In his Ha'Aretz Op-Ed, Defense
In his Ha'Aretz Op-Ed, Defense Editor Ze'ev Schiff attempts to formulate a response to the IDF's assassination of Shehada. Perhaps it's the translation from the Hebrew, but the results seem muddled to me. He notes what I considered last week to be a very important tidbit of information:
"The Gaza incident raises serious questions about the decision-making process during the prosecution of a war. An important decision was made in which the only person actively and directly involved was the prime minister."
But he concludes:
"Now, after two large-scale operations by the IDF, the two sides can be likened to passengers in a car without a driver, with no one to stop it."
It seems to me that Ariel Sharon may actually be in the front passenger seat, if not actually behind the wheel. His ability to take effective action is manifest. Arafat, on the other hand, may or may not actually be in control of anything. Certainly, any action that he takes seems blunted, muddled and ineffective, whether it is the reining in of extremist elements or the organization of free elections.
Schiff also notes that:
"The response to the criticism being directed at Israel suffers from confusion because of the analogy Israel is drawing when it lashes out at its critics by citing the actions of the Palestinian murders who do not balk at snuffing out the lives of infants and the elderly. They deliberately seek out civilians, especially children, to attack, Israel says - whereas we are sliding into a situation in which we don't care if Palestinian civilians are hurt."
I'm not sure that "confusion" is the best word to use here. The lack of regard for human life demonstrated by Palestinian suicide bombers ought not to result in a comparable lack of regard for human life on the part of the Israelis. I say, of course, "ought not." It's quite easy to toss about "oughts" and "shoulds" and moral theories about the respect due to all humanity but, as a friend recently reminded me, we are dealing with human beings here, and they are imperfect, volatile creatures. They cannot be expected to demonstrate Christ-like compassion for their enemies, if I may be forgiven an utterly inappropriate allusion. The moral high ground does not carry the same practical weight as the elevated earth of the Golan heights.
The crux of the matter, it seems to me , is this:
"[...] it should be clear that the murderous behavior of the Palestinians does not justify disregard of the killing of Palestinian children, even if unintentionally [...] there is a contradiction between this disregard of the damage done to the civilian population and another approach espoused by the IDF, according to which the attitude taken toward the Palestinian civilian population will affect the outcome of the campaign and the future of the relations between the two peoples."
So often we hear about the "dignity" and "honor" of the Palestinian people being trampled under the boots of IDF soldiers. Like the aforementioned "oughts" and "shoulds," dignity and honor are ephemeral things, of little practical value. But so much of what has given rise to the most excessive violence in this conflict are things that are of little practical value: the ruined wall of a 2,000 year old temple...the perceived sanctity of the courtyard paving stones of a mosque. Indeed, it can be said that dropping a one-ton bomb to kill a single wanted man is eminently practical...and yet it seems that the most important consequences of that undeniably effective act reverberate most strongly within the abstract realm of impractical notions...honor...dignity...moral worth. What damage does it do to the collective soul of Israel to achieve the same disregard for civilian lives as their Palestinian enemies?
This is a conflict that we here in America witness only at the most superficial, headline-grabbing and soundbite-spewing level. We hear only the faintest echo of the constant murmuring debate within Israeli society about the nature of the conflict, its causes, and its proper resolution. These divisions are reflected in Schiff's piece. He begins by acknowledging the anger of the Israeli Defense Force, which might seem to be a strange image: a singularly personal emotion attributed to an entire military organization. But when you consider that Israel requires military service of all its citizens, it makes a bit more sense. The military is the citizenry, and they're as angry as we in America were after 9/11. He admits that the intelligence mistakes regarding the presence of civilians must be investigated, as must the mistaken technical evaluation of the probable collateral damage from the use of such a large weapon. But he concludes that what is depressing is that "the terrorists' actions and the reactions to [the attack] will be exacerbated."
I think, though, that Schiff is depressed by something that he can't quite confront: Intelligence knew exactly who was in the building. The technicians knew the exact extent of the damage that would be caused. And the action proceeded anyway, on the authority of Ariel Sharon.
He can't admit it, and I don't blame him. It is a terrible thing to realize that, however justified your rage, it has enabled you to become just a little bit more like that which you hate. Doubtless, a most impractical perception...but its impact is undeniable.
