Israel Needs to Protect Its Borders. By Whatever Means Necessary.
TEL
AVIV — It is customary to adopt an apologetic tone when scores of
people have been killed, as they were this week in Gaza. But I will
avoid this sanctimonious instinct and declare coldly: Israel had a clear
objective when it was shooting, sometimes to kill, well-organized
“demonstrators” near the border. Israel was determined to prevent these
people — some of whom are believed to have been armed, most apparently
encouraged by their radical government — from crossing the fence
separating Israel from Gaza. That objective was achieved.
Of
course, the death of humans is never a happy occasion. Still, I feel no
need to engage in ingénue mourning. Guarding the border was more
important than avoiding killing, and guarding the border is what Israel
did successfully.
Why so many
thousands of Gazans decided to approach that fence, even though they
were warned that such acts would be lethal, is beyond comprehension.
Excuses and explanations are many: The event was declared
a “march of return,” supposedly an attempt by Palestinian refugees to
return to their places of origin within Israel; it was tied in many news reports to the opening of the American embassy in Jerusalem; it was explained
by referring to undesirable living conditions in Gaza and the lack of
prospects for improvement; it was explained as related to
intra-Palestinian political conflict
and to the need of Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza, to divert
the attention from its many failures. All of those things may have some
degree of validity, but they don’t explain why people joined these
demonstrations.
Obviously, the people
of Gaza weren’t seriously thinking that Israel would give them a “right
of return” if they only marched in numbers large enough. And they
probably realized that United States would not rescind its decision to
open an embassy in Jerusalem, either. And they knew that for the
economic situation to improve something more systematic must take place
than protests.
So why did they march, and why were some of them killed?
They
marched because they are desperate and frustrated. Because living in
Gaza is not much better than living in hell. They marched against Israel
because they dislike Israel, and because they cannot march against
anyone else. Israel puts Gaza under siege, bombs it occasionally, and is
still remembered as an occupying power and as the country whose
establishment made many Palestinians consider themselves refugees to
this day. They marched to Israel because the alternative to marching
against Israel would be to march against Hamas, a regime whose actions
and policies make Gaza suffer. But if people had dared do that, their
government would no doubt have killed scores of them without much
hesitation.
Israel has a soft belly.
Unlike all the other regimes in the Middle East, it accepts basic
Western values and thus tries to minimize casualties. It also has an
impressive military power, so it’s easy to accuse it of “disproportional
response.” And of course, it is the country that could lift the siege
on Gaza.
Critics of Israel tend to
mix two types of complaints about its actions in recent days. Why did
Israel shoot, rather than use other means of preventing people from
crossing the border? And why does Israel isolate Gaza, making its
economic situation so dire and its population so desperate? These
criticisms must be answered separately, as one — the shooting — is
tactical, and the other, the isolation, is strategic.
First, let’s begin with undisputed facts: The marches were at least partly orchestrated by Hamas. And according to Hamas, most demonstrators killed by Israel were members of the group.
This was not a peaceful act of protest. This was a provocation by an
organization known to engage in acts of terrorism. Thus, Israel had no
choice but to treat it as an attempt not just to violate its territorial
integrity but also to attack it.
Israel
had to take precautions against its soldiers and citizens being killed
or kidnapped. It had to make sure that thousands of Palestinians did not
force a total shutdown of southern Israel until all infiltrators were
located and detained. Knowing Hamas and its tactics, Israel assumed —
for good reason — that letting the marchers cross the fence and
detaining them later would have had worse consequences: Hamas operatives
masquerading as demonstrators would hurt Israelis.
Of course, the question of Israel’s larger policy toward Gaza remains. But the answer is hardly a secret: Israel pulled out of Gaza
more than a decade ago. All it wants from Gaza is peace and quiet. But
what it gets from Gaza is different: It is an attempt by Hamas to build a
base for violence against Israel. To prevent this, Gaza must be
isolated until its leaders are replaced or until they realize that their
war against Israel hurts the population they rule more than it hurts
Israel. And yes, this means that people in Gaza suffer more than they
should — not because of Israel, because of Hamas.
It
would be dishonest for me to pretend that the interests of Palestinians
are at the top of the list of my priorities. I want what’s good for
Israel and I expect my government to have similar priorities.
Nevertheless, I believe Israel’s current policy toward Gaza ultimately
benefits not only Israel but also the Palestinians.
Of
course, it does not benefit the Palestinians who dream about
“returning,” or in other words, about eliminating Israel. But it is the
only way forward for those who have more realistic expectations. The
people of Gaza are miserable. They deserve sympathy and pity. But
looking for Israel to remedy their problems will only exacerbate their
misery. Expecting Israel to solve their problem will only lead them to
delay what they must do for themselves.
There
are two reasons for that. First, denying Hamas any achievement is the
only way to ultimately persuade the Palestinians to abandon the futile
battle for things they cannot get (“return,” control of Jerusalem, the
elimination of Israel) and toward policies that will benefit their
people. If Hamas is rewarded for organizing violent events, if the
pressure on it is reduced because of the demonstrations, the result will
be more demonstrations — and therefore more bloodshed, mostly
Palestinian. Second, only an Israel that has the ability to feel secure
about its borders could engage in any serious talks with the
Palestinians. As Ehud Barak, a former prime minister and a critic of
Israel’s current government, put it,
“Those who believe in having separation from the Palestinians, getting
into a peace agreement, having borders — you have to make clear that
borders are respected.”
The Jewish
sages had a famous, if not necessarily pleasant, saying that went
something like this: Those who are kind to the cruel end up being cruel
to the kind. As harsh as this sounds amid the scenes from Gaza, as
problematic as this seems to good-intentioned people whose instinct is
to sympathize with the weaker side in every conflict, sometimes there is
no better choice than being clear, than being firm, than drawing a line
that cannot be crossed by those wanting to harm you. By fire, if
necessary.