Israeli "refusedniks" are admirable, courageous and right.

Great Debates
1

In another thread, I referred to Israeli reservists who were refusing to serve the occupation. This is a letter from one of them. It can be found here along with statements by other conscientious objectors. The same man also has an essay here. Please keep in mind that these are the sentiments of someone who actually lives with danger every day, and not in the comfy ideological arena of America.

Passover Eve, 2002

An Open Letter to American Jews

By Assaf Oron [Israeli army reservist]

Dear People,

Yesterday I was informed of an interesting phenomenon: a peace-supporting
Jewish organization called Tikkun published an ad in favor of us, the Israeli
reservist refuseniks [now over 1,000 Iraeli soldiers officers & generals], and was
immediately bombarded with hate mails and phones from other American Jews.
[snip] This has so saddened, alarmed and angered me, that I find myself setting
aside a half-day at the eve of Passover, and writing this open letter to you all. As is my
habit, it is quite long, so please bear with me.

[snip]

The general theme [of the criticism] is the tribal theme. A very very loud voice (and in Israel nowadays,
it is the only voice that is allowed to be fully heard) keeps shouting that we are in the
midst of a war between two tribes: a tribe of human beings, of pure good – the Israelis
– and a tribe of sub-human beings, of pure evil – the Palestinians. This voice is so loud,
that it has found its way even to the op-ed pages of the New York Times (William
Safire, March 24 or 25). To those who find this black-and-white picture a bit hard to
believe, the same voice shouts that this is a war of life and death. Only one tribe will
survive, and so even if we are not purely good, we must lay morality and conscience to
sleep, shut up and fight to kill–or else, the Palestinians will throw us into the sea.

Does this ring a bell to you? It does to me. As a little child growing up in Israel under
Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan, all I heard was that the Arabs are inhuman monsters
who want to throw us into the sea, they understand only force, and since our
wonderful IDF has won the Six Day War they know not to mess with us anymore
–or else. And of course, we must keep the Liberated Territories to ourselves,
because there’s no one to talk with. [snip]

[snip]

[…]

[Quote snipped out of copyright concerns. Please post short excerpts and/or a link only. To read the full acticle, please click on the first link and then click on “An Open Letter to Jewish Americans.” --Gaudere]

2

Both sides are just as guilty of spreading the violence. And you know what? If suicide bombers were blowing themselves up in the malls and restaurants where I shop and eat, I would be all for rolling tanks into their refugee camps and grinding them into mulch. The problem is, I haven’t seen any indication from either side that they are willing to work towards any realistic solution.

3

Re-read some of those lengthy articles, replacing “Israeli” with “US” and “Palestinian” with “Taliban”… and ask whether you still agree.

4

Doesn’t work. “Taliban” is not an entire ethnic population. “Palestinian” is not an ideological grouping with self-selected members.

But if it were the U.S. facing armed resistance from a colonized people (Puerto Rico? Native Americans?), yes I would still agree.

Remember, the authors of those articles, unlike most Americans, have faced death. Unlike most Americans, they still face death every day just by living there. And they’re still for peace. Americans should be as courageous as Israeli peaceniks.

5

Quite true. By the same token, if you or your parents had been dispossessed and harrassed for most or all of your life; if you’d grown up in a refugee camp, rather than a village or a town, might one speculate that you’d take action against your perceived oppressors, too? I am sure you wouldn’t take the horrible road that Hamas and Hezbollah supporters are taking, but, by your empathy displayed above, I bet that you’d want to do something.

Why are so many Westerners attacking Israel’s response to what are, quite clearly, atrocities of the worst kind? I perceive it is because the Palestinians have less to lose: they’re in a position of severely diminished political control; they’re marginalised and undemocratic; many are fanatics. Whereas Israel prides itself on its democracy, and is a friend of the West. Terrorism is the last refuge of the desperate; military intervention is the reaction of those in power.

Tactically, Sharon’s actions don’t seem to have an achievable goal. According to two British correspondents on different channels this morning, and this article, Israelis (well, the media at least) are demanding an end-point to Sharon’s tactics. I can’t personally see any end-point to the current action other than total destruction of the PLO, and possible assassination of Arafat.

Would killing Arafat make young suicidal Palestinians less extreme? Certainly not. Would destroying the PLO command centre assist any roads towards dialogue? No - the leaders of Hezbullah and Hamas are way too extreme and fanatical to talk with the Israeli government. Would further attempts at dialogue with Arafat (aka ‘capitulation’) save lives? Probably. There would no doubt still be suicide bombings, but fewer, though Sharon would then be perceived as doing nothing. But by demonizing, isolating, and threatening the life of the only Palestinial political leader willing to negotiate, Sharon seems to be backing his country into a corner from which there seems to be no escape.

I think the Arab League’s offer to recognise Israel (thus fulfilling their side of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) in return for withdrawal to 1967 borders (Israel fulfilling its side of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 242) is the best thing that could possibly happen to Israel. Think of the difference it would make to the country; to its quest for peace; its economy. Relaxed border controls, opening up of trade, and the diminishing of state-on-state paranoia. Of course, there would almost certainly remain some form of internal, terrorism campaign - Palestinian and probably Zionist - but the long-term benefits would be so much greater.

On the one side I see Sharon, the Israeli Right and the American Right, and on the other I see the ghost of Rabin, Kofi Annan and the UN Security Council, Rabbi Arik Ascherman and Rabbis for Human rights.

Given that Arafat is either powerless or too fanatical to stop the killing, and getting away from what’s ‘morally’ wrong and what’s right, I hope that Sharon chooses the path that will lead to less bloodshed.

Oh and C K Dexter Haven: the Taliban have never attacked the US; it was al Qaeda. And the difference here is that the Palestinians do have concrete grievances.

6

But the Arab League is not the ones doing all these suicide bombings. They’re being committed by Palestineans who will not accept Israel’s continued existence with any sort of borders at all.

7

It’s only in Israel’s interests to withdraw to the 1967 borders if it truly believes that the Arab world will not attack it again. Because the 1967 borders are militarily indefensible. Which, of course, is why Israel occupied those lands in the first place - with the exception of water in the Golan Heights, the land itself offers very little benefit to Israel. But if you look at a map of Israel and the contours of the 1967 borders, you can see the potential military problems that those borders present.

But in case you weren’t watching, just retreating to the 1967 borders is not good enough for the Arab world. At the Arab summit, they added the right of return for Palestinians, which will never be acceptable to Israelis, for good reason. If Israel withdraws to those borders without meeting the other Arab demands, that might give them the flimsiest justification to attack Israel once again.

Israel’s unilateral withdrawal to the 1967 borders would probably destabilize the region pretty badly.

8

Gaudere, sorry about the too-long post. I’ll try to be more careful in the future.

Has anybody considered that maybe the 1967 borders are a security threat to the Palestinians? By that logic, maybe the Palestinians should occupy Israel, for “security reasons.” They don’t have to throw anybody into the sea to do that.

Or maybe everybody should just respect each other’s property, borders and human rights.

This reminds me of the 1980’s, when people said the US had the right to intervene in Nicaragua because Nicaragua was in our “backyard”. Well, the US is in Nicaragua’s backyard. Does that mean Nicaragua has the right to put “contra” terrorists in our country? Same thing with Palestine-Israel.

I read the link about Rabbi Ascherman. I think he and the Rabbis for Human Rights are among the true heroes of this war. Even at a time when many Americans want Israel to be ruthless, there are still Israelis who are willing to risk everything for peace and justice.

I also admire Awad, the “Palestinian Gandhi.” [He has been mentioned in the other thread I started, about “non-violent resistance in Palestine”.] Unfortunately, the Israeli government deported people like him. So now there is no one like Awad to talk to the despairing youth of Palestine.

I am tired of people saying “the Palestinians” think this, “the Palestinians” think that. It’s true that polls currently show a high level of support for suicide bombings. I think the polls might have shown something different a year and a half ago, when 1,200 more Palestinians were alive. There is no justification for saying that all Palestinians are implacably and permanently committed to the destruction of Israel. Sometimes Americans can say pretty vicious things too, like “nuke 'em all” or “kill all ragheads,” but that doesn’t mean Americans are evil.

The Washington Post has published several good articles about the Palestinian point of view. One article by Daniel Williams (3/25/2002) told about how the young suicide bombers are driven by depression and a total lack of hope for the future. Some of them have seen their friends and relatives killed. People don’t commit suicide casually.

MY GOD – I just heard it on Pacifica radio. An Italian cameramen was shot, live and on the air, by Israeli soldiers in Beit Jalla refugee camp. I think they said he put his hands up. They said it was broadcast as it was happening, on WBAI this morning. My God.

fuck war

9

I just read the BBC report, and apparently it was a Palestinian cameraman, not Italian. Not sure if he was working for the BBC. Also three British, one American, one Australian. None dead yet, far as I know.

10

However, Israel hasn’t begun any attacks against the Palestinians. They have retaliated and used brutal military action in self-defence, after Palestinians have begun killing Israelis. If the Arabs simply stopped attackijg Israelis, the fighting would immediattely end. The two sides’ behavior isn’t parallel.

I think the refusniks should start a campaign to put arsenic-laced Kool Aid in all of Israel’s water supplies. That would be a quicker, more efficient way to destroy their own country.

11

Chicken and egg.

Car-bombing of West Bank mayors (1980). Al-Aqsa Mosque shooting (1982). Tomb of Abraham massacre (1994). Homes bulldozed, olive trees cut down wholesale, land and water taken for settlements, extrajudicial killings by settlers and soldiers, and Palestinian revenge violence (ongoing for 35 years).

It’s all wrong.

It sure isn’t. Israel has a greater monopoly on violence and has killed more civilians.

Also, Israeli forces were the first to fire on a peace march with live bullets (today’s news). Maybe Palestinians will do it too now – they’ve got a lot of catching up to do.

Unlike you, the refusedniks actually live there and will deal with the consequences of whatever happens.

I have plenty of compassion for the Israelis. Do you have any for the Palestinians?

12

Hm. Well, not quite; Israel defended those borders in, um, 1967.

Still, I must confess my ignorance. How are the 1967 borders less defensible than, say, the West Bank / Jordan border? Or are you refering to the problem of defending Jerusalem proper?

More generally, can anybody link to a decent (ie calm and informed) military analysis of Israel’s security position?

"…with the exception of water in the Golan Heights, the land itself offers very little benefit to Israel. "

Doesn’t East Jerusalem contain the old city and other sites of religious signficance? map

13

Thanks tclouie for your link to the letter and to you, jjimm, for your lucid arguments. It is heartening, I think, that the New York Times is editorializing for a peaceful solution of some kind.

Excerpt:

“Understandably infuriated by the recent spate of deadly bombings, Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, seems determined to end terrorism by military means alone. Mr. Sharon must defend the security of Israel. But simply sending tanks into the West Bank and Gaza Strip will not end Palestinian violence. President Bush does Israel no favors by failing to say so more clearly.”

and

“The framework on which recent peace talks were built, the Oslo agreement of 1993, has been all but swept away by the violence. But one crucial element remains and must be preserved — Oslo’s ultimate vision of two separate states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, living together in peace. Israeli and Palestinian leaders say they still believe in this two-state solution, although they have stopped believing in each other. To get them talking about it again will take concerted outside help.”

14

The 1967 borders are indefensible for lots of reasons. For one thing, Syria could snipe at Israelis at will from the Golan Heights and mass armor and troops on the other side undetected, there’s the only an 8 mile corridor between Palestine and the Mediterranean in one part, and I believe at least one major city is in artillery range. It also greatly expands the amount of borderline that needs to be protected.

Still, I think Israel WOULD withdraw to the 1967 borders with a few conditions. One is an early warning radar in the Golan. Another is normalized relations with the Arab world. Another is some form of guaranteed protection of and access to Jewish holy sites, Which probably means a return to either shared governance of Jerusalem or turning it into an international city.

Something I’ve been thinking about as a possible way out of this mess - what about the U.S. giving Israel military assurance of the strongest kind that the U.S. would commit all assets required to defend Israel from attack? That in turn could give Israel the confidence to offer a return to the 1967 borders and offer other concessions to the Palestinians.

15

Well, the Golan wouldn’t be given back to Syria at any rate. That’s been annexed and is now Israeli territory, and the people living there Israelis. It would be suicide to give that back, anyway.

16

Sam-
Thanks for the reply.

RE: your suggestion. T.L Friedman gave a 4 point plan in Sunday’s NYT. Point 4: “US or NATO troops must guarantee any Israeli-Palestinian border.” He makes some other interesting points as well.

17

Strange, I could swear this is the 21st century now. Maybe I should go annexing some land for myself.

18

Here’s a simple solution for the immediate terrorist problem: get Compstat, and apply it to known hamas, al-Asqa and Islamic Jihad positions in the area. Then make a ten-minute warning before targeting and obliterating them, being careful not to scorch the surrounding countryside. One of the problem is that there is too much collateral damage when Israel goes with this ‘targeting strike’. Like killing an ant with a sledgehammer.

december, Israel has killed entire Palestinian families, yet the Palestinians are still fighting as fiercely as they can. Nothing short of mutual obliteration will get them to stop.

19

Actually, I believe the Israeli annexing of the Golan is within international law, because it was land claimed in a defensive war and legitimately claimed to be a strategic danger if Israel relinquished it.

20

Well, it was the 20th when they annexed it, and annexation of conquered territory isn’t unknown.