At a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense committee
in October, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu turned to the politicians
present and said: “You think there is a magic wand here, but I disagree. I’m
asked if we will forever live by the sword – yes.” (Source) With
just a few words, he summed up his vision for the future. He pushed back
against his opponents who still believe that there is a “magic wand” to solve
the Jewish state problem. To survive, Israel is destined to live by the sword. But
he had conveniently omitted the closing phrase of this famous saying: “Put your
sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
The State of Israel was born out of war and blood, and it
has lived by its sword ever since. The establishment of the Jewish state was a
political miracle. A pupa that turned into a butterfly. A minority that became
a self-reliant majority. It all started with a basic premise: “A land without a
people for a people without land.” But the land, inhabited thousands of years
by the Arabs, is certainly is not “a land without a people.” The Arabs would
not receive Israel with open arms; they viewed the Jewish state as a foreign
element and refused to accept Jewish sovereignty. “Israel is the cancer, the
malignant wound in the Arab body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it
just like a cancer” (King Saud in 1954). Wars
were fought, and the Arab antagonism grew with every Israeli victory. For
Israel, “war made the state, and the state made war.”[1] Every battle against the
Arabs fostered a common identity and a sense of community in Israel.
Nationalism only added fuels to Israel’s determination to forestall any
calamity. Wars to defend its existence have indeed given Israel the most severe
motive: survival.
Israel’s response to the recent attacks from Palestine (or third
intifada as many people called it) has been the same: Violence. And more
violence. Earlier this October, Netanyahu announced “an all-out war” to combat
the Palestinian terrorism. “And we will wage it aggressively,” he added (Source).
But aggression will not solve Israel’s problems. Last year, after the murder of
three Israeli teenagers, an Israeli Arab teen was burned to death by three Jews
as a revenge (Source).
Then a firebombing attack in Duma (a Palestinian town in the West Bank) killed
an 18-month-old child (Source).
If Palestinians attack with stones, Israel responds with fire. Will aggression
quell the uprising? Someone has to put down the sword, and Netanyahu made it
clear that it would not be Israel, whose actions are driven by its perceptions
of existential threats throughout history. But we also have to ask ourselves why
should Palestinians, under Israel’s harsh occupation, put down their sword?
It is a mental deadlock.
Moshe Dayan, at the funeral of the young Israeli security
officer, delivered a eulogy that captured the siege mentality of this never-ending
conflict (Source):
“…We are a generation of settlement and without the steel
helmet and the gun’s muzzle we will not be able to plant a tree and build a
house. Let us not fear to look squarely at the hatred that consumes and fills
the lives of hundreds of Arabs who live around us. Let us not drop our gaze,
lest our arms weaken. That is the fate of our generation. That is our choice –
to be ready and armed, tough and hard – or else the sword shall fall from our
hands and our lives will be cut short.”
But no nation can and should live by the sword forever.
Both sides need to understand that if any practical agreement is ever to be achieved,
their demands will only be partially met. A realistic middle ground should be established
in order for both parties to avoid jeopardizing each other’s existence and acknowledging
each other as free peoples. The time has arrived to build a durable peace, as
the wisest of men wrote thousands of year ago, “there is a time for killing and
a time for healing, a time for breaking down and a time for building up, a time
for war and a time for peace.”
[1] Tilly, Charles. "Reflections on the History of European
State-Making." In The Formation of National States in Western Europe.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975.
No comments:
Post a Comment