The latest war in Lebanon further divided the peace camp in Israel
after it had been considerably damaged in the autumn of 2000 by
former Prime Minister Ehud Barak who blamed the total failure of
the Camp David peace talks on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
This set into motion the official Israeli refrain "there is no
partner for negotiations."
At the beginning of this war, some in the peace camp expressed
their approval of it, differentiating between "radical" doves and
"sane" doves, and calling for a thorough examination of the
fundamental assumptions of the camp. And so, as a member of the
peace camp, I take up the challenge of examining my principle
views, which I'll first outline and then examine in the light of
recent events.
Conflict Must Be Solved by Negotiations
1. The Israel-Palestine conflict must be solved by means of
negotiations. The solution should be carried out according to
conditions set out in the not too distant past: i.e., according to
the Clinton Parameters, the Taba agreements, the Geneva agreement
and/or the Arab League proposal - these proposals, or combinations
of them, could be the basis for the final agreement.
2. The Israel-Syria conflict must be solved by means of
negotiations that would lead to the signing of a peace agreement,
at least according to the parameters of the peace agreement with
Egypt.
3. The State of Israel, as a major regional power that holds most
of the cards for solving the Palestinian and Syrian conflicts, can
carry out confidence-building measures to facilitate a successful
conclusion of the negotiations.
4. There is an existential danger to the State of Israel from
extremist forces that openly speak about the need to destroy it.
Peace agreements with its neighbors are the best guarantee for the
existence and security of the state. Moreover, these agreements are
of supreme importance for the development and prosperity of Israeli
society.
5. Terrorist acts, including Palestinian terror which strike at
innocent civilians, are crimes. This must stop.
6. The State of Israel must cease imposing all kinds of collective
punishment on the Palestinian population, as well as cease various
types of violence, including assassinations that are illegal
according to international law.
7. The State of Israel must cease the building and expansion of
settlements, which contravene international laws.
8. The Israel-Arab conflict is exacerbated, on both sides, by
political-social-cultural-educational mechanisms and institutions
that serve to perpetuate it. It is therefore imperative to halt
conflict-promoting education and begin educating toward
peace.
9. Moral considerations must dominate the action of the sides to
the conflict. This is especially relevant for the State of Israel,
which sees itself as one of the enlightened states and, therefore,
international law and moral values ought to be central to its
decision-making process.
I take seriously the Iranian threats to destroy Israel, and believe
that a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian and Syrian problems
will strengthen us internally, boost our international standing,
and enable us to withstand the dangers. I am more determined than
ever to oppose the use of force as a means of settling
conflicts.
Lebanon War - The Consensus Collapses
Regarding the recent war, I don't believe that anyone doubts that
the kidnapping of soldiers by Hizbullah was an act of unjustified
violence, which overstepped the bounds of the laws and the norms of
the international community. However, at this point the consensus
collapses. I belong to those who believe that the hasty decision to
go for war, massive bombing raids, the extensive damage to the
civilian population, the reluctance to negotiate and accept a
cease-fire at the first phases of the war, and then the large-scale
ground attack that began after the UN Security Council resolution,
were symptoms of Israel's adherence to solutions of force, of its
simplistic, ethnocentric attitude to the conflict, and of the
overwhelming influence of the army on the political echelon.
It is true that when one hears of Katyusha rocket attacks killing
civilians in Acre, Haifa or Tarshiha, one becomes enraged and the
need for revenge, to kill and to harm Hizbullah predominates. There
is no doubt that this is a natural reaction common to most human
beings. However, it is precisely here that another voice should be
heard - the voice that cautions for the need to assess the event in
a broad historical perspective, to think about a wide range of
possible consequences, and to consider alternative ways to achieve
similar goals, while assessing the implications of impulsive,
instinctive action. I would assume that the leaders of the nation
would make this dispassionate assessment, and if not them, at least
members of the peace camp.
Another Voice Should Be Heard
Here are some of my "second voice" reflections:
1. Hizbullah is a political movement with a military arm (that also
engages in terror), with terrifying intentions and acts towards us.
However, it should be remembered that it was set up as an authentic
expression of the resistance to the occupation of parts of Lebanon
by Israel. It represents most of the residents of South Lebanon and
currently plays a role in formal internal politics of Lebanon.
Israel indeed withdrew to the international border, but held onto
the Shib'a Farms enclave. The war boosted Hizbullah's raison
d'ĂȘtre.
2. The massive bombardment by Hizbullah on the north of Israel
followed the massive IDF's strikes on South Lebanon and Beirut,
causing civilian casualties as well. Hizbullah's violence and ours
increased and became a vicious cycle of violence.
3. There is no doubt that firing missiles at Israeli towns and
villages is a terrorist act, however, the bombing of Beirut and
other Lebanese population centers, which was meant, inter alia, to
put pressure on the Lebanese leadership and Hizbullah, was also an
act of terror.
4. I do not believe the repeated IDF apologies when it causes
civilian casualties. A mistake can happen once or twice, but these
incidents recur too often and seem to indicate a system
unacceptable to normative moral behavior.
5. Hizbullah rocketing of civilian residential areas in the north
is a crime according to international law and moral values. This is
the first time that the Israeli home front has been so extensively
damaged in a war. However, it should be noted that Israel
intentionally and extensively targeted population centers in the
past. This was the case when Israel bombarded Suez Canal towns
during the War of Attrition, and likewise during the first Lebanese
war.
6. The Hizbullah action came in the context of a violent flare-up
in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It followed the deadly attack on
an IDF post outside the Gaza border and the kidnapping of a
soldier, which brought about an Israeli incursion into the Strip.
We should see the connection between the two actions, while
remembering that in recent years Israel has refused to negotiate
with the Palestinians, claiming that there is no Palestinian
partner for negotiations. Israel had withdrawn unilaterally from
the Gaza Strip, but, in effect, it continued to control many
aspects of life there, and had transformed the area into a large
closed camp. The Palestinian use of Qassam rockets, which is a
crime, in the current cycle of violence, is a reminder that the
Israel-Palestine conflict remains unresolved.
7. It should also be remembered that during the war in Lebanon the
violence in the Gaza Strip continued, with innocent civilians,
including women and children, continually being killed. The Israeli
public ignored this violence, paying attention only to the
north.
8. Israel declines to negotiate with Syria knowing that a peace
agreement would necessitate a descent from the Golan Heights. There
is a clear preference for the Heights without peace rather than
peace without the Heights. The actions of Hizbullah, supported by
Syria, are a reminder that the Golan problem has not been
solved.
9. The Israeli government's decision-making process, as reported in
the media, was characterized by hasty assessments and lack of
long-term strategic planning. The crucial influence of the army on
our lives became evident once again.
10. It was extremely difficult to assess what was happening by only
following the Israeli media: the leadership and officers mostly
proffered propaganda information. The pages of the newspapers as
well as most of the electronic media were mobilized to support the
war efforts of the government and the army.
Iran's Intentions Ought to Worry the Citizens of
Israel
11.Hizbullah is the operational arm of Iran, whose intentions ought
to worry the citizens of Israel. It is therefore imperative to
reach peace agreements with Syria and Lebanon so as to weaken the
justification for the existence of Hizbullah in the area.
12.Israel also served in this war as a sub-contractor for the
policies of the U.S., which has chosen a violent path to target the
"axis of evil." I am not certain that it is in Israel's interest to
isolate Syria and align it with the axis of evil.
13.The contention that the destruction of Lebanon benefited Lebanon
since it created a split between it and Hezbollah is an Orwellian
misconception.
14.It is true that Lebanon and Hizbullah did not comply with UN
Security Council Resolution 1559 and this caused the deterioration
that led to the recent fighting, but neither has Israel complied
with UN resolutions 242 and 338, which call for Israeli withdrawal
from the occupied territories. Lack of compliance with these
resolutions prolongs the conflict and the bloodshed.
15.There are legitimate complaints against Iran for supplying
Hizbullah with the weapons that rained down on civilian areas in
the north of Israel. However, what about the supply to Israel of
illegitimate cluster bombs said to have been used against Lebanese
targets?
16.Let us assume that Israel's reaction against Lebanon was
reasonable following Hizbullah's cross-border kidnapping and
killing of soldiers and massive bombardment of northern Israel. If
so, what would be a reasonable response to Israel's oppression of
the Palestinian people and the destruction of their economic,
social and political infrastructure? What should be the response of
Palestinians to the illegitimate actions of settlers backed by the
Israeli government and all its formal institutions, including the
courts and the army?
Israel Would Be Strengthened by Peace Treaties Rather Than
Wars
17.The results of the war (which should have been anticipated in
advance) are apparently as follows: Hizbullah and Iran have boosted
their image among the Arab and Muslim public worldwide. Israel's
standing in the Western world has been weakened and it distanced
itself even further from a peaceful solution to the Israel-Arab
conflict. It can also be assumed that Hizbullah's success in
standing up to one of the world's strongest armies will have an
adverse effect on Israel's deterrent capability. This point
supports the contention that Israel would be strengthened by peace
treaties rather than by more wars.
The Lebanese war began with an immoral act of aggression and
deteriorated into acts of violence reminiscent of the law of the
jungle or the Wild West where each side lost moral constraints and
rained bloody blows on the other. Each side is concerned with its
own victims, glorifies its own forces and demonizes the other. An
optimist might say that from this evil jungle a positive plant
might grow and lead to peace talks - if only this would
happen!
Here I would like to return to the difference between the radical
left and the left that believes itself to be "sane." If the term
"radical left" refers to a post-Zionist left that rejects the
existence of the State of Israel, then it refers to a very small
group of people with negligible influence. I hope that the tag
"radical left" is not being attached to those critics in the peace
camp who decline to accept the government's version of events, or
that of public opinion, or the dominant view presented by the
media. These dissenters take a broad view of the situation, and
come forward with various assessments.
Continuous Cycle of Hostility - Impossible to Determine Who
Initiated and Who Reacted
I would like to propose an alternative distinction, between
ethnocentrically focused doves and doves driven also by moral
values. The first are driven to support the peace process solely
because of pragmatic-ethnocentric considerations for the good of
the Jewish People - such as the demographic fear, safeguarding the
security of the state and ensuring economic prosperity. This group
is an important part of the peace camp and without it, it would not
be possible to advance the peace process. The other group of doves
supports a peace agreement because of its benefits for the Jewish
people, but also places an importance to universal ethical
considerations. They recognize that the Palestinian people - just
as the Jewish people - have a right to this land, the right to
self-determination and to establish their own state. They also are
able to feel empathy with the suffering of the Palestinian people,
or the Lebanese. These doves note that the State of Israel has on
occasion infringed ethical norms. They acknowledge that violence on
one side feeds the violence on the other side and creates a
continuous vicious cycle of hostility so that it becomes impossible
to determine who initiated and who reacted. They also understand
that the violence has a broad historical context. They do not rally
blindly and automatically to the flag, but analyze each new
development.
I am certain that there are not a few in the peace camp that are
driven also by ethical-moral considerations. Israeli society
regards them with disdain and attempts to delegitimize them. They
are often accused of being anti-Israel, Arab lovers and even
traitors. Israeli society prefers admiring moral foreigners,
especially those who helped Jews. Moral doves should not abandon
their principles because of the latest war. Moral values are not
only the basis for human existence and for the hope of a better
tomorrow, but also serve as a base for Jewish struggle against ugly
anti-Semitism and for the establishment and defense of the State of
Israel.
The Test of a Man of Peace
The test of a man of peace is the use of the same criteria for
judging other nations and his own. I believe that Jewish society's
lack of moral principles in dealing with the Israel-Arab conflict
(and particularly with the Palestinians - leading to a cruel and
oppressive occupation) has lead to a breakdown of moral values
regarding domestic issues. Since the 1970s, Israeli society has
been deteriorating (corrosion of the educational and health
systems, and of social welfare, a record growth in the
socio-economic gap between rich and poor, a dramatic increase of
poverty, a breakdown in the rule of law and a growing deviant
political culture). The last war provided unequivocal evidence to
the above- noted maladies of the Israeli-Jewish society. Therefore,
it is imperative even to one who focuses solely on the survival and
security of the state to seek a just and moral solution to the
Israel-Arab conflict, in order to change the course of internal
affairs in Israel.
The last war was terrible. Its extent and nature went beyond all
moral values. This was a war in which both sides killed innocents.
A war, ruled by passions, fear, anxiety, vengeance - not judgment
and values. A war whose objectives were not achieved, with severe
results for Israel and Lebanon. A war without victors - only the
vanquished. The graves, the refugees and the destruction bear
witness to this - and not the boasts of the politicians and
officers claiming victory.
The hope is that, in the wake of the war, Israel will choose the
path of peace, the only path which can strengthen the state. Peace
with the Palestinians and Syria, and the establishment of a new
political, social and economic order can direct our society toward
a better future. It is primarily up to us to decide which path we
take!
<