacks in Israel in the last week. A teen was butchered while sleeping in her bed at home in Kiryat Arbah. A father of ten was shot to death and his wife was seriously wounded as they were making their way to Hebron. In the city of Netanya, Israelis were stabbed and wounded. Nothing connects the three attacks outside of Israel and the three aimed at Israelis. And yet, they are somewhat connected. In an era of terrorism, one ought to keep one’s expectations realistic. Israelis will be attacked. They will be attacked by forces against which the war is going to be long and winding. They will be attacked no matter what their government says and what measures their government takes to counter terrorism. The fact that they will be attacked is not the result of the failure of the government to fight terrorism – and not of its failure to make peace.
2.
Israel’s “most right wing government ever,” as the fallacy goes, responded to recent attacks in a way that is not inherently different from the responses of previous governments. The prime minister announced that “aggressive measures” are being used – and then left for a five day trip to Africa. There are things a prime minister needs to say when people are scared and angry. As they cool down, most of them will forget to examine whether the announcements were backed by actual deeds.
What is true for the PM is also true for his new defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman. As an opposition leader, just a few weeks ago, he could threaten the neighbors with unprecedented measures if and when he becomes the minister. As a person with actual responsibility for the safety of Israelis, he has to be less bombastic and more measured in crafting Israel’s defense policies. Some Israelis are going to mock him for being inconsistent. Others will appreciate his ability to differentiate between fiction (opposition speeches) and fact (determining policy).
3.
Naftali Bennet, the head of the Jewish Home Party, is being consistent. He criticized the government of which he is a member during the operation in Gaza in 2014, and he keeps criticizing it today. The government, according to Bennet, is never aggressive enough. And yet, he chooses to be a member of it. The Israeli political system makes it possible for a politician to say whatever he wants until the responsibility becomes his to own. Thus, Bennet voted against the agreement with Turkey – knowing that the agreement is going to pass (and hence giving him the benefit of both being responsible for it as a cabinet member while maintaining the ability to say that he was against the agreement). Thus, he currently wants “more” measures. He wants Israel to be more aggressive. The only way for him to stop wanting that is to become the defense minister or the prime minister – both of which he also wants.
4.
The Mayor of Jerusalem is right to argue that building in Jerusalem is not a way to punish the Palestinians. The rightwing government in that regard is consistent in being ideologically inconsistent: on the one hand it raises the flag of settlements and their inherent value, and on the other hand it uses the settlements as a punishment tool against an enemy.
These two cannot go together. Either the settlements (and building in Jerusalem) is a principle on which Israel does not compromise. In such case, it should be building at all times and in all places. Or the settlements are a needle with which to poke the enemy when it becomes annoying. The third option is that the government of Israel is not telling the truth about its real motivations. It didn’t decide to build in settlements because of the belief that building in settlements is the proper response for terrorism. It decided to build – or at least declared its intention to build – because of one of two things:
It believes terrorism creates an opportunity – namely, it gives Israel an acceptable excuse to do what it usually cannot do.
It believes terrorism necessitates a valium – namely, Israel builds settlements to calm the settlers and their supporters, not because it believes settlements are truly valuable.
5.
Eli Lake put his finger on a thing that make Israelis angry, and for which Israel seems to have no answer: The official Palestinian Authority pays the attackers or the families of attackers of Israelis. It gives Palestinians an economic incentive to attack Israelis – to wound, maim, shoot, bomb, slaughter Israelis.
Israel could potentially withhold funds from the PA and make it suffer. It does do that – and is now threatening to do it even more, as Lake notes – and yet it does not wage an all-out war against these Palestinian incentives for attacks. It does not do it, because of conflicting interests: on the one hand Israel wants to stop these funds for terrorism, and on the other hand it wants the cooperation of the PA in its fight to stop terrorists before they take action.
So yes, the government of Israel is inconsistent in its fight against terrorism. But maybe there is a measure of consolation in the fact that the Palestinians are no more consistent. They try to put obstacles in front of the terrorists before they take action – but then pay them if they succeed in evading these obstacles and attack.
Israel responds to terror attacks: 5 comments Read More »
