Editor’s note:
Today we bring two views that represent differing Israeli
perspectives. The first article questions the moral base of
Occupation by a former Israeli Attorney General. The second article
speaks about a controversial plan to expel Palestinians from the
Occupied territories. The term used is a chilling one resurrected
from Nazi propaganda called, “Transfer.” This is the term being used
by Israelis.
Please drop by the poll link to register whether you agree or
disagree with today’s articles.
--------
The War's Seventh Day- by Michael Ben-Yair
The Zionist dream's realization and the Jewish people's national
rebirth through the creation of Israel were achieved not because of
the Jewish side's superior number of tanks, planes or other
aggressive means. The State of Israel was born because the
Zionist movement realized it must find a solution to the Jews'
persecution and because the enlightened world recognized the
need for that solution.
The enlightened world's recognition of the solution's moral
justification was an important, principal factor in Israel's
creation. In other words, Israel was established on a clear,
recognized moral base. Without such a moral base, it is
doubtful whether the Zionist idea would have become a reality.
The Six-Day War was forced upon us; however, the war's seventh day,
which began on June 12, 1967 and has continued to this day, is
the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a
colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating
lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied
territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all
these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied
territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive,
liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the
occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime
in the occupied territories immediately following their capture.
That oppressive regime exists to this day.
The Six-Day War's seventh day has transformed us from a moral
society,
sure of the justice of Israel's creation, into a society that
oppresses another people, preventing it from realizing its
legitimate national aspirations. The Six- Day War's seventh day has
transformed us from a just society into an unjust one, prepared to
expand its control atop another nation's ruins. The discarding of
our moral foundation has hurt us as a society, reinforcing the
arguments of the world's hostile elements and sowers of evil and
intensifying their influence.
The intifada is the Palestinian people's war of national liberation.
Historical processes teach us that no nation is prepared to live
under another's domination and that a suppressed people's war of
national liberation will inevitably succeed. We understand this
point but choose to ignore it. We are prepared to engage in
confrontation to prevent an historical process, although we are well
aware that this process is anchored in the moral justification
behind every people's war of national liberation and behind its
right to self- determination, and although we are well aware that
this process will attain its inevitable goal.
This is the background of the difficult testimony we have received
about
actions of Israel Defense Forces personnel in the occupied
territories. No
need to repeat the details of the painful phenomena entailed in the
occupation regime and in our battle to prolong it. Suffice it to
recall the killing of little children fleeing for safety; the
executions, without trial, of wanted persons who were not on their
way to launch a terrorist act; and the encirclements, closures and
roadblocks that have turned the lives of millions into a nightmare.
Even if all these actions stem from our need to defend ourselves
under an occupation's conditions, the occupation's non-existence
would render them unnecessary. Thus, a black flag hovers over these
actions.
This is a harsh reality that is causing us to lose the moral base of
our
existence as a free, just society and to jeopardize Israel's
long-range
survival. Israel's security cannot be based only on the sword; it
must rather
be based on our principles of moral justice and on peace with our
neighbors - those living next door and those living a little further
away. An occupation regime undermines those principles of moral
justice and prevents the attainment of peace. Thus, that regime
endangers Israel's existence.
It is against this background that one must view the refusal of IDF
reservist
officers and soldiers to serve in the territories. In their eyes,
the occupation regime is evil and military service in the occupied
territories is evil. In their eyes, military service in the occupied
territories, which places soldiers in situations forcing them to
commit immoral acts, is evil, and, according to their conscience,
they cannot be party to such acts. Thus, their refusal to serve is
an act of conscience that is justified and recognized in every
democratic regime. History's verdict will be that their refusal was
the act that restored our moral backbone.
***********************************************************************************
Michael Ben-Yair was Israel’s Attorney General from 1993-96.
************************************************************************************
Transfer- by Aryeh Dayan
Last Tuesday, a few hours after submitting his resignation to the
government, but while he was still a minister, Benny Elon appeared
on the
Politika television program and declared: "Only transfer will bring
peace"
(This paraphrased Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's election slogan
"Only
Sharon will bring peace").
It was no slip of the tongue. Elon, who in the past had forced the
late
Rehavam Ze'evi to tone down his support for transfer, has recently
embraced the idea with renewed fervor. The Moledet Party, which Elon
plans to build up as a right-wing opposition to Sharon's right-wing
policies, will base the party's policy on transfer.
In the most recent issue of the party's magazine, which was devoted
wholly to the idea of transfer, Elon detailed his views on the
issue. "If they
[the Palestinians] can't live with us peacefully," he wrote, "they
won't
live here with us at all. Israel's deterrent power will not return
if we
don't make it clear to our neighbors that terror is liable to make
them
lose their land, just as happened in 1948 - Naqba (catastrophe) for
them,
and independence for us."
Elon's political plan centers on transforming Jordan into a
Palestinian
state. "The [Arab] residents of Yesha (Judea, Samaria and the Gaza
strip)
could be transferred, even without uprooting them, and transformed
into
citizens of the Palestinian state whose capital is Amman," writes
Elon, "on
condition that the residents of the refugee camps in Yesha, who are
the
main fomenters of hostilities, should be resettled in Arab
countries."
If the Palestinians refuse "transfer without being uprooted" then
they will
be transferred and uprooted. "If the Arabs of Yesha call for war
against
us," writes Elon, "they will be expelled to their country on the
other side
of the Jordan."
Avigdor Lieberman MK, head of Yisrael Beiteinu and Elon's partner in
the
National Unity faction in the Knesset, also recently proposed a
political
plan that includes a type of transfer. Lieberman's new plan, whose
goal is
to facilitate the achievement of a "political arrangement" between
Israel
and the Palestinians, mentions the transfer of Arabs who are Israeli
citizens. While Elon's plan proposes Jordan for the Palestinians,
Lieberman's suggests transferring all the Palestinians to three
small
"Palestinian regions" in Gaza, Jericho and Judea. They would be
isolated
from one another and the small Jewish settlements in the Palestinian
canton areas would be evacuated for the benefit of Israeli Arabs who
refuse to serve in the Israel Defense Forces and to express, in
writing, "unequivocal loyalty to Israel."
Such proposals are gaining a growing foothold among right-wing
supporters. Just last week a public opinion poll conducted by the
Yaffe Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University found that
46 percent of Jews in Israel support the transfer of the Arabs in
the territories. Furthermore 31 percent of the Jewish population
also favors the transfer of Israeli Arabs, 60 percent of those
polled said they supported encouraging Arabs to emigrate from
Israel, and 80 percent said they objected to the inclusion of
Israeli Arabs or their representatives in the decision-making
process of crucial issues such as setting Israel's borders.
An alternative
These feelings have not yet been translated into political
platforms. Apart
from the heads of Moledet and Yisrael Beiteinu, no other right-wing
party
leader has so far expressed any support for transfer. Most of them
are
aware of the growing tendency toward extreme ideas and say they
"understand what caused them." None of them justifies the growing
support for transfer, and some have even said the trend worries
them.
"The results of the poll unfortunately reflect the reality that I
encounter
almost every day," said deputy minister Yuli Edelstein, a resident
of the
Etzion Bloc and a member of the Yisrael b'Aliyah leadership. "I hear
it
everywhere, and not just at funerals. The public is in a state of
such
distress and dread that any miracle solutions suggested are
immediately
welcomed warmly. Some support transfer quite blatantly, while others
use
more subtle phraseology, but all agree the something has to be
done."
"I hear support for transfer almost everywhere I go," says Shaul
Yahalom
MK, of the National Religious Party (NRP). In both political and
social
circles, it seems hatred of Arabs has become an established fact.
"Death to Arabs" is chanted at every demonstration and the
participants support
transfer. "The Jewish population of Israel is suffering terrible
distress,"
adds Yahalom, "and people have had enough."
Micheal Kleiner MK, who heads the Herut movement and opposes
transfer, feels the public support of transfer is even greater than
revealed by the poll. "Anyone who wants the existence of a Jewish
state knows there is a real demographic problem," he says. "Some
people are dragged into supporting transfer, but there are many who
know that it is unethical and would be embarrassed to admit to the
pollsters that they support it."
Edelstein thinks transfer is immoral, not feasible, and dangerous to
Israel
and Israeli society. "The fact that it has sprung from the terrible
distress we are suffering does not make it any less dangerous," he
says.
"People simply want to wake up one morning and find that there are
no more Arabs here, but they have to understand it will never
happen. Arabs will always live among us and we mustn't let dreams of
transfer exempt us from continuing to search for ways to live with
them. Abandoning this search is dangerous for Israel."
Edelstein also feels the idea of a separating fence and evacuating
all the
settlements and returning to the pre-1967 borders - solutions
proposed by
the left - are just as illusory and dangerous. "It's hard to tell,"
he says
half jokingly, half seriously, whether the slogan `No Arabs, no
attacks,'
belongs to those who support transfer or those who support a return
to
pre-'67 borders." Edelstein views serious thoughts of transfer as
irrational, both because it is immoral and impossible to implement.
"It is
the duty of responsible leadership to think rationally," he
concludes.
Both Yahalom and Kleiner are worried by the growing support for
transfer,
but are more moderate in their responses to the problem. "If 46
percent of
the public supports transfer, but the only party that advocates it
is
Moledet, which as only one representative in the Knesset and has
never had more than three, the political system will hold it back,"
says Yahalom,
adding that the NRP vocally opposes transfer, both in the
educational arena and in politics. "The main religious-Zionist
rabbis have ruled that
transfer is forbidden by both halacha (Jewish law) and Jewish
tradition."
Yahalom has his own alternative plan, which he intends to propose
after the cessation of hostilities. He and the NRP will propose a
functional
compromise instead of a territorial one, and neither Jewish settlers
nor
Arabs would have to evacuate their homes. Judea and Samaria could be
under the joint sovereignty of Jordan and Israel. Jewish residents
would be citizens of Israel and would vote for the Knesset and Arab
residents would be citizens of Jordan and would vote for the
Jordanian parliament. This proposal, however, is almost identical to
Elon's "transfer without
uprooting" plan.
Kleiner also has an alternative to transfer - emigration incentives
for any
Israeli citizen or resident who agrees to move to an Arab country.
The
disadvantage of such a proposal is that it won't be total, but its
advantage is that it can be implemented. "My proposal, unlike
transfer, is
not a racist proposal because it is not aimed only at Arabs," says
Kleiner.
"Any Jew who wants to move to Morocco would be eligible for the
emigration
incentive."
Kleiner feels that Moledet is deceiving the public. "They talk of
`voluntary transfer' to sound more humane," says Kleiner, "but
everyone
knows what the intention is."
Likud says no way
The Likud not only dismisses the idea of transfer, but also denies
any
responsibility for the growing support for it. Yuval Steinitz MK,
one of
the leaders of the hawkish faction within the Likud, says he is
"saddened"
by the findings of the poll, but feels that the behavior of the
Palestinians both in Israel and in the territories, has caused more
and
more Israelis to embrace "unrealistic and unethical solutions."
"The moment the actions of the Palestinians created the feeling that
the
dispute is not over borders or political conditions, but rather over
our
very existence," says Steinitz, "people reached the simple
conclusion:
`Either they will survive, or we will.'" He feels that this
situation will
change "as soon as there is decisive military action and we return
to the
negotiating table." Nonetheless, Steinitz claims that there is
almost no
talk of support for transfer at Likud meetings.
Deputy minister Gideon Ezra, a colleague of Steinitz's, is even more
insistent regarding the absence of support for transfer. "The poll's
findings seem unrealistic," he said. "It's worth checking out just
how the
questions were worded and whether the poll was conducted, perhaps,
on the day of a bad terrorist attack. I have never heard any talk of
transfer
among members of the Likud."
What the deputy minister hasn't heard, the president of Egypt
apparently
has. In an interview with Channel One television last Friday,
President
Hosni Mubarak mentioned the transfer issue without being asked. "Any
attempt by you to expel Palestinians," he warned, "will create an
existential threat to Israel."
***********************************************************************************
Aryeh Dayan is an Israeli columnist for the Israeli paper Ha’aretz.
This appeared in the 3/19 edition.
************************************************************************************
|