Definition of “sovereignty”: Supreme
power or authority; the authority of a state to govern itself; complete
power to govern a country; the state of being a country with freedom to
govern itself
– The Oxford Dictionary
Our hope – a hope 2,000 years old – will not be lost: To be a free people in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem
– From the national anthem, “Hatikva”
You can take the Jews out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jews
– A disparaging dictum of uncertain origins
Just
over a year ago, I wrote a column in this series titled “Surrendering
sovereignty” (December 2, 2011), which I commenced with very similar
introductory excerpts.
Mughrabi fiasco
In
it, I severely criticized the government’s reversal of its decision to
replace the Mughrabi Bridge, linking the Western Wall and the Temple
Mount.
The wooden bridge, built in 2007, which provides the only
access for non- Muslims to the Temple Mount complex, and was always
intended to be a temporary structure, was deemed to be in a state of
dangerous disrepair in 2011.
However, when confronted by shrill
and wildly unfounded accusations from various Islamic sources that the
construction of a new, permanent and structurally safe bridge was
intended to cause the collapse of the Dome of the Rock (almost half a
kilometer away from the planned ramp), together with threats of violence
in Israel, and warnings of instability in various Arab states, the
government backed down.
The following is from that article: “It
is easy to downplay the significance of the decision; to present it as
giving precedence to prudence over pride. That would be a mistake.
“For
it is yet another symptom of the insidious spread of an ongoing
malaise, gnawing away at the foundations of the Jewish national ethos.
It is a malaise that if not soon confronted, will have perilously
corrosive consequences... By its actions... the government has in effect
conferred the status of force majeure on Muslim rage – an inevitable
force of nature which can only be avoided by Israeli capitulation...”
Still-virulent malaise
This
week we were given – by means of a seemingly minor event – a disturbing
reminder that this malignant malaise is just as virulent as ever.
This
was the announcement on Wednesday to the Knesset by Public Security
Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch that Israel is contemplating the
participation of an international investigator in the inquest regarding
Arafat Jaradat, the Palestinian detainee, who died in Israeli custody,
after being arrested for hurling stones and a Molotov cocktail at
Israeli troops.
What made this announcement even more troubling was the fact that it was made a matter of hours after The Jerusalem Post
reported that “Israeli officials dismissed on Tuesday a Palestinian
Authority demand for an international inquiry into the death of
Palestinian detainee Arafat Jaradat as a ‘predictable’ maneuver and part
of a larger strategy to bring the international community into the
conflict whenever possible.”
It is difficult to see how
Aharonovitch’s statement cannot be interpreted as hasty Israeli
capitulation to Mahmoud Abbas’s strident demand, issued at the the PLO
Executive Committee meeting in Ramallah on Tuesday, “for an
international commission of inquiry to find out how Jaradat was
assassinated in prison.”
While many agree that the affable
Aharonovitch is perhaps not the sharpest knife in the governmental
drawer, he is nevertheless a minister responsible for a vitally
important sphere of state activity that impinges on the lives of the
entire population.
It is more than a little disconcerting that he
apparently has such a poor grasp of the basic do’s and don’ts entailed
in the exercise of national sovereignty.
Demeaning disregard
For
whether intentional or not, Aharonovitch’s announcement can only – and
inevitably will – be seen as a clear expression of no-confidence in the
competence and integrity of the Israeli authorities to investigate
misdeeds allegedly committed by official organs of the state.
Whether
he meant it or not, it will be seen as endorsing those who wish to cast
the gravest aspersions on Israel and its credibility.
In so
doing he has – unwittingly or otherwise – shown disrespect and disregard
for the professional capabilities and the moral standing of his
country, implying that it cannot be trusted without outside supervision.
The unbecoming alacrity with which he embraced the Palestinian demands
makes him – willfully or not – complicit with the efforts of Israel’s
most hostile adversaries’ efforts to demean, demonize and delegitimize
it.
It seems to indicate that even after almost seven decades of
political independence, the Jewish people has not managed to internalize
the cognizance of the inalienable rights that accrue to, and the
indispensable duties that are demanded of, a people who wish to maintain
and administer their national sovereignty.
Patently preposterous
It
is patently preposterous to suggest that Israel is not capable of
conducting a credible inquiry into the Jarafat incident without
international accompaniment.
More than any other country, Israel
has proved itself able to conduct exceedingly – some might say,
excessively – harsh investigations into allegations of malfeasance
perpetrated by official organizations and individuals – no matter how
prominent or senior.
Defense minister Ariel Sharon was forced
from office (1983) by the all-Israeli Kahan Commission’s inquiry into
the events relating to massacres conducted by Christian Phalangist
forces in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatilla.
The head
of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), Avraham Shalom, along with
several other senior members of the organization, was dismissed
following the killing of two terrorists (1984), belonging to the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine after their attempt to hijack a
busload of civilians was foiled. True, the investigation process was
torturous and flawed, and some might find the presidential pardons
granted those involved questionable (although they were upheld by the
High Court), but the truth regarding the events was largely exposed
without any international intervention.
Finance minister Avraham
Hirchson was convicted (2008) and imprisoned for embezzlement. One year
earlier, justice minister Haim Ramon was convicted for sexual
misconduct. In 2010, Tzachi Hanegbi, who held numerous important
ministerial and parliamentary positions, was convicted of perjury. The
president of Israel, Moshe Katsav, was tried and convicted (2011) for
sexual transgressions, including rape, and is serving a sevenyear
sentence.
Prime minister Ehud Olmert was forced to step down
following a series of charges brought against him. He was convicted of
breach of trust (2012) and is facing additional bribery charges.
Perilous precedent
So
while there might be those who feel that the punitive measures handed
out in the above-mentioned incidents were not sufficiently severe (and
others that they were overly severe), Israel has proved itself willing
to pursue investigations/inquiries into claims of any wrongdoing, no
matter how senior the alleged perpetrator or how embarrassing/ damaging
the alleged transgressions.
I do not know if anything untoward
occurred during Jaradat’s incarceration or what in fact led to his
demise. However, based on precedent, there can be little doubt that
whatever (if any) penalties are eventually meted out, an all-Israeli
inquiry will ferret out the truth.
Israel need take no lessons
from anyone in investigating suspicions of malfeasance by any
organizational entity or individual. Accordingly, the Palestinian demand
for international intervention into the Jaradat affair is not a genuine
quest for the facts but – much like the ludicrous Turkish demand for an
apology over the Mavi Maramra affair – little more than a transparent
attempt to show that it can coerce Israel to submit to its will.
This is precisely why Aharonovitch’s inappropriately accommodating declaration entails potentially perilous consequences.
Indeed,
it could open up a veritable floodgate of initiatives, aimed at
neutralizing any autonomy in Israeli decision- making, investigation and
inquiry.
License to second guess
In
effect, it could comprise a license for any alien entity to
second-guess every decision taken or conclusion drawn by Israeli
authorities. For if international participation is called for to
accompany the Jaradat affair, why should it not be called on for every
other investigation? And if Israeli decisions or verdicts are not
sufficient to satisfy foreigners, why should they be so for Israelis?
Why should any Israeli citizen, who sees him/herself wronged by some
judicial or administrative decision taken by an Israeli institution, not
demand that it be reviewed by some international entity to ensure its
credibility/fairness? Aharonovitch may have – inadvertently or otherwise
– sown the seeds of an “ethos of expectation” in which continual
Israeli concessions and compliance with the demands of others – no
matter how outlandish – become the norm, from which no divergence is to
be brooked.
Let’s not forget the context
The
death of Arafat Jaradat should be fully and fairly investigated. Any
improper conduct toward the unfortunate detainee must he unflinchingly
addressed. However, in doing so, we should not lose sight of the
context.
While we might well sympathize with his young children,
who lost their father, he was after all, according to numerous sources
including the BBC and Al Jazeera, a member of the murderous Al-Aksa
Brigades, which have chalked up a long and chilling list of bloody
atrocities in which many Israeli civilians were butchered.
The acts he was arrested for are grave.
Stones
are lethal weapons. Molotov cocktails indisputably are. Both can – and
have – killed Israelis. Hurling them at soldiers should not be lightly
dismissed.
Indeed, it should be considered an act of attempted
homicide. The ineffectiveness of the attempt should not be a mitigating
factor in assessing the gravity of the intent.
Those involved in
such activities should expect to be treated harshly, perhaps even to
sustain injuries when being apprehended. In such circumstances, Israel
has every reason to doubt the impartiality of international participants
– even under the assumption that they may have no inherent bias against
it. For example, foreign media representatives have been threatened
with physical retribution for disclosing the truth – as witnessed by the
fate of journalists who dared to attempt recording the brutal lynching
of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah (2000).
Talkbackers get what government doesn’t
While
the government seems oblivious to the impact its response to the
demands in the Jadarat affair could have on the nation’s sovereign
status, the same certainly cannot be said of the general public or at
least segments thereof – such as readers of the Post.
Consider
the reaction by some talkbackers to the report on Aharonovitch’s
announcement, who with variable degrees of courtesy, finesse and
grammatical rigor, expressed the follow astute perspectives:
Frank Adam:
“Israel will have submitted to the Arab aim to prove Israel [has] only
partial or limited sovereignty.”
Boris: “israel needs to stop
being so insecure. if it wants to survive. it needs to stop having
something to prove. like its right to exist”
Evil Zionist: “It will be a
dangerous precedent and undermine our sovereignty”
iCry: “Next experts
will need to be called in to “prove” Israel didn’t poison the original
Arafat.... Arabs can make Israel jump like a trained seal.”
And
finally, NormanF: “The Israeli government’s default mode is to surrender
to Arab blackmail, threats and intimidation. It can’t say “no” and
uphold Jewish sovereignty... Any other country on earth would never
accept for themselves the “international observer” nonsense Aharonovitch
peddled before the Knesset. It would reject outright all attempts to
compromise its independence. What his statement proved again in the face
of escalating global anti-Semitism, is that its easy to take the Jew
out of the ghetto but its very difficult to take the ghetto out of the
Jew!”
The hallmark of good diplomacy
I found it difficult to disagree.
Until
the leaders of the Jewish state realize that the litmus test of good
diplomacy is not to get the world to applaud your compliancy and
capitulation, but to accept your pursuit of national interests and
imperatives, we will not be able to say we have truly extricated
ourselves from the clutches of the ghetto mentality.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
|