Rabin condemned the slaughter, as he should have, offered condolences on behalf of the entire nation of Israel to the families and friends of the victims, as he should have, and offered to pay the families of the victims, as he probably should have, though I would venture to say that there are better ways to spend that money than by insulting the families by suggesting that money can replace their loss. He also phoned Arafat to apologize personally, as he should have.
Yasser Arafat's reaction was to condemn the attack, as he should have, and to warn that the peace talks are in great danger as a result, as he should have.
It is interesting, however, to juxtapose these reactions and pronouncements in light of those that follow any terrorist murder or other violent outrage by Palestinian against Israelis. When such attacks take place, and when Israelis protest against them, and against the government policies that allow them to take place, we hear from Rabin that the settlers "are not real Israelis". We see government mandated use of excessive force against peaceful demonstrators. We never hear a word of condolence, or even the thought of compensation to the families of the victims. The attacks are rarely condemned by the Israeli government. Instead they are used as political tools to entice the settlers to move out of Judea and Samaria, much like the Deir Yassin attack in 1948 was used by Arab governments to convince Arab settlers to move out of Israel until after the war.
Instead of pioneers who became victims, with families and children, Israeli victims of the renewed Intifadah are only victims of the peace process. Arabs no longer want to kill Jews, they only want to harm the peace process. Rabin never warns that the peace process is in danger, and never demands that the violence stop or that the PLO covenant be amended. But what is peace if not the absence of violence? Does Rabin actually hope that by ignoring anti-semitic violence it will simply go away?
Yasser Arafat rarely reacts at all when a Palestinian, whom he purports to represent, kills a Jew, with whom he hopes to make peace. Instead, we hear enticements to more anti-Jewish violence "as long as the settlers remain in Palestine". We see no magnanimous offers of condolence, of compensation, or any condmenation of the violence whatsoever.
Many will react to the massacre in Hebron by claiming that it shows a lack of desire for peace on the part of Israelis. For years we will be hearing about Hebron like we still hear about Deir Yassin. But this is fallacious. What we have here are two groups of people living in the same territory. One has shown a remarkable determination to achieve peace with the other, while the other has shown nothing but obstinance and the demand to have everything its own way. What one crazed lunatic does in a fit of insanity cannot be compared to the actions of a large portion of Palestinians, or to the actions of an entire group claiming to represent all Palestinians. The remarkable thing about this is that the nation, which is willing to give up so much for peace, does not have a leadership that holds its interests at heart. Rather, the group that demands everything and offers nothing has not only its own leadership on its side, but also that of Israel.
Ultimately, Yasser Arafat does not care a mite whether Israelis live or die, or who is responsible for their death. Whatever care he does show is geared toward encouraging more violence to win him the power he has longed for over decades. Perhaps this is as it should be. But we are increasingly seeing that Yitzchak Rabin also does not care about Israelis' well-being. He certainly has not shown that he cares as much about Israelis as he does about his beloved Palestinians.
The Israeli government made all the right moves in reaction to the outrage in Hebron. If only they would make the same or similar gestures to their own victims, the government would have at least some credibility. Instead, they have only shown once again that they have sold out Israeli interests, security, and the safety of its citizens for a worthless paper agreement in which the other side does not believe and places no importance or priority. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, in Washington for the sigining of the Declaration of Principles in September, intoned, "You must make peace with your enemies." He is right, for one need not make peace with friends. But what the Israeli government has not yet realized six months later is that peace is a two-way street, while war need only be one-way. Palestinians do not want peace, so the two ways are impossible. They want war, so they have it. One cannot make peace with one's enemy if that enemy is still interested in war.
This is a problem that must be seriously and clearly addressed by the Israeli public, which is beginning to do so, and by the Israeli opposition parties, which have yet to do so. For the longer Israel's leadership is allowed to sell the country out from under its citizens, the more difficult it will be to retain any measure of control in or over the country once they are out of power.
Copyright 1994. Reproduction in electronic or print format by permission only.
