Russian version
Taken hostage
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Yossi Klein Halevi
Why Israel's attack on Gaza isn't enough
JewishWorldReview.com |
June 29, 2006 / 3 Tamuz, 5766
JERUSALEM — What's the news?" we ask each other, and everyone understands
that the question refers to Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped
by Hamas. Though the old socialist Israel is barely a memory, in times
of crisis we again become collectivized.
Nothing unites Israelis in outrage more than the seizure of hostages.
Next week, on July 4, Israel will mark the thirtieth anniversary of the
Entebbe operation that freed over a hundred Israeli hostages, and little
has changed since then in the national ethos of rescue. The last Zionist
ideal still shared by most Israelis is the determination to fight back.
An Israeli soldier held hostage is a taunt against the Zionist promise
of self-defense, an unbearable reminder of Jewish helplessness.
Our obsession with hostages is a tactical weakness but a strategic
strength. It allows terrorists a stunning psychological advantage: With
a single random kidnapping, they hold an entire society emotionally hostage.
Strategically, though, hostage-taking only strengthens Israeli resolve.
And resolve is precisely what the public now expects of its government.
So far, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has responded well. He began by issuing
two policy guidelines in dealing with the hostage crisis. The first is
that Israel won't negotiate over Gilad's release and won't exchange prisoners.
The second is that Hamas leaders — "political" as well as "military" —
will be held personally accountable for the fate of Gilad.
If Olmert's government hopes to retain its credibility among Israelis,
it needs to maintain those two principles.
In recent months, the public has become increasingly disillusioned
with the government's failure to adequately respond to the almost daily
rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages, especially Sderot. No Israeli
town within the 1967 borders has experienced the kind of relentless attacks
that Sderot has suffered. Even Hizbollah's Katyusha rocket attacks on the
northern town of Kiryat Shmona in the early 1980s occurred in waves, with
periods of reprieve between them. In the ten months since the Israeli withdrawal
from Gaza, though, Sderot has barely known a day of peace.
After the withdrawal, Israelis expected the government to enforce a
policy of zero-tolerance for Palestinian attacks emanating from Gaza, even
for attacks that didn't cause fatalities. Instead, the government responded
unevenly, often ignoring rocket attacks that caused no damage.
Many Israelis see Hamas's raid on an Israeli military post within the
1967 borders as a result of the weakness Israel has projected. In yesterday's
letters column in the daily Maariv, for example, the hardline consensus
was almost unanimous. "We told you so," wrote one reader who identified
himself as "right wing." "Why doesn't Israel shut off electricity and water
to Gaza?" demanded another reader. "Enough words, it's time to act," insisted
a third.
That perception of weakness could have far-reaching domestic consequences.
The premise of Olmert's centrist party, Kadima, is that only a hawkish
approach on security will convince Israelis to implement a dovish policy
on territory. Given the Sderot precedent, though, Olmert is failing to
uphold that centrist doctrine. For Olmert to win the public's agreement
for another unilateral withdrawal, he needs to begin proving that he is
capable of defending Tel Aviv from Palestinian rockets. And the place to
begin convincing Israelis is Gaza.
The military invasion of Gaza that began last night, and whose purpose
is to surround the area where Gilad is presumably being held, must only
be the first step. A brief invasion, a "show of force," is hardly adequate.
Instead, Israel needs to resume its policy of systematically targeting
Hamas leaders, just as it did several years ago, culminating in the assassination
of Sheik Yassin. That policy drove most of Hamas deep underground and led
to the cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Resuming assassinations against Hamas's political echelon is, of course,
a declaration of war against the Hamas regime. But given its official sanctioning
of kidnapping, Hamas has already declared war against Israel. Hamas's adoption
of the tactics of Al Qaeda in Iraq comes as no surprise. After the killing
of Zarqawi, Hamas issued a statement mourning his death and urging continued
"resistance," thereby making the Hamas regime the world's only openly pro-Al
Qaeda government. Unfortunately, the international media missed the significance
of that moment.
That lapse in media judgment is worth recalling in the coming days,
when much of the media will be presenting the "prisoners' document" — a
set of demands drawn up by Hamas and Fatah members imprisoned in Israel
— as a historic Hamas concession, offering "tacit" recognition of Israel.
In fact, the document does nothing of the sort. Nowhere does the document
recognize the right of Israel to exist. Instead, it calls for Israeli withdrawal
to the 1967 borders, followed by the "right" of Palestinian refugees to
resettle in Israel and demographically overwhelm the Jewish state. The
prisoners' document, in other words, is a plan for the phased destruction
of Israel — precisely why Hamas can endorse it.
Driving on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, I saw this graffiti: "Olmert,
gadol alecha" — which roughly translates as, "Olmert, the job is bigger
than you are." For Olmert to disprove that growing suspicion among Israelis,
he must commit himself to the destruction of the Hamas regime. Sooner or
later, Israel will have no choice but to adopt that policy. The only question
is whether Olmert will still be prime minister when that happens.
JWR contributor Yossi Klein Halevi is a foreign correspondent for The
New Republic, where this appears, and senior fellow of the Shalem
Center in Jerusalem.
© 2006, The New Republic
Russian version
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a