Prof. Gerald Steinberg directs the Program on Conflict Management at Bar Ilan University, and is the editor of NGO Monitor. He is a member of the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East spme.org
Most swords are double edged, and like other weapons, can be aimed and used in any direction. When many people carry lethal weapons, they will also be available to the sociopaths that exist on the margins of all societies, and some will use them. In Israel, decades of terror and war have certainly contributed to the high-stress environment that fosters extremism, and, in very rare instances, to violence and even terrorism.
This does not excuse the actions of the Israeli Jew who killed four Arab Israeli citizens in Shfaram, or the failure of the security establishment to take away his gun after the warning signs became visible. But it does provide an essential perspective — there have been a handful Jewish terror attacks against Arabs in 11 years, in comparison to thousands of attempted Palestinian attacks. Palestinians have murdered over 1000 Israelis since 2001; Israeli terror has killed four.
The differences are not limited to the vast disparity in the number of attacks and deaths resulting from Palestinian and Jewish acts of terror. The more important distinctions are based on the attitudes of leaders and the public in response to these gross acts of immorality. In the Palestinian case, terrorists are routinely referred to terrorists as heroes, and for many years, Yassir Arafat and other leaders embraced the memories of suicide bombers, and called for “one million martyrs to march on Jerusalem”. Similarly, Arafat never issued a clear condemnation of terror attacks against Jews and Israelis in Arabic, and the Palestinian media still glorifies the acts of “martyrdom”.
In Israel, the condemnations of Jewish terror have been immediate and unambiguous. Following the Shfaram attack, Prime Minister Sharon declared “This was a reprehensible act by a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist who sought to attack innocent Israeli citizens”. President Katzav, Foreign Minister Shalom, and many other officials used similar language in denouncing this act of ”a madman”, and his funeral reflected the symbols of national disgrace and shame. While Palestinian officials consistently ignore the Jewish victims of terror (Jewish Israelis are routinely referred to as “Zionist occupiers”), Israel considers the Arab victims of terror and their families to be indistinguishable from the Jews.
In other words, in this and in other realms, there is no basis for moral equivalence between the two societies. Populist claims that there are no differences between Jewish/Israeli and Moslem/Palestinian acts of terrorism and in the responses are grossly unethical.
At the same time, there are vital lessons for Israelis to draw from this attack, as was the case with the murder of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in 1995, and Baruch Goldstein’s s terror attack in Hebron a year earlier. The most important requirement is to identify and act to keep potential sociopaths and murderers far away from weapons that can be used for mass murder.
This was and remains a very difficult task in a society that, of necessity, lives by the sword, and where universal military service is a central principle. For decades, Israelis have had to be prepared to use their guns at street crossings, -, and bus stop, in response to terror attacks. Indeed, despite the resulting prevalence of weapons, which is immediately apparent to every visitor to Israel, the instances of abuse and murder are unexpectedly low.
Nevertheless, the IDF and security services need to do a much better job of keeping weapons out of the hands of potential extremists. The killer in Shfaram was a soldier who went AWOL when his unit was preparing for the Gaza disengagement, went to live in the radical settlement of Tapuach, and showed many other signs of instability. His family and unit commanders say that they warned the army of the dangers, but the military police did not give the case the highest priority (in part, because they were playing cat and mouse with antidisengagement protestors).
Mainstream (as distinct from fringe extremist) Jewish Israeli religious and political leaders must also reexamine the impact of their messianic and emotional rhetoric. The tones have been lowered since the 1995 murder of Prime Minister Rabin, but the calls on soldiers to disobey orders, and to act “without limits” in opposing disengagement, are too easily exploited to justify terror. The Shfaram attack would probably have taken place even in the absence of such rhetoric, but the moral Jewish requirement to stay far away from evil is overriding.
Israeli Arab leaders also have an important role to play in this process. Political leaders, such as MKs Azmi Bishara and Ahmed Tibi have used the rhetoric of anti-Israel extremism to enhance their careers, while failing to issue clear condemnations of terrorism against Israeli Jews. Bishara’s trips to Syria, and his public appearances with Hizbollah leaders where he told Palestinians to “resist Israeli occupation”, are understood to constitute at least tacit support for terror. Aware that terror can strike their own constituencies, the Israeli Arab leadership, including political NGOs such as Adalah and Mousawah, would do well to drop the double standards, and recognize the damage resulting from the myths of “invisible Israelis” against “powerless Arabs”.
For Arabs and Jews, and everyone else, it should now be clear that the modern plague of terrorism does not recognize political, religious, or societal boundaries. Random violence aimed solely at civilians and other immoral acts cannot be condemned selectively. And although not every madman can be identified in advance, Israelis must give higher priority to ensuring that weapons needed for legitimate self-defense are not used for terror.
