When I moved to Israel, I came as an optimist, as an idealist, as someone who believed he had something to offer to the single greatest historical success story ever. After four years, I feel jaded. It is with no small amount of skepticism that I greet such blandishments from our so-called leaders.
Six months ago, Ehud Barak got all foamy at the mouth as he repeated ad nauseum the canard that "we will know how to respond". The Israeli public got so sick of it that they turned the most decorated soldier in Israeli military history into the shortest-serving Prime Minister in Israeli history. In place of Barak, we installed Ariel Sharon, a man with a military history as proud and accomplished as his predecessor's, and with two decades more political experience.
Sharon was elected on basically two bases. First, he offered an alternative to Barak's do-nothing security nightmare, and second, he offered somewhat of a personality. Today, barely four months later, only the second basis remains, which is not much of a selling point.
The promise of better security has gone up in smoke - the smoke of bombs in Tel Aviv and Netanya, and the smoke of gunfire on the roads of Judea and Samaria. For weeks, we have been hearing senior representatives of the current administration uttering Barak's infamous mantra, "we will know how to respond".
Two weeks ago, in response to the Mitchell Commission Report which rewarded eight months of Arab murder against Jews by calling for a freeze in Jewish construction, Ariel Sharon implemented a unilateral ceasefire in a thinly disguised attempt to garner some much needed public relations points with foreign potentates. The theory was that Arafat would continue shooting, proving once and for all that it is the Arabs who insist on carrying this war forward and the Jews who are conducting a static defense.
But that theory was unnecessary to say the least. After all, it was Arafat who unleashed this violence eight months ago in response to the previously unimaginable concessions Barak offered at the negotiating table. And it is Arafat still who daily incites his followers to murder more Jews, who finances training schools where children as young as five are trained to use automatic weapons, and who cheers as each new Jewish body enters its grave. This is the same Arafat, remember, who was Bill Clinton's most frequent guest at the White House, and who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 in a ceremony the Norwegian committee must now be regretting to their last ounce of conscience.
Still, Sharon felt that the ceasefire was important. He felt that the PR points Israel might win were more important than the increased danger caused by the even lower deterrent factor of the IDF.
Since the ceasefire went into effect, 29 Jews have been killed in 5 separate attacks. Numerous other attacks have taken place without causing death. Hundreds have been injured in the latest upsurge of violence that is Arafat's response to Sharon's ceasefire.
Last Friday, Sharon's attempt at peaceful coexistence was blown to smithereens, along with 19 more Jews. It was only after the bloodiest terrorist incident Israel has suffered in close to thirty years that Arafat decided to issue a statement calling for a ceasefire. He hasn't actually implemented any policy that would result in a cessation of the violence, such as perhaps arresting those directly responsible or ending the educational and religious incitement that continues to blare throughout the PA, but he issued a statement. So Sharon, rather than implementing the cabinet decision to respond with all necessary force, decided to wait a few days to give Arafat one last chance.
Of course, it is not difficult for the Arabs to implement their ceasefire now. They are basically confined to their own individual communities by the total closure the IDF has imposed in the wake of the Tel Aviv bombing. In the meantime, the Israeli left will cheer about how the violence has slackened off, and Sharon has wasted the opportunity to deal a deathblow to the violence.
Today, the last nail was driven into the coffin of Israeli deterrence. Sharon claiming that his policy has not been one of restraint leads me to wonder what an actual policy of restraint would be like? Would he actually invite Arafat to Jerusalem to ensure that the next car bomb there resulted in death? And his claim that his policy is meant to better defend Israelis is the lamest statement I have heard any Israeli politician make since Barak's mantra was coined.
Friday saw the deadliest single attack in Israel since the Maalot massacre of 1974. The seven-day mourning period is barely half over. Yet Sharon has the gall to claim that his policy is meant to defend Israelis. Just who does he think he is kidding? Certainly not the many newly bereaved families in Israel. And certainly not the vast majority of Israelis who elected him for his promised security improvements.
Copyright 2001. Yehuda Poch is a writer living in Israel. Reproduction in electronic or print format by permission only.
