|
Home
About IsraCampus
Search
עברית
Русский
Ben Gurion U
Hebrew U
Tel Aviv U
U of Haifa
Other Schools
A-C
D-G
H-K
L-N
O-R
S-V
W-Z
Israeli Academic Extremism
Israeli Academic Extremists outside
Israel
Anti-Israel Petitions Signed by Israeli
Academics
ALEF Watch
IDI Watch
IsraCampus Essays
How to Complain
Contact Us |
Hebrew University
Hebrew University - Zeev Sternhell (Dept of Political Science)
calls the Goldstone Report “another brick to the wall of
delegitimization” of the Jewish State of Israel; blames the “Israeli
political elite” but cannot see his own role in the building of the
wall
It is clear that there was no
prior intention to harm noncombatants, but the disaster that befell
the Abu al-Aish family was an inevitable and foreseeable outcome of
implementing the zero-risk principle. This is one example among many
demonstrating how cheap the price of Palestinian lives was in
Israeli eyes. The price, however, was not determined in the field,
but rather was embedded in the parameters determined for the
operation at its outset, by the top echelon of Israel's leadership.
Here, too, everything is clear: The responsibility lay not with the
junior and intermediate command levels, but rather with those who
shaped the new combat norms and approved them. Therefore, the entire
problem is first and foremost a moral one, and the Israeli political
elite cannot evade taking responsibility for it. The Goldstone
report was inevitable. … The bottom line is that Operation Cast Lead
has contributed another brick to the wall of delegitimization that
is gradually closing in on the Jewish state. Even if no Israeli is
brought to court in The Hague in the near future, the moral stain
will not be erased and the repercussions are yet to be seen.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1116944.html
A permanent moral stain
By Zeev Sternhell
September 27, 2009
Israeli criticism of the
Goldstone Commission report ignores a basic fact: The pattern of
action taken by Israel in the Gaza Strip had already been determined
the day after the Second Lebanon War. Indeed, in the summer of 2006,
it became clear once and for all that Israeli society would no
longer be prepared to face a war of choice that exacted victims on
its side. That is, Israel wants military victories, but it refuses
to pay the human price they entail. Hence, a sober decision - the
result of cold, political calculation - was made to conduct a
campaign to punish Gaza with no Israeli losses.
There is not a single
Israeli, especially among those who have themselves been soldiers,
to whom the lives of young people in uniform are not dear. However,
the practical meaning of this decision was that a heavy price would
be paid by the entire Palestinian population, indiscriminately.
Therefore, there is no need
for an Israeli commission of inquiry into Operation Cast Lead,
because there is nothing to investigate: The entire matter is as
clear as the noonday sun. Since Hamas operates from within
population concentrations in one of the Western world's most crowded
areas, it would be impossible to reach it without harming civilians.
Indeed, had a decision been made to preserve civilian lives, it
would have been necessary to adopt a completely different mode of
action, perhaps involving commando operations deep into enemy
territory, and these are always very costly in terms of soldiers'
lives.
Instead, Israel's political
and military leadership decided to use tremendous firepower that
lacks the ability to distinguish between a combatant preparing to
launch a rocket and a child playing in the yard. To this end, a new
moral doctrine was also formulated. This doctrine - from the school
of Prof. Asa Kasher and Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin - is known today in
everyday Israeli language as "a license to kill."
And, indeed, all the decision
makers knew in advance that a terrible catastrophe would ensue in
Gaza. The Israel Defense Forces carried out precisely the
instructions it received from its spiritual teachers, its commanders
and the government itself. The army did not intend to kill civilians
with malice aforethought - it just bombed, eliminated and flattened
anything that seemed necessary for purposes of reconnaissance,
maneuvering and advancement. Since every building could have served
as a cover for Hamas people, the targets were unlimited.
This, for example, was what
happened on January 16 in the case of Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish,
three of whose daughters were killed and whose niece and two other
daughters were injured, when a tank opened fire on the family's
home. The commander of the Golani Brigade force suspected there were
armed men on the roof of the house, directing sniper fire in the
area. Even though he saw nothing definite, and the silhouettes could
have belonged - and did belong - to members of the household, he
ordered the tank to fire. The shelling was not proceeded by fire
from light weapons, or warning shots in the air. Rather, a shell was
immediately fired, at the heart of the target.
According to the rules and
norms determined prior to the fighting, there was nothing amiss
regarding the actions taken by the Golani force commander. From his
perspective, all the houses were legitimate targets, because it
would have been possible to carry out reconnaissance efforts against
our forces from any of them.
It is clear that there was no
prior intention to harm noncombatants, but the disaster that befell
the Abu al-Aish family was an inevitable and foreseeable outcome of
implementing the zero-risk principle. This is one example among many
demonstrating how cheap the price of Palestinian lives was in
Israeli eyes. The price, however, was not determined in the field,
but rather was embedded in the parameters determined for the
operation at its outset, by the top echelon of Israel's leadership.
Here, too, everything is clear: The responsibility lay not with the
junior and intermediate command levels, but rather with those who
shaped the new combat norms and approved them. Therefore, the entire
problem is first and foremost a moral one, and the Israeli political
elite cannot evade taking responsibility for it.
The Goldstone report was
inevitable. Even if it is not balanced, even if it does not take
Hamas into account properly - it has sounded a harsh warning signal
by expressing the international public's attitude toward Israel
after Gaza. The bottom line is that Operation Cast Lead has
contributed another brick to the wall of delegitimization that is
gradually closing in on the Jewish state. Even if no Israeli is
brought to court in The Hague in the near future, the moral stain
will not be erased and the repercussions are yet to be seen.
Zeev Sternhell is an
emeritus professor at the Hebrew University, and winner of the 2008
Israel Prize for Political Science
|