By Rabbi Dow Marmur
JERUSALEM–“Mourning for the victims has barely begun, but the government has already managed to discredit their memory.” So writes Bernard Avishai, the Canadian born Israeli political commentator and consultant who spends much time in the United States. He’s referring to the ways in which the Government of Israel has exploited the tragic murder by Palestinian intruders of the parents and three of their children in the West Bank settlement of Itamar. Voices in Israel echo these sentiments.
The government decision to authorize another 500 housing units in various settlements and the call by many cabinet members to build thousands more in response to the murders has been one of several ways in which the tragedy has been used as a political tool. Behind it may be a hope to confine the peace process to rhetoric intended only for external consumption, not to engage in the real business of peace.
The decision to make the gruesome pictures of the onslaught in Itamar available to the international media as a way of demonstrating that Israel has no partner with whom to negotiate seems to be part of the same campaign, as is Foreign Minister Lieberman’s prediction that Hamas – not a partner for peace – is about to take over the West Bank.
Avishai again: “Imagine if, in response to the killings of his daughters by reckless Israeli gunners, Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish had called for revenge against ‘Jews’ and not called for compassion and non-violence?” The reference is to the Palestinian doctor who now works in Toronto after two of his daughters and a niece were killed in “collateral damage” during Israel’s Cast Lead operation in Gaza.
Though it would have been understandable had the bereaved father called for indiscriminate revenge, he has, in fact, become a champion of peace and reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis. His widely read book, I Shall Not Hate, testifies to it. Avishai implies that that’s how Israel should have reacted and not used the event to give vent to very hostile feelings and decide on actions that challenge the peace process.
Avishai wrongly ignores the difference between grim casualties of war and deliberate murder: “No, this act was no more a ‘Palestinian’ act than the shelling of the Abuelaish apartment was an ‘Israeli’ one.” He continues: “The real partners are those who insist that terror is a response to tyranny and tyranny is a response to terror.” The implication, it seems, is that if Israel gave up the tyranny of the occupation and the settlements the terror would cease. Much of the world believes it. I did so, too, once.
However, the longer I’m here and think about the issues, the less convinced I am that things are as simple as that. Though I belong to those who insist that the settlements and the occupation are very bad also for Israel, I’m not persuaded that Palestinian terrorism, fuelled by Iran and others, would cease even after a peace treaty.
Whatever formal arrangements the parties may finally come to, the conviction of many Jews that all the Land of Israel is theirs, and the conviction of many Palestinians and other Arabs that Israel must be obliterated as a Jewish state, will not cease.
Though Avishai’s comments about Israeli abuses of the Itamar tragedy are justified, they’re only symptoms of a much larger problem that a peace treaty may ease but, alas, won’t eliminate. Unfortunately, we cannot ignore the toxic power of ideologies and political interests: even a peace treaty, however desirable, may not bring real peace.
*
Rabbi Marmur is spiritual leader emeritus of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto. He now divides his year between Canada and Israel. He may be contacted at dow.marmur@sdjewishworld.com