Israeli
leaders need to realize that the litmus test of good diplomacy is not
to get the world to applaud your compliancy and capitulation, but to
accept your pursuit of national interests and imperatives.
Definition of “sovereignty”: Supreme
power or authority; the authority of a state to govern itself; complete power
to govern a country; the state of being a country with freedom to govern itself
– The Oxford Dictionary
Our hope – a hope 2,000 years old –
will not be lost: To be a free people in our land, the land of Zion and
Jerusalem – From the national anthem, “Hatikva”
You can take the Jews out of the
ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jews – A
disparaging dictum of uncertain origins
Just over a year ago, I wrote a column in this series titled “Surrendering
sovereignty” (December 2, 2011), which I commenced with very similar
introductory excerpts.
Mughrabi fiasco
In it, I severely criticized the government’s reversal of its decision to
replace the Mughrabi Bridge, linking the Western Wall and the Temple Mount.
The wooden bridge, built in 2007, which provides the only access for non-
Muslims to the Temple Mount complex, and was always intended to be a temporary
structure, was deemed to be in a state of dangerous disrepair in 2011.
However, when confronted by shrill and wildly unfounded accusations from
various Islamic sources that the construction of a new, permanent and
structurally safe bridge was intended to cause the collapse of the Dome of the
Rock (almost half a kilometer away from the planned ramp), together with
threats of violence in Israel, and warnings of instability in various Arab
states, the government backed down.
The following is from that article: “It is easy to downplay the
significance of the decision; to present it as giving precedence to prudence
over pride. That would be a mistake.
“For it is yet another symptom of the insidious spread of an ongoing
malaise, gnawing away at the foundations of the Jewish national ethos. It is a
malaise that if not soon confronted, will have perilously corrosive
consequences... By its actions... the government has in effect conferred the
status of force majeure on Muslim rage – an inevitable force of nature which
can only be avoided by Israeli capitulation...”
Still-virulent malaise
This week we were given – by means of a seemingly minor event – a
disturbing reminder that this malignant malaise is just as virulent as ever.
This was the announcement on Wednesday to the Knesset by Public Security
Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch that Israel is contemplating the participation of
an international investigator in the inquest regarding Arafat Jaradat, the
Palestinian detainee, who died in Israeli custody, after being arrested for
hurling stones and a Molotov cocktail at Israeli troops.
What made this announcement even more troubling was the fact that it was
made a matter of hours after The Jerusalem Post reported that “Israeli
officials dismissed on Tuesday a Palestinian Authority demand for an
international inquiry into the death of Palestinian detainee Arafat Jaradat as
a ‘predictable’ maneuver and part of a larger strategy to bring the
international community into the conflict whenever possible.”
It is difficult to see how Aharonovitch’s statement cannot be interpreted
as hasty Israeli capitulation to Mahmoud Abbas’s strident demand, issued at the
the PLO Executive Committee meeting in Ramallah on Tuesday, “for an
international commission of inquiry to find out how Jaradat was assassinated in
prison.”
While many agree that the affable Aharonovitch is perhaps not the sharpest
knife in the governmental drawer, he is nevertheless a minister responsible for
a vitally important sphere of state activity that impinges on the lives of the
entire population.
It is more than a little disconcerting that he apparently has such a poor
grasp of the basic do’s and don’ts entailed in the exercise of national
sovereignty.
Demeaning disregard
For whether intentional or not, Aharonovitch’s announcement can only – and
inevitably will – be seen as a clear expression of no-confidence in the
competence and integrity of the Israeli authorities to investigate misdeeds
allegedly committed by official organs of the state.
Whether he meant it or not, it will be seen as endorsing those who wish to
cast the gravest aspersions on Israel and its credibility.
In so doing he has – unwittingly or otherwise – shown disrespect and
disregard for the professional capabilities and the moral standing of his
country, implying that it cannot be trusted without outside supervision. The
unbecoming alacrity with which he embraced the Palestinian demands makes him –
willfully or not – complicit with the efforts of Israel’s most hostile
adversaries’ efforts to demean, demonize and delegitimize it.
It seems to indicate that even after almost seven decades of political
independence, the Jewish people has not managed to internalize the cognizance
of the inalienable rights that accrue to, and the indispensable duties that are
demanded of, a people who wish to maintain and administer their national
sovereignty.
Patently preposterous
It is patently preposterous to suggest that Israel is not capable of
conducting a credible inquiry into the Jarafat incident without international
accompaniment.
More than any other country, Israel has proved itself able to conduct
exceedingly – some might say, excessively – harsh investigations into
allegations of malfeasance perpetrated by official organizations and
individuals – no matter how prominent or senior.
Defense minister Ariel Sharon was forced from office (1983) by the
all-Israeli Kahan Commission’s inquiry into the events relating to massacres
conducted by Christian Phalangist forces in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and
Shatilla.
The head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), Avraham Shalom, along
with several other senior members of the organization, was dismissed following
the killing of two terrorists (1984), belonging to the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine after their attempt to hijack a busload of civilians
was foiled. True, the investigation process was torturous and flawed, and some
might find the presidential pardons granted those involved questionable
(although they were upheld by the High Court), but the truth regarding the
events was largely exposed without any international intervention.
Finance minister Avraham Hirchson was convicted (2008) and imprisoned for
embezzlement. One year earlier, justice minister Haim Ramon was convicted for
sexual misconduct. In 2010, Tzachi Hanegbi, who held numerous important
ministerial and parliamentary positions, was convicted of perjury. The
president of Israel, Moshe Katsav, was tried and convicted (2011) for sexual
transgressions, including rape, and is serving a sevenyear sentence.
Prime minister Ehud Olmert was forced to step down following a series of
charges brought against him. He was convicted of breach of trust (2012) and is
facing additional bribery charges.
Perilous precedent
So while there might be those who feel that the punitive measures handed
out in the above-mentioned incidents were not sufficiently severe (and others
that they were overly severe), Israel has proved itself willing to pursue
investigations/inquiries into claims of any wrongdoing, no matter how senior
the alleged perpetrator or how embarrassing/ damaging the alleged
transgressions.
I do not know if anything untoward occurred during Jaradat’s incarceration
or what in fact led to his demise. However, based on precedent, there can be
little doubt that whatever (if any) penalties are eventually meted out, an
all-Israeli inquiry will ferret out the truth.
Israel need take no lessons from anyone in investigating suspicions of
malfeasance by any organizational entity or individual. Accordingly, the Palestinian
demand for international intervention into the Jaradat affair is not a genuine
quest for the facts but – much like the ludicrous Turkish demand for an apology
over the Mavi Maramra affair – little more than a transparent attempt to show
that it can coerce Israel to submit to its will.
This is precisely why Aharonovitch’s inappropriately accommodating
declaration entails potentially perilous consequences.
Indeed, it could open up a veritable floodgate of initiatives, aimed at
neutralizing any autonomy in Israeli decision- making, investigation and
inquiry.
License to second guess
In effect, it could comprise a license for any alien entity to second-guess
every decision taken or conclusion drawn by Israeli authorities. For if
international participation is called for to accompany the Jaradat affair, why
should it not be called on for every other investigation? And if Israeli
decisions or verdicts are not sufficient to satisfy foreigners, why should they
be so for Israelis? Why should any Israeli citizen, who sees him/herself
wronged by some judicial or administrative decision taken by an Israeli
institution, not demand that it be reviewed by some international entity to
ensure its credibility/fairness? Aharonovitch may have – inadvertently or otherwise
– sown the seeds of an “ethos of expectation” in which continual Israeli
concessions and compliance with the demands of others – no matter how
outlandish – become the norm, from which no divergence is to be brooked.
Let’s not forget the context
The death of Arafat Jaradat should be fully and fairly investigated. Any
improper conduct toward the unfortunate detainee must he unflinchingly
addressed. However, in doing so, we should not lose sight of the context.
While we might well sympathize with his young children, who lost their
father, he was after all, according to numerous sources including the BBC and
Al Jazeera, a member of the murderous Al-Aksa Brigades, which have chalked up a
long and chilling list of bloody atrocities in which many Israeli civilians
were butchered.
The acts he was arrested for are grave.
Stones are lethal weapons. Molotov cocktails indisputably are. Both can –
and have – killed Israelis. Hurling them at soldiers should not be lightly
dismissed.
Indeed, it should be considered an act of attempted homicide. The
ineffectiveness of the attempt should not be a mitigating factor in assessing
the gravity of the intent.
Those involved in such activities should expect to be treated harshly,
perhaps even to sustain injuries when being apprehended. In such circumstances,
Israel has every reason to doubt the impartiality of international participants
– even under the assumption that they may have no inherent bias against it. For
example, foreign media representatives have been threatened with physical
retribution for disclosing the truth – as witnessed by the fate of journalists
who dared to attempt recording the brutal lynching of two Israeli reservists in
Ramallah (2000).
Talkbackers get what government doesn’t
While the government seems oblivious to the impact its response to the
demands in the Jadarat affair could have on the nation’s sovereign status, the
same certainly cannot be said of the general public or at least segments
thereof – such as readers of the Post.
Consider the reaction by some talkbackers to the report on Aharonovitch’s
announcement, who with variable degrees of courtesy, finesse and grammatical
rigor, expressed the follow astute perspectives: Frank Adam: “Israel will have
submitted to the Arab aim to prove Israel [has] only partial or limited
sovereignty.”
Boris: “israel needs to stop being so insecure. if it wants to survive. it
needs to stop having something to prove. like its right to exist” Evil Zionist:
“It will be a dangerous precedent and undermine our sovereignty” Cry: “Next
experts will need to be called in to “prove” Israel didn’t poison the original
Arafat.... Arabs can make Israel jump like a trained seal.”
And finally, NormanF: “The Israeli government’s default mode is to
surrender to Arab blackmail, threats and intimidation. It can’t say “no” and
uphold Jewish sovereignty... Any other country on earth would never accept for
themselves the “international observer” nonsense Aharonovitch peddled before
the Knesset. It would reject outright all attempts to compromise its
independence. What his statement proved again in the face of escalating global
anti-Semitism, is that its easy to take the Jew out of the ghetto but its very
difficult to take the ghetto out of the Jew!”
The hallmark of good diplomacy
I found it difficult to disagree.
Until the leaders of the Jewish state realize that the litmus test of good
diplomacy is not to get the world to applaud your compliancy and capitulation,
but to accept your pursuit of national interests and imperatives, we will not
be able to say we have truly extricated ourselves from the clutches of the
ghetto mentality.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive
director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment