By David Harsanyi
Friday, February 24, 2017
This week, an Israel military tribunal convicted
19-year-old Elor Azaria, an Israeli Defense Forces medic, of manslaughter.
Azaria shot and killed a wounded Palestinian terrorist who had minutes earlier
stabbed a fellow solider in Hebron. Azaria claimed self-defense, but a
three-judge panel found his actions disproportionate and dangerous.
It’s a complicated case that’s aggravated many underlying
tensions within Israeli society. Whether Azaria deserved his sentence or not,
in Western societies even the shooting of a terrorist can be cause for a trial,
debate, and national self-reflection. In this system, elected officials — even
those who disagree strongly with the conviction — honor the courts. The guilty
also have a right to appeal the verdict. These are basic standards of law in
any liberal democracy.
Also this week, Israel appointed George Kara, an Arab-Israeli,
to the Supreme Court. Kara is best known for convicting then-president of
Israel Moshe Katsav of rape and sentencing him to seven years in prison.
Now, it would take a sturdy imagination to visualize a
Jew (or Christian, for that matter) holding a top government position in the
West Bank, Gaza, or any Islamic-majority nation, much less imprisoning an
official of the state. In Arab-controlled areas, a Jew won’t survive without
military protection for long. Among the Palestinians, the shooting of an
Israeli child (forget terrorist) would undoubtedly provoke celebration. Unlike
Azaria, they would not find themselves in court, although they might find their
name celebrated on a street sign.
When five Israelis (three of them American citizens and
one a Druze) were murdered a couple of years back, Palestinians in Gaza fired
celebratory gunshots in the air, “and praise for God and the attackers poured
from mosque loudspeakers soon after the synagogue attack,” reported The New York Times. Fatah officials in
Lebanon (the moderates) explained that “Jerusalem needs blood in order to
purify itself of Jews.” I’ll spare the readers paragraphs of polls and
incidents substantiating widespread Palestinian anti-Semitism.
These two events are just a reminder of the sprawling
moral fissure that exists in the region. This divergence — which is getting
worse — is the real reason the Oslo Accords failed. It is why the “road map”
went nowhere. It is why Barack Obama’s incessant need to subordinate Israel to
regional enemies only fueled anti-Semitism and danger in the region. This is
what spurs Palestinian leaders to make absurd demands that can never be met. If
they don’t, they’ll be replaced by people who do.
Our hyper-focus on a “two-state” solution is just a waste
of time before dealing with these realities.
In his press conference with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump said something about “one state.” As often
is the case, the meaning was ambiguous and confusing. Some thought Trump was
implying support for a single democratic entity encompassing Israel and the
West Bank (this will never happen). I assumed he was signaling a preference for
the Jewish state. Either way, Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki
Haley, later walked back the remarks, explaining that “we absolutely support a
two-state solution, but we are thinking out of the box as well, which is: What
does it take to bring these two sides to the table?” She also called new
“settlements” unhelpful.
Still, it is almost certain that the new administration
won’t follow the last one in applying pressure solely on Israel. The next step,
though, is placing blame where it belongs.
When we act like both sides are equally culpable, the
longstanding position of the United States — which is better than the
longstanding position of most European nations, which place the entire
culpability on Israel — we feed the problem. For one thing, we pervert our own
ideals when supporting “peace deals” predicated on one side’s demand that their
new state be cleared of Jews. It’s certainly what we do when we allow the
United Nations to pass resolutions that maintain the presence of Jews in the
Old City of Jerusalem is an “occupation.” (How inconsiderate of King David to
provoke a yet-to-exist monotheistic faith that was 1,500-plus years from
conquering his city, and around 2,800 years away from discovering Palestinian
nationalism.)
David Friedman, the new Israel ambassador (a position
that doesn’t hold much sway over policy), has called Palestinian statehood an
“illusion.” When grilled on the subject during his Senate hearings, he
explained: “I have expressed my skepticism solely on the basis of my perception
of the Palestinians’ failure to renounce terror and accept Israel as a Jewish
state.” This would be an entirely accurate assessment.
Yet this moral clarity has made Friedman unacceptable for
many Democrats. New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez, who sounded like some
anti-Semitic McCarythite, went as far as demanding Friedman assure the
committee his loyalty to the United States.
Many of the intractable disagreements that exist between
Israel and the Palestinian Authority are driven by the inability of one side to
come to terms with history. Palestinians will not have control over Jerusalem
proper. There will be no “right of return.” Palestinians will not control their
borders as France controls its borders — at least not any time soon. That’s
because, in the end, no sane, civilized nation would help create a dangerous
illberal state next door. Two events this week remind us how premature it is to
.
No comments:
Post a Comment