By Martin Sherman
For its long term survival and security Israel needs strategic coherence, not haphazard tactical machoism.
There is no difference between an attack that ends in murder and an attack that ends with serious injury. In both cases the homes of the terrorists must be destroyed – Defense Minister Avidgor Liberman, Oct 29, 2007.
Earlier this week, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman instructed the Defense Ministry’s legal team to explore avenues that would extend the ability of the IDF to destroy not only the homes of terrorists who have murdered Israelis, but also of terrorists who have severely wounded them. Currently home demolitions are restricted to cases of terror attacks that result in the death of Israelis.
Is incompetence reason for clemency?
In justifying his proposal, Liberman claimed that Israel’s policy of home demolitions has proven itself an effective deterrent against terrorism, and there is no reason to distinguish between the different types of attacks whose purposeful intent was the slaughter of Israelis.
Prima facie, this contention has a sound ring of logic to it. After all, why should the murderous intent of one terrorist be treated less harshly simply because the harm inflicted was—despite that intent—less “successful” than those of another nefarious perpetrator?
After all, if home demolitions are, as Liberman claims, an effective measure in reducing the mortal danger to Israelis, why not apply it to any terror attempt—whether successful or not? Indeed, one might well ask, why should the efficiency of Israel’s counterterror operations be a mitigating factor in dealing with any thwarted would-be Judeocidal butcher?
But perhaps even more to the point is this: If home demolitions are in fact an effective terror deterrent, then perhaps even more than the actual perpetrators, who murder or maim their victims, this measure should be applied to those who plan, finance or incite such atrocities.
Indeed, given that frequently, the perpetrators themselves are willing to sacrifice their lives in the commission of their brutal acts, it could well be that the threat of having one’s residence razed might have greater deterrent effect on those responsible for planning, funding and inciting such acts—and who do not seem to share such a manifest death-wish as their more dispensable kinsfolk.
Correctly conceptualizing the conflict
Critics of home demolitions, in general and certainly of any expansion of its application such as advanced by Liberman, in particular, allege that, as it entails inflicting punishment on the families of the perpetrator for acts they did not commit, it is inherently unfair. Accordingly, its use should be prohibited or at least severely curtailed.
While this characterization might be factually true, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is operationally (and ethically) irrelevant.
It should be almost self-evident that to arrive at some kind of durable resolution of the conflict and the lasting cessation of violence, the conflict must be correctly conceptualized. This is not a prescription for abstract theorizing detached from the harsh and harrowing realities of day-to-day experience. Quite the opposite. Unless the conflict is correctly conceptualized, no effective policy can be devised to contend with it –and certainly not to end it. Indeed, just as a disease cannot be properly treated if incorrectly diagnosed, so a conflict cannot be correctly addressed if it is incorrectly conceptualized.
Little analytical acumen is required to draw the conclusion that the conflict between Arab and Jew over control of the Holy Land is a clash between two collectives: A Jewish collective and an Arab collective—for which the Palestinian collective is its operational spearhead.
In this regard, during a November 2015 address, then-defense minister, Moshe “Bogey” Yaalon, aptly characterized the conflict as a clash of collectives, describing it as: “…predominantly a war of wills, of two societies with conflicting wills.”
Accordingly, the conflict, as one between collectives, cannot be individualized. One collective must prevail, the other be prevailed upon. Only then, after such a decisive outcome, can the issue of personal misfortune or injustice within the collectives be addressed.
Collective punishments for collective conflicts
If the clash is essentially one between collectives with conflicting societal wills, then clearly, for one collective to prevail over the other requires breaking the will of the rival collective.
Consequently, any wrongdoings perpetrated in the name of the Palestinian collective must carry a price, for which the collective pays – for if not, it will have no incentive to curb them.
In this regard, it must be kept in mind that the Palestinian population is not, as some might suggest, a hapless victim of the terror groups, rendering it blameless for the atrocities committed in its name. To the contrary, it is the very crucible from which such groups have emerged. By its own hand, by its own deeds and declarations, it has made it clear that it will not—except on some temporary, tactical basis–brook any manifestation of Jewish political independence or national sovereignty “between the River and the Sea”.
Indeed, a July 2017 survey by Palestinian Center of Policy and Survey Research, found that within the Palestinian collective, there is virtually unanimous endorsement of the acts of terror perpetrated against the Jewish collective and similar sympathy and support for perpetrators. According to its findings, “an almost total consensus rejects pressure on the PA to terminate payments to Palestinian security prisoners [i.e. jailed terrorists- MS]” and “91% are opposed to the suspension of PA payments to Palestinian security prisoners in Israeli jails; only 7% support such measure.”
Putting home demolitions in perspective
Accordingly, in the context of a clash between conflicted collectives, the issue of the “collective nature” of punitive measures should not be considered grounds for their preclusion.
After all, this was never a consideration in, say, Serbia, where markets, hospitals, buses, bridges and old age facilities, to name but a few civilian targets hit in high altitude bombing sorties in the US-led NATO attacks in the Balkans War of the 1990s.
Moreover, as polls repeatedly show, terror attacks against Israelis are not something foisted on a reluctant peace-seeking Palestinian population, but are in fact, widely embraced by it—reflecting nothing more (or less) than vox populi.
Seen in this light, home demolitions and the extension of their imposition on perpetrators of non-lethal terror attacks (or even planners and facilitators of such attacks) are entirely appropriate if they:
– militate towards diminishing dangers to which members of the Jewish collective are exposed; and
– diminish the will of the Palestinians-Arabs, as a collective, to carry out assaults against Jews (as a collective).
However, unless integrated into a wider conceptually coherent strategic policy, home demolitions, like any other operational tactics, such as targeted killing, are unlikely to be effective in any meaningful way. This is particularly true if the affected family members are allowed to receive aid to quickly rebuild an alternative abode and financial compensation for their kinsman’s commission of the act for which their home was demolished.
Lack of strategy stymies tactics
Indeed, while it might be possible to present data showing that harsh punitive and/or preventative measures—whether house demolitions, administrative detention or targeted killings—may have reduced the frequency of terror attacks, even their most fervent proponents will be forced to admit that they have not been able to terminate such attacks. And certainly they have been unable to break the terrorists’ will to undertake them.
Nor will they ever be able to do so, if they remain detached from a wider strategic blueprint, which draws on the awareness that in the ongoing clash between two collectives with irreconcilable core aspirations, only one can prevail.
This calls for Israel to cease relating to the Palestinian-Arab collective as a prospective peace partner, and to begin relating to it as it relates to itself—as an implacable enemy. Only then can a coherent, comprehensive and logically consistent strategy be fashioned in which Israel ceases to sustain an inimical collective by gradually ceasing to supply it with goods and services it needs for its existence. In applying such a strategy, a clear distinction should be made between the belligerent Palestinian-Arab collective and non-belligerent Palestinian-Arab individuals.
The former must be unequivocally and unmercifully vanquished and dismantled. The latter must be provided with the means to seek a better, more secure life elsewhere in third party countries, outside the “circle of violence” and free from the clutches of the cruel corrupt cliques who, for decades, have wrought nothing but disaster and devastation upon them.
Strategic coherence not haphazard tactical machoism
Only once such a strategic approach is adopted, can various operational tactics –such as an enhanced demolitions policy—be effectively incorporated into it as tools to achieve strategic goals. Until that happens, until Israel foreswears any aspirations of reaching some consensual arrangement with the Palestinians, harsh tactical measures will always, to some degree or other, be at cross purposes with ostensibly more benign strategic objectives. Until that happens, Israeli policy will be plagued by internal contradictions that hamstring its implementation and the effectiveness of its operational tactics, making it appear disingenuous and devious—and an easy target for international acrimony and opprobrium.
Surely it is high time for the national leadership to grasp these almost self-evident truths and demonstrate an awareness that for its long term survival and security, Israel needs strategic coherence, not haphazard tactical machoism.
The goal needs to be established to WIN the CONFLICT and not manage it. From this goal you plan a strategy of rooting out and destroying all terrorists and their supporters whether financial, logistical, or organizational.
Any family members of these terrorists or their supporters would need to either be put in prison or deported. The homes of all would be either destroyed or be confiscated with title stripped to the home and any land holding. At an appropriate the property could be sold to Jews for living purposes or used by the police or military if need be in the interim.
You can not win the conflict without destroying (killing) the terrorists and their supporters. You do not need to wait for a terrorist to be caught in a terror act or attempt. Belonging to any of the terror organizations is crime sufficient. This a war and should be treated as such and not maintenance action.
While Dr. Sherman is correct that the sort of measures he suggests would be necessary for Israel to win the war, he ignores the fact that the great powers (The United States, Britain, France, Russia, the EU, the UN) are determined to prevent Israel from winning the war. And the sort of measures proposed by Dr. Sherman would hand them, and the Western press which is largely subservient to them, a very useful propaganda weapon that they could use to justify harsh sanctions against Israel to their own populations. Such measures, if undertaken by Israel, would be labelled “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide,” and used to whip up worldwide anti-Israel hysteria, creating a climate in which the great powers and their client states could impose economic embargoes and arms embargoes on Israel that it could not withstand. They might also use this hysteria to approve outright military intervention against Israel.
It is true that the great powers often resort to even harsher collective punishments on peoples than anything Dr. Sherman proposes, He is correct also in identifying the Serbian people as the target of the great powers’ collective punishment in the 1990s, when NATO rained death on Serb civilians from the air, and also caused many more to freeze to death with an oil embargo. The U.S. even made its own famous chess champion, Bobby Fischer, an international outlaw and exile just because he accepted a challenge to play a chess match in Serbia. But this has not stopped the great powers from screaming “ethnic cleansing!” and “genocide” against small, weak countries when it suits their purposes–as they are doing now to Myanmar because of its army’s attempt to defend the native population from the Rohingya illegal settlers and Islamist terrorists from Bangladesh.
The only possible solution that might enable Israel to undertake the tough measures needed to defeat its Palestinian-Arab and other enemies would by a massive, well-funded and skillfully managd counter-propaganda campaign, aimed at informing the American and European public about the true state of affairs in Israel-Palestine. However, even that will be impossible without the removal from power of the anti-Zionist, pro-Arab and EU-aligned “permanent government” and “deep state,” led by the Supreme Court, which currently runs Israel. This power structure has absolutely refused to conduct such an information campaign. Only ending the power of unelected officials within Israel can lay the groundwork for an eventual Israeli victory over its overt Arab-Muslim enemies. It is therefore the task that all Israeli patriots should devote themselves to heart and soul and prioritize above all else.
.
@ Edgar G.:
Hi again, Edgar.
I don’t know how deeply you or I want to get mired in this subject; because we are talking about religion — something people either judiciously avoid or fanatically pursue; but upon which everyone, like it or not, is betting their future existence for eternity.
You are Jewish, and I am Christian. Someone said the Americans and British are one people, separated by a common language. The Jews and Christians, on the other hand, are one religion, separated by a common Bible! To this, I might add that the Jews are one people, separated by a common religion. Oy! You said,
“Personally, I agree with you that innocent children should not suffer for their fathers’ wrongdoings.”
Actually, I didn’t say that. I said there are scriptures that command the JEWS not to execute other JEWS for the wrongdoings of their parents, nor the JEWISH parents for the wrongdoings of their children. The rest of the world (the collective goiim) are off the hook (and in the noose, so to speak) on this matter.
I’ll purposely start a new paragraph here, to show that the following is an entirely different matter: GOD said,
“Exod.20
[1] And God spake all these words, saying,
[2] I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
[3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
[4] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
[5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
[6] And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
That passage from Sh’mot may well, in fact. be the piece you memorized in Hebrew for your bar mitzvah. To Jews, of course, these are two commandments; to many Protestants, they are also two, but divided in a different place; and to Roman Catholics, they all comprise one commandment, which is,
“Thou shalt have no other gods before Adonai.”, plus commentary.
In no case, are WE (readers, of whatever persuasion) commanded to visit the iniquity of anyone upon anyone, nor forbidden to; there is just the divine commentary,
” I, YHVH, THY God am a JEALOUS God, visiting…”
The central point is not what to do about evildoers; the central point is God’s PERSONAL relationship to the Jewish people, which provokes him to extreme (up to four generations) jealousy. It’s one thing, to say, “I am your husband”. It’s quite another thing to say,
“I am an extremely jealous husband; and I will kill the great-great-grandchildren of anyone who violates our marriage.”
Hence the passage in scripture.
There is a concept in the Bible that most goiim and some Jews find hard to understand: That God is not a god of “liberty, egality and fraternity”, “endowing upon his creatures the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. If he were, the Jews would not be nearly universally hated. Instead, God is a PERSONAL God, with a PERSONAL relationship with his Jacob and with his descendants. THAT can arguably be said to be the real cause of the Israeli- (Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, European, insert any goy here) conflict.
That, indeed, is “pretty powerful stuff!”
Having said all that, I do not envy the Jews for their particular relationship with our common Creator; because I am confident that He has made other provision for me as well. Even so, there are millions, even among Christians, who have a deathly abhorrence to accepting the Jews’ marriage to their Husband; THEY secretly desire to have Him to themselves. Jealousy meets envy there, and watch out for flying knives!
Concerning the Palestinians, however, or the Turks or Persians or English, or anyone else who covets the land of Israel, which God has given as a wedding present to His Bride; they are not protected, in God’s eyes, from being killed or any other such niceties: They are vicious enemies of Israel; and by extension, they are vicious enemies of God; and all Tanakh shows that God is cognizant of this fact.
I hope that clarifies things, rather than otherwise.
Shalom shalom 🙂
@ Michael S:
Pretty powerful stuff, and repeated (copied) several times. But I still say that in Shemot, there is a dictum from G-D that the children will suffer unto the 4th (or maybe the 5th generation) . I think it had to do something with those worshipping the Golden Calf. My barmitzvah was a very long time ago, but i’m certain about this.
It have often-very often- been said that you can prove black is white with the Bible, and for every assertion there can be found a denial. Just as in this situation of ours.
Personally, I agree with you that innocent children should not suffer for their fathers’ wrongdoings….but in the case of Arabs, I wouldn’t want them exterminated G-D forbid, just removed from Israel, because as they grow up here they will be inculcated from birth with Jew hatred, for which they already have a very good hereditary start. And they’ll become open terrorists or helpers, or supporters, all of which we DO NOT want in Israel..for our own safety if for nothing else. \
And Arab can NEVER be trusted. I have given examples a few weeks ago of Halutzim who grew up together from babyhood with Arabs, in and out of each other’s homes, And one day the Jew -young man or girl- is found mutilated, and gutted, but the Arab has disappeared. I used to read about these instances when I was a young boy, and never forgot them. . They quoted names times and places.
We’re inclined to forget or not think of these very real happenings. How can anyone ever think that a dirt like Arafat, or Abbas would be peaceful, and after all their obscene acts……. Stupid-clever Jews again, and again…
@ Felix Quigley:
I messed up the edit…I went on to talk about how destructive is capitalism…and I referred to the Iberian Lynx, Catalonia and the Spanish destructionists, and then on to the new species of Orangutang discovered but in reality they have discovered it as it is disappearing…what a tragic commentary on capitalism
@ Edgar G.:
Hi, Edgar.
My opinion, which I stated in my post, is that those who attack Israel, and are effectively at war with israel, should be dealt with as ENEMIES in war. It follows, that they should not be treated the same as peaceful Israeli citizens — or even Israeli citizens who are criminals.
@ Edgar G.:
Hi, Edgar. Here are a few verses — in King James translation, of cours, but close enough:
2Kgs.14
[1] In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah.
[2] He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.
[3] And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not like David his father: he did according to all things as Joash his father did.
[4] Howbeit the high places were not taken away: as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places.
[5] And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father.
[6] But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
That is the most pertinent scripture, because is is an actual APPLICATION of the scripture. Note that the guilty parties, however, were Jews: Non-Jews were not guaranteed such clemency.
The root scripture, if you are interested, is:
Deut.24
[16] The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
The commandment is pronounced by Ezekiel:
Ezek.18
[18] As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.
[19] Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
[20] The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
The principles you recited in your bar mitzvah, which are also found in Deuteronomy, as well as elsewhere in Torah, are not directives concerning legal judgments: they are statements about how GOD executes judgment — not how we are to judge in courts of law.
@ Michael S:
Something else…I knew that there was something about the sins of the fathers, but it just niggled at me. Now I recall. I think it is somewhere in Shemot, (for my barmitzvah actually) that the children will suffer down until the 4th or 5th generation… Not that it’s relevant here but because you brought it up,…you know I’m an argumentative type.
So its basically , “you say tomayto I say tomaato,… you say potayto, I say potaato…”Lets call the whole thing off”…..(the last few words in commas are the name of the song)
@ Michael S:
I don’t believe that he meant that children should be punished for the sins of their fathers. It seemed plain to me that perpetrators who succeeded, and those who tried and failed, are what he meant. I go further and say that those who HELPED in greater or LESSER roles (and perhaps those who would have helped if called on any time ) were what *** I *** meant. Root and branch. This is because it has gone on far, far too long, and been too barbarous and wicked, and I’m not willing to sit down and politicize it any more. I want to get rid of them all, so that we can go on with our own, respectable, decent lives without having to look over our shoulders all the time.
I don’t want to follow the market down, as we always do, waiting for something dreadful to happen first before running around like beheaded chickens, then acting….maybe. There are a lot more of them than of us.
I prefer to pre-empt now.
@ Edgar G.:
Hello, Edgar. You said,
“But again, everything neccessary to have been said was in the first half of your article.”
I’m happy to see that, because I can seldom endure to the ends of these long articles.
Only one thought came to mind as I read about Lieberman’s proposal: “Is this consistent with Holy Scripture”? Without considering matters from such an angle, we are really left at sea in this world of relitavistic morality.
On the one hand, the Bible says that the children should not be punished for the sins of the father. On the other hand, that commandment was intended for Jews, not for their enemies. For the latter, God often prescribed not only tearing down the houses, but genocidal annihilation.
This is at the heart of much of the contention concerning Israel: The world, including many worldly Jews, sees all people as equal, regardless of their conduct or of the gods they worship. They see rights as a matter of entitlement — as “inalienably endowed upon them by the Creator”. The Bible does not see the situation this way; and the Bible is the writ of that very Creator. God has given commandments protecting JEWS from collective punishment by fellow Jews. The flip side, is that those same Jews are obligated to observe ALL the commandments, if they want any particular commandment to benefit them.
IN the present discussion, we are not talking about the punishment of Jews per se; although if a Jew chooses to join himself to the cause of Israel’s enemies, he comes under the same punishment.
If an exception to the above should be granted, it might be to those non-Jews who have come under the protection of the Jewish state — to the Druze, Muslims and Christians who have elected Israeli citizenship. The others, the so-called “Palestinians”, have been at war with the Jewish state since its conception. They need to be treated as enemies.
Francisco Gil White writes,
@ Edgar G.:
Apology for the comparison with Mark Twain’s criticism of the “Literary Lapses of James Fenimore Cooper”……..I was only kidding. It was a spur of the moment urge, not meant to be taken literally.
(Twain’s was a rib breaking laugh from start to finish, although valid. Anyone who needs cheering up should read it).
Oh Martin, Martin, at long last (although as usual much to long) you have written an article with which I can wholeheartedly agree. I’m sure you’ll be pleased at this.
Liberman provided the spark, and you fanned it into a working fire. Now we have to cut through all the petty crap that the politicians will throw on it and work it into a roaring blaze.
The accusation of “thought police” is not applicable to this 100 year long disease of innocent people being massacred by 7th century barbarians, often modernly educated by the State of Israel , but with an unmoved 7th century brainwash. Anyone active in terrorism regardless of the result, should suffer.
But again, everything neccessary to have been said was in the first half of your article. Can’t you find a way to repress your overflowing “literary lapses” (a la Mark Twain on James Fenimore Cooper).
I have often believed in cutting the cancer at the root, and occasionally put it in print but it has never been commented on. Your prominence will make it a legitimate concept, and perhaps it will be done.
All praise to Liberman for coming up with it publicly. The barbarians destroy our women and children for no cause, and we destroy their homes for good cause.