Fighting Jewish terrorism is the burden of Israel’s right

A

Any decent person – any decent Israeli – any decent supporter of Israel – must respond with horror to the two violent events that occurred in Israel last week. Any decent person should be disgusted by the brutal murder of a Palestinian infant in what seems to be an attack by Jewish terrorists. Any decent person should be disgusted by the attack at the gay pride parade in Jerusalem, an attack in which a Jewish extremist murdered a 16-year-old girl and injured five other gay Israelis. 

But give Israelis credit for being decent: most of them were shocked and dismayed by the attacks. Like Labor leader Yitzhak Herzog, many of them followed the news with “a heavy heart”. Their political leaders responded swiftly and without equivocation. “I am shocked by this horrific, heinous act”, said Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu following the death of Ali Saad Dawabsha, the Palestinian 8-month-old child from the village of Duma. The child died – burned – in an arson attack. “This is a terror attack in every respect. The State of Israel deals forcefully with terror, regardless of who the perpetrators are”, said Netanyahu. President Reuven Rivlin took an unusual step and issued a statement in both Arabic and Hebrew. “I feel a sense of shame, and moreover a sense of pain”, Rivlin said, “pain that from my people there are those who have chosen the path of terrorism, and have lost their humanity”.

Shock and shame, condemnation and dismay, are all important if they lead to action. And clearly, Israel is not doing well enough at battling Jewish terrorism and extremism. A year ago, when Jewish extremists murdered an Arab youth in Jerusalem, I wrote an article under the headline “Does the Murder of Muhammad Abu Khdeir Make You Doubt Israel? It Should”. Today, you should once again doubt Israel. Not its sincerity in condemning violence, not its dismay and disgust following the above mentioned events, not its shock and shame. You should question its ability to respond properly to these events – you should question its persistence in fighting back.

There are four basic claims that Israel’s leaders – specifically its right-wing leadership – have to deal with as they ponder the next steps aimed at curbing Jewish violence:

That the operational mechanism put together by these leaders to deal with Jewish extremism and terrorism is lacking in manpower, resources, legal means, tactics, intelligence.

That the rhetoric of these leaders, and the actions encouraged by these leaders, lead to violence.

That the views of these leaders lead to violence.

That Israel’s overall policies lead to violence.

B

The first claim is professional in nature. Israel has to have priorities, and has to properly invest resources to solve urgent problems such as this one. As far as I can tell – after speaking to several professionals about this matter – the lack of resources might be a problem, but it does not emanate from a decision by the political leadership not to invest in stopping Jewish terrorism. It emanates from the understandable state of mind that puts the fight against Arab terrorism before the fight against Jewish terrorism. It is reasonable to argue that some recalibration of this balance should take place to make more resources available for those tasked with finding and stopping Jewish murderers.

Israel is fighting Jewish terrorism. Recent events are still fresh, they are painful, they are frustrating. But one has to insist on getting a full picture, of both the failures and the successes of Israel's battle against Jewish extremists. Just days ago an Israeli court jailed two Jewish brothers that were found guilty in an arson attack on a Jerusalem Jewish-Arab school. These two terrorists were found, arrested and tried promptly. Israel also found, arrested, and charged two Israelis following the arson attack on the Church of Loaves and Fishes. Another arrest connected to that attack occurred last week.

These arrests prove that Israel is not letting Jewish terrorists operate without interruption and punishment. These attacks, and other attacks that happened in recent months, also prove that Israel ought to do more, that the problem of Jewish extremism leading to Jewish violent attacks is becoming more serious, that it now demands more attention and more resources.

C

The second claim – concerning rhetoric and actions – has merit.

The attacks were naturally followed by political commentary. Some of it worthy, a lot of it misleading and distracting. It is true that the attacks come from Israel’s right – the leaders of that camp should not deny such an obvious fact. It is also true that most of the attackers in recent violent incidents are religiously pious – Orthodox leaders should not deny such an obvious fact either.

Right-wing leaders find it hard to admit it, but also find it hard to keep their mouths shut and behave as they should – like leaders of a country. It is a problem that was in full display last week, when leaders of the right went to verbal war against a decision of the High Court in language that is impossible to justify. It is a problem I wrote about many times in the past (obviously, without having much impact). Here is what I said not long after Israel’s latest election: “watching the right-wing camp in action clarifies that its leaders and voters alike refuse to accept their new status as a potential majority. The right has maintained – for close to forty years – a mentality of a struggling minority that has to keep battling resistant forces, true or imaginary. It battles against the courts, and against a hostile media, and against the elites, and academia. Indeed, right-wing complaints against these establishments often have merit. And yet, battling them with the zealotry of a persecuted minority, when the right has been effectively in power for the last forty years, is strange and disturbing. It is a testimony to the fact that the ‘right’ is also not ready to assume the role of a majority, and the responsibilities that come with it”.

So no, the leaders of the right that protested the destruction of two houses in a settlement last week did not invite Jewish terrorism by criticizing the High Court. But they did contribute to an atmosphere that makes violence more likely. And while they are correct to argue that the left also uses harsh rhetoric, they are incorrect to make the comparison between them and the leaders of the left for a simple reason: they are in power, the left is in the opposition. Power means responsibility. Responsibility means restraint. Restraint means, among other things, no calls for the High Court to be “bulldozed” (as one MK of Habait Hayehudi proposed). It also means that the right-religious coalition has to lead the fight against terrorism that is perpetrated by right-religious elements.

D

The third claim, that says that the views of these leaders lead to violence, is problematic. This is where leaders of the right and of the Orthodox community begin to feel delegitimized. The leaders of the right have a point when they protest against the attempt to use the abhorrent attacks to delegitimize their political views. And the rabbis have a point when they argue that a deranged interpretation of Orthodox Judaism should not be used to smear the beliefs and the views of rabbis and activists.

We have seen this blame game cycle many times before, especially so following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Israel’s left points to the right and insists that all of it is responsible for the abhorrent act. Israel’s right responds with fury and self-defense. Israel’s left feels threatened by the violence emanating from the right. Israel’s right feels silenced and delegitimized by the left. The result is hardly useful to anyone. The blamers bask in righteousness but have no power to make the accused admit their supposed sin. The accused bask in self-pity and self-defense, and find refuge in these from making necessary amendments to their conduct.

It isn't that complicated to differentiate right from wrong in this context: An Orthodox rabbi should feel comfortable to be opposed to homosexual behavior without him being blamed for the attempted murder of gay parade attendees. A religious minister – in this case Naftali Bennet – should not be unwelcome in a rally against the violence at the gay parade, only because he would not sign a petition that calls for gay marriage. Supporters of gays should not exclude an important part of the population from a protest that aims to better the security of gays over policy differences. They should let Bennet be on their side against violence, even if he cannot be on their side on marriage.

Similarly, a settlement movement leader should feel free to defend his political views without him being blamed for the brutal murder of an infant in a Palestinian village. That is, of course, if the leader is careful to make sure he does not encourage violent behavior, and if he is willing to help the authorities identify the violent elements in their midst.

E

So it isn’t complicated – but politics makes it difficult, politicians make it difficult, activists make it difficult. All these people would like to utilize the abhorrent crimes to further their own political agenda, to further their policies. This brings us to the fourth claim: that Israel’s policies lead to violence.

Novelist David Grossman (writing for Haaretz) wants Israel to end the occupation; a gay activist demands gay marriage now, as the only way to stop violence; a party wants all settlers removed; a leader wants Netanyahu to soften his terms for peace negotiations; a pundit wants the rabbinate dismantled; another one wants Haredis to stop legislating religious laws.

These are all worthy causes – if you happen to believe in them. They are not worthy causes if you think that dismantling settlements erodes Israel’s standing, or that dismantling the rabbinate, weakens Israel’s national ethos. These are all distractions from the cause a vast majority of Israelis – Jewish and non-Jewish – strongly agree with. The state has to curb brutal behavior, identify violent elements and tame them, uproot terrorism, Jewish and non-Jewish, and prevent extremists from stabbing homosexuals at a parade, or setting a house of innocent people ablaze.

In other words: many of the people who claim to expose the “true causes” of Jewish terrorism are not helping the battle against Jewish terrorism, they are an obstacle, a disruption to that battle. To fight such a battle a country needs unity of purpose and broad agreement. By politicizing the battle people who have the best of intentions weaken the ability of the government to do what’s necessary – what Rivlin and Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yaalon and many other officials know is necessary.

F

Four more comments on things that I heard people say in the past few days:

1. “We will not be zealots. We will not be bullies. We will not become a state of anarchy”.

These are the words of President Rivlin. I agree with him. And I think that oftentimes people tend to focus on the “zealot” rather than on the “anarchy” argument. That is to say: a true conservative Israeli right should be leading the fight for law and order and against anarchy.

2. Why not treat Jewish terrorists the way Israel treats Arab terrorists?

The fight against terrorism is not about revenge, or satisfaction, or equality – it is about effectiveness. If demolishing the house of a Jewish terrorist could be a deterrent to other terrorists – by all means, demolish. If it cannot – there is no point in doing it. (And as for Arabs: ask the same question, get the answer, and act accordingly.)

3. If you say that Arabs are going to the polls “in droves”, you end up with murder.

No – that is not true. Netanyahu’s rhetoric on election day was not pretty, but it was not a call for violence. On the other hand, even for Israelis who support many of Netanyahu’s views and policies, it is hard to deny that the Prime Minister has not always contributed to an atmosphere of civil discussion and mutual respect among Israelis. It is also hard to deny that he has too often left room for suspicion that grave matters of state – such as dealing with Jewish extremism in the West Bank – are subjected to the politics of (his) convenience.

4. Why is it always religious people that turn to violence?

Short answer: it is because of many things. For example: because they have stronger beliefs and are often more willing to sacrifice for these beliefs. Is that a bad thing? When the result is violence it is a bad thing. When the result is a society of social justice and care for the needy it is a good thing. In other words: religion, like all things, is not one dimensional.