Respect the Arab

When Israel responded to Arab attacks that took place between August 18-25, 2011, it did so in a nuanced manner.  The Arab attacks killed ten Israelis (including those who died from rocket attacks) in the most serious anti-Israel assault in years. Nevertheless, despite the length of the fatality list, Israeli military action was muted. Clearly, the military’s goal was not to eradicate terrorism. Rather, it appeared designed to send two messages: (1) back off; and (2) as we strike back at you, we will show respect.  We have seen this type of response before. It is how Israel reacts when Jews are murdered.  It is designed to show that there is a cost for killing Jews; but at the same time, it also shows courtesy and deference to the Arab.

How does that work? Look at the facts. Respect for the Arab is everywhere: illegal settlements—and attacks-- by Bedouin in the Negev region are addressed by a specific government proposal-- to gift to the Bedouin 1.2 billion NIS and up to 250,000 dunams of land; Jewish settlements in Samaria, however, are demolished (see Migron, Ga’on Yarden and Alei Ayin);  illegal building by Arabs in ‘Area C’ (designated by the Oslo Accords as belonging to Jews) goes on unabated while the Israeli government refuses to issue building permits for Jewish construction in Jewish areas of the West Bank; Jerusalem police appear to do nothing as an Arab mob destroys a police vehicle (Arutz Sheva, September 5, 2011) but they fire rubber bullets at Jewish residents at Havat Gilad and use violence on Jews at Givat Ronen (Arutz Sheva , June 2, 2011). Such favoritism is not isolated.  Respect for the Arab at Jews’ expense shows up in the news (Arutz Sheva, Expose: Blatant Anti-Jewish Policy in Judea and Samaria, September 6, 2011) as an accusation of discriminatory (pro-Arab) government policy. It has permeated the work of Shimon Peres for at least twenty years. It so saturates the judiciary that Israel’s High Court appears to have become an ‘activist court’, which is a Court that issues its rulings because of political considerations and not legal precedence—a dangerous behaviour that always threatens to undermine a democracy no matter where it occurs. Such respect for the Arab appears required to reach the highest military ranks—and then shows up in decisions made at that level: read the revised IDF rules of engagement for IDF soldiers in combat against the Arab (see also Caroline Glick, “Our World: Funding the enemy” Jerusalem Post, September 20,2011) . If you have questions about this respect for the Arab, ask Jewish residents of West Bank hilltops. They see it every day.

How do Israel Air Force (IAF) retaliatory strikes show this same respect for the Arab?  Israel military response to terror--or rocket attack from Gaza--is almost always careful, appearing at times to be delicate and meticulous-- only a certain number of sorties are attempted; only specific targets are hit; only certain weapons systems are employed—and always, the typical Gazan resident understands that his neighbourhood and shopping areas will usually remain intact.

Jews in Israel, meanwhile, receive no such respect from the Arab.

Certainly, Israel will not remain idle when Israelis are killed. The IDF will respond. But the response will be muted, even deferential:  in a manner that might be described as considerate, IAF strikes will be quick, limited and surgical.  Arab feathers will not be ruffled too much. Acts of aggression against Israel will be tolerated, if spaced out (think about rockets falling on Jews in Southern Israel).  If the Arab attacks children, infants and women, the Israeli response will invariably use sufficient restraint to show a consideration for Arab casualties and a deference to their sense of safety. The Arab, however, will shoot and then walk up to a wounded Jew and put a bullet in her head (see news stories,  August 18-21, 2011). By comparison, Israel will be dainty.

Does this consideration benefit Israel?   

One could argue that Israeli nuanced response to Arab terror works. Look at the August 18-25 incident:  after Israeli air retaliations,  the Arabs complained, they went to the UN and they denounced Israel’s ‘escalation’--but no international outcry occurred, no UN resolutions were passed condemning Israel,  no Arab armies attacked Israel, and the intensity of the rocket attacks diminished. Was the result perfect? No.  But the response did accomplish three goals of Israel’s current military doctrine: it did not provoke escalation; it fought the terror attacks; and it created a relatively low casualty rate.

Does this approach work? According to Israel’s current military doctrine, the answer is—yes, but only if Israel continues to act with delicacy and deference towards the Arab, and shows respect for the Arab in our military doctrine, our police policies, our judiciary and our government bureaucracy. Is this a correct policy?

This question is important because, as our New Year begins,  Arabs have begun to riot, throw stones at cars, burn Jewish crops and attack isolated Jewish homes—while the IDF issues a warning  that any soldier who fires his rifle at an Arab is subject to legal prosecution, which could be a dangerous new variation of ‘Respect the Arab’. Is this how we protect our soldiers and citizens? Perhaps it is time to look at other forms of ‘rules of engagement’ for our soldiers. After all, we are the Jewish nation; shouldn’t we consult our Torah?

Is our Jewish leadership, both military and civilian, capable of such Torah-based thinking—or do the citizens of Israel have to demand to see a different, Jewish leadership?

What do you think?