http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/scripts/article.asp?mador=4&datee=10/08/00&id=96153
Only through force
By Gideon Levy, Ha'aretz 10/08/2000
It is not the acceptable thing to say, but this truth must be stated:
Only through force have the Arabs achieved what they have achieved,
throughout the Arab-Israeli conflict, and certainly in the last 30
years. From Yom Kippur of 5734 (1973) to Rosh Hashanah of 5761 (2000),
not only has violence paid off for the Arabs, but we have also shown
them that violence is the only way open to them.It has always been
said among us that "the Arabs only understand force." Indeed, it turns
out that force is our only official language even if Israeli leaders
have always taken care to emphasize that "the Arabs will not achieve
anything through force."
Recall, for example, the statements made by then defense minister
Yitzhak Rabin at the height of the Intifada, that the Palestinians
would achieve nothing with rocks: Not since the Stone Age has so much
been achieved using rocks.
Some trivia: Israel would never have withdrawn from all of Sinai had
it not been for the trauma of the Yom Kippur War. Israel would never
had conducted negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization
and signed the Oslo agreements were it not for the Intifada. And
Israel would never have left Lebanon were it not for Hezbollah's
bloodletting. Because that's how we are, we give up only when the
price in blood shoots skyward. All of Israel's moves toward peace, and
in particular all of its concessions, came only after especially
painful cycles of violence. The conclusion from this is chilling, and
the message that it sends to the Arabs is horrifying.
It is very easy these days to cluck one's tongue and denounce the
violence of Israeli Arabs. Throwing stones and smashing streetlight
are indeed acts worthy of denunciation. Blocking traffic arteries is
improper. Jews on the left and the right are shocked, simply shocked.
But who could point to another way available to one-fifth of this
country, citizens of the state, after 25 years of discrimination and
humiliation? Now at least a commission has been set up.
After their next outbreak of violence, which is certain to be even
sharper and more painful, the state will remember that more should be
done. It certainly cannot be said that they did not first try
nonviolent means. Twenty-five years of exemplary, almost exaggerated
loyalty, almost groveling obedience to the state whose wars are not
their wars, whose national anthem is not their anthem, whose language
is not their language, whose holidays are not their holidays
- and for all this it treats them the way it does. Now their youth
have started out on the road to violence and it is paying off for
them. They know they get nothing without it. Now they are also
proving, as their brothers in the territories proved long ago, that it
is Israel the strong that achieves nothing through force.
This weekend the actor Mohammed Bakri, who has performed in Israeli
theaters for years, wondered whether he was wrong all along and should
have chosen the path of violent struggle and joined the PLO in his
youth. The cup of insult and humiliation runs over even for him, an
Israeli success story. Last week he once again did not stand in the
way of his son when he went out to the road to throw rocks at the
Border Police officers who surrounded their village. Bakri is not
alone in having these thoughts. One cannot blame him: We taught Bakri
and his generation that force is the only way. They restrained
themselves and tried other ways for long enough, but we insisted: only
through force.
How much more true this is for Palestinians in the territories. The
first 20 years of the occupation passed by pleasantly for us.
Obediently and submissively, they washed our dishes, cleaned our
streets and built our homes, and we thought that's how it would
continue for eternity. Then the Intifada came and hit us in the face.
After 1,148 Palestinians and 154 Israelis were killed, we agreed to
conduct negotiations with the PLO. Only after the next great
bloodletting will we agree to allow them to establish a state in the
1967 borders, as is their right.
Is that how it must be? Not at all. Take for example Joseph's Tomb.
Everybody knew that Israel would eventually withdraw from it. So
what's the deal? The prime minister announced that we are not giving
in to violence by withdrawing. This is nonsense, as was proved this
weekend. It is more accurate to say that, for a time, we did not give
in to limited violence. We have now withdrawn from Joseph's Tomb, and
in embarrassing circumstances. If we had done this earlier, during the
withdrawal from Nablus, of our own accord, it would have seemed
different. Why didn't we withdraw earlier? What happened that suddenly
the deputy defense minister realized that "we have no interest in
being there"? It seems we hadn't spilled enough blood at the tomb. And
after enough blood has been spilled at Netzarim, we'll withdraw from
there, too.
What conclusion must the Palestinian side draw from this? That it
should step up the violence. It has served them well until now.
It is still not too late to change this Israeli pattern of action.
Even in the eyes of those for whom the name of the game is power -
conceding before the use of violence points to greater power than
conceding after its use. This can begin immediately, in a symbolic
manner, by evacuating Netzarim, Kfar Darom and the Jewish settlement
in Hebron. Why not do it before the next spillage of blood? We would
show both ourselves and the other side that there is another way, not
only through force
