Myths & Facts Online

“The outbreak of violence in late 2000, dubbed by Arabs the al-Aksa intifada, was provoked by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.”

To believe Palestinian spokesmen, the violence was caused by the desecration of a Muslim holy place � Haram al-Sharif (the Temple Mount) � by Likud leader Ariel Sharon and the “thousands of Israeli soldiers” who accompanied him. The violence was carried out through unprovoked attacks by Israeli forces, which invaded Palestinian-controlled territories and “massacred” defenseless Palestinian civilians, who merely threw stones in self-defense. The only way to stop the violence, then, was for Israel to cease fire and remove its troops from the Palestinian areas.

Imad Faluji, the Palestinian Authority Communications Minister, admitted months after Sharon's visit that the violence had been planned in July, far in advance of Sharon's "provocation." "It [the uprising] had been planned since Chairman Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former US president and rejected the American conditions."¹

“The Sharon visit did not cause the ‘Al-Aksa Intifada.’”

� Conclusion of the Mitchell Report, (May 4, 2001)

The violence started before Sharon's September 28, 2000, visit to the Temple Mount. The day before, for example, an Israeli soldier was killed at the Netzarim Junction. The soldier was killed after the explosion of a roadside bomb. The next day in the West Bank city of Kalkilya, a Palestinian police officer working with Israeli police on a joint patrol opened fire and killed his Israeli counterpart.

Official Palestinian Authority media exhorted the Palestinians to violence. On September 29, the Voice of Palestine, the PA's official radio station sent out calls "to all Palestinians to come and defend the al-Aksa mosque." The PA closed its schools and bused Palestinian students to the Temple Mount to participate in the organized riots.

Just prior to Rosh Hashanah (September 30), the Jewish New Year, when hundreds of Israelis were worshipping at the Western Wall, thousands of Arabs began throwing bricks and rocks at Israeli police and Jewish worshippers. Rioting then spread to towns and villages throughout Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Internal Security Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami permitted Sharon to go to the Temple Mount � Judaism’s holiest place, which Muslims have renamed Haram al-Sharif and regard as Islam’s third holiest place � only after calling Palestinian security chief Jabril Rajoub and receiving his assurance that if Sharon did not enter the mosques, no problems would arise. The need to protect Sharon arose when Rajoub later said that the Palestinian police would do nothing to prevent violence during the visit.

Sharon did not attempt to enter any mosques and his 34 minute visit to the Temple Mount was conducted during normal hours when the area is open to tourists. Palestinian youths — eventually numbering around 1,500 — shouted slogans in an attempt to inflame the situation. Some 1,500 Israeli police were present at the scene to forestall violence.

There were limited disturbances during Sharon's visit, mostly involving stone throwing. During the remainder of the day, outbreaks of stone throwing continued on the Temple Mount and in the vicinity, leaving 28 Israeli policemen injured, three of whom were hospitalized. There are no accounts of Palestinian injuries on that day. Significant and orchestrated violence was initiated by Palestinians the following day following Friday prayers.

“It is not a mistake that the Koran warns us of the hatred of the Jews and put them at the top of the list of the enemies of Islam. Today the Jews recruit the world against the Muslims and use all kinds of weapons. They are plundering the dearest place to the Muslims, after Mecca and Medina and threaten the place the Muslims have faced at first when they prayed and the third holiest city after Mecca and Medina. They want to erect their temple on that place....The Muslims are ready to sacrifice their lives and blood to protect the Islamic nature of Jerusalem and El Aksa!”

� Sheikh Hian Al-Adrisi, Excerpt of address in the al-Aksa mosque (September 29, 2000)²

The real desecration of holy places was perpetrated by Palestinians, not Israelis. In October 2000, Palestinian mobs destroyed a Jewish shrine in Nablus � Joseph’s Tomb � tearing up and burning Jewish prayer books. They stoned worshipers at the Western Wall and attacked Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem with firebombs and automatic weapons.

None of the violent attacks were initiated by Israeli security forces, which in all cases responded to Palestinian violence that went well beyond stone throwing. It included massive attacks with automatic weapons and the lynching of Israeli soldiers. Most armed attackers were members of the Tanzim � Arafat’s own militia.

The disproportionate number of Palestinian casualties was the inevitable result of an irregular, ill-trained militia attacking a well-trained regular army, and the Tanzim’s frequent use of Palestinian civilians as shields for its attacks.

Since all attacks were initiated by Palestinians under Arafat’s orders, only Arafat has the power to end the violence. Israel and the United States have called on him to do so and renew the peace process.

“Violence is an understandable and legitimate reaction to Israel's policies.”

The basis of the peace process is that disputes should be resolved through negotiations. One of the conditions Israel set before agreeing to negotiate with the PLO was that the organization renounce terrorism. It formally did so; however, the PLO and other Palestinian groups and individuals have consistently resorted to violence since the Oslo process began in 1993. Whether or not Israel made concessions, Palestinians have still committed heinous attacks. In some instances atrocities are perpetrated because of alleged mistreatment; in other cases, they are deliberate efforts to sabotage negotiations. Regardless, the Palestinian Authority, which has a nearly 40,000-person police force (larger than allowed under the peace agreements) and multiple intelligence agencies, must be held responsible for keeping the peace.

Since the Signing of the Declaration of Principles⁴
(September 13,1993-August 11, 1999)

“The al-Aksa uprising does not hurt Israel because the demonstrations are limited to confrontations with Israeli soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

Palestinian violence in the West Bank and Gaza has taken the lives of numerous civilians and soldiers. In addition, terrorists acting in the name of the uprising have carried out heinous attacks inside Israel. The violence also has collateral impact on the Israeli psyche, military and economy.

Israelis must now be careful traveling through many parts of Israel and the territories that should be safe. Palestinians have also sniped at Jews in cities such as Gilo that are outside the territories. The violence has severely undermined the faith Israelis had that if they made territorial concessions, peace with the Palestinians was possible.

The uprising also affects military readiness because troops must be diverted from training and preparing against threats from hostile nations and instead must focus on quelling riots and fighting terrorism.

Finally, the violence has caused a sharp reduction in tourism and damaged related industries. Some 64,000 Israelis have lost their jobs because of the Palestinian uprising.⁵

It is not only the Israelis who suffer. The loss of tourism also hurts Palestinians. The number of visitors, for example, who normally visit Bethlehem for Christmas was significantly lower. The same is true in other pilgrimage sites in the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian shopkeepers in places like the Old City are also affected by the drop in tourism. Terrorist attacks also force Israel to periodically prohibit Palestinian workers from entering Israel, hurting individuals trying to make a living and provide for their families.

“Israel uses excessive force to respond to children who are just throwing stones.”

Palestinians, young and old, attack Israeli civilians and soldiers with a variety of weapons. When they throw stones, they are not pebbles, but large rocks that can and do cause serious injuries. Imagine yourself being hit in the head with a rock.

Typically, Israeli troops under attack have numbered fewer than 20, while their assailants, armed with Molotov cocktails, pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, hand grenades and explosives, have numbered in the hundreds. Moreover, mixed among rock throwers have been Palestinians, often policemen, armed with guns. Faced with an angry, violent mob, Israeli police and soldiers often have no choice but to defend themselves by firing rubber bullets and, in life-threatening situations, live ammunition.

The use of live-fire by the Palestinians has effectively meant that Israeli forces have had to remain at some distance from those initiating the violence. In addition, the threat of force against Israelis has been a threat of lethal force. Both factors have inhibited the use of traditional methods of riot control.

According to the rules of engagement for Israeli troops in the territories, the use of weapons is authorized solely in life-threatening situations or, subject to significant limitations, in the exercise of the arrest of an individual suspected of having committed a grave security offense. In all cases, IDF activities have been governed by an overriding policy of restraint, the requirement of proportionality and the necessity to take all possible measures to prevent harm to innocent civilians.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians escalated their violent attacks against Israelis by using mortars and anti-tank missiles illegally smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Palestinians have fired mortar shells into Jewish communities in Gaza and Israel proper and IDF reports indicate that anti-tank missiles have been fired at Israeli forces in Gaza.

IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz told visiting American Jewish leaders on Feb. 28, 2001, that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been stockpiling weapons smuggled into Gaza by sea and underground tunnels linked to Egypt.

The possession and use of these weapons and other arms by the Palestinians violates commitments they made in various agreements with Israel. Under the Oslo accords, the only weapons allowed in the Palestinian-controlled areas are handguns, rifles and machine guns, and these are to be held only by PA security officers. The recent violence makes clear that in addition to the police, Palestinian civilians and members of militias, such as the Tanzim, also are in possession of such weapons.⁷

The number of Palestinian casualties in clashes is regrettable, but it is important to remember that no Palestinian would be in any danger or risk injury if they were not attacking Israelis. Furthermore, if children were in school or at home with their families, rather than throwing rocks in the streets, they too would have nothing to worry about. Also, while the number of Palestinians who have died is greater, that should not minimize the traumatic loss of life on the Israeli side. From September 29, 2000, through June 18, 2001, 125 Israeli Jews, including at least 83 civilians, were killed by Palestinians, and more than 1,300 were injured.⁸

It is also worth considering how police in the United States and other nations react to mob violence. Abuses do sometimes occur when police are under attack, but no one expects them to stand by and allow their lives to be put in danger to assuage international opinion. In fact, the Palestinian Authority itself does not hesitate to use lethal force against protestors. For example, after the U.S. coalition attacked Afghanistan, Hamas organized a rally in the Gaza Strip in which thousands of Palestinians marched in support of suspected terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. Palestinianian police killed two protestors when they tried to break it up.⁹

It is only Israelis who are denied their right to self-defense or see it used as a propaganda weapon against them.

“The Palestinian Authority is acting to prevent violence by arresting terrorists and confiscating illegal weapons.”

At times cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian security forces has been good, and Israel has publicly commended the Palestinian Authority (PA). More often, however, the PA has failed to take adequate measures to prevent attacks against Israelis. While many terrorists have been apprehended, they are usually released shortly afterward and, at least some of them have subsequently been involved in assaults against Jews. In May 2001, for example, Arafat freed more than a dozen Islamic radicals who had been in jail since a wave of suicide bombings that killed 60 Israelis in eight bloody days in 1996.¹⁰

The PA is also filled with illegal weapons, including machine guns, hand grenades, explosives and mortars. Despite repeated promises, no effort has been made to collect the weapons. On the contrary, the PA has been actively stockpiling them. This is a serious violation of the agreements signed with Israel, one that provokes distrust and threatens Israeli security.

FACT

Rubber bullets are an imperfect means of pacifying a violent mob. They are designed to minimize the risk of serious injury but they cannot alleviate it altogether. In the overwhelming majority of cases, rubber bullets do not cause death or serious injury. In many circumstances, they may be the only available option short of live-fire. Children using guns, or intent on causing injury or death to their intended target by some other means, pose a lethal threat, particularly when that threat takes the form of a large-scale attack.

“In contrast [to Ariel Sharon's concrete steps to ease the economic hardship of the Palestinians] we've seen absolutely no response from Arafat to our urgings to him to now bring the violence to a stop. He has made no statements that would indicate that he even wants to see it stopped. In fact, he has called for the continuation of the intifada. He has not given any orders, secret or otherwise, to his forces which would bring some measure of control of the situation.”

� U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for
Near East Affairs Edward Walker
testifying at a congressional hearing¹²

Many police forces around the world use rubber bullets to disperse violent crowds. For example, following the victory of the Los Angeles Lakers in the 2001 National Basketball Association finals, Los Angeles police used rubber bullets to end violent outbursts by rowdy fans.¹³ The police felt compelled to use this method of crowd control with a group of overly exuberant basketball fans who turned violent celebrating their team's victory, while Israel uses it against a hostile population with whom it is essentially at war.

MYTH

“The Mitchell Report made clear that Israeli settlement policy is as much to blame for the breakdown of the peace process as Palestinian violence and that a settlement freeze is necessary to end the violence.”

FACT

In November 2000, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell was appointed to lead a fact-finding committee to investigate the cause of the "al-Aksa Intifada" and explore how to prevent future violence. The report his committee issued on April 30, 2001, did recommend a settlement freeze — as one of more than 15 different confidence-building measures — but Mitchell and Warren Rudman, another member of the committee, explicitly stated in a letter clarifying their view: "We want to go further and make it clear that we do not in any way equate Palestinian terrorism with Israeli settlement activity, 'seemingly' or otherwise."

Mitchell and Rudman also disputed the idea that the cessation of settlement construction and terrorism were linked. "The immediate aim must be to end the violence....Part of the effort to end the violence must include an immediate resumption of security cooperation between the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority aimed at preventing violence and combating terrorism." They added, "Regarding terrorism, we call upon the Palestinian Authority, as a confidence-building measure, to make clear through concrete action, to Israelis and Palestinians alike, that terror is reprehensible and unacceptable, and the Palestinian Authority is to make a total effort to prevent terrorist operations and to punish perpetrators acting in its jurisdiction."¹⁴

MYTH

“Israel's use of F-16 fighter jets typifies the disproportionate use of force applied by Israel against innocent Palestinian civilians.”

FACT

How do you determine the proportionate use of military force? When Palestinian terrorists plant bombs at Israeli shopping malls and kill and wound dozens of civilians, would the proportionate response be for Israelis to plant bombs in Palestinian malls? No one in Israel believes this would be a legitimate use of force. Thus, Israel is left with the need to take measured action against specific targets in an effort to either deter Palestinian violence or stop it.

In the specific case of Israel's use of F-16s, Major General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Operation Branch, explained Israel's reasoning:

I know that the F-16 was not designed to attack targets in Palestinian cities. But we have to remember that although we use this kind of aircraft, it is still very accurate. All the targets were military targets....it was rather a tactical decision, simply because the targets were big enough, were strong enough or solid enough that attack helicopters were considered not effective enough to penetrate or to hit these specific targets. So when we decided or we chose these targets then we were looking for the best ammunition for them and in this specific case it was F-16. It doesn't imply that this is a new stage and from now on the only way that we are going to deploy our forces or our aviation is only by F-16s. Actually we see it as something that will not be used in a very open way.¹⁵

Israel's deployment of the fighters came after 88 Israelis had already lost their lives, including 55 civilians. The civilians were not killed accidentally, they were deliberately targeted. In the previous two-and-a-half months, Palestinians had attempted to place 28 bombs inside Israel. The F-16 attack came in direct response to one that exploded at a Netanya shopping mall May 18, 2001, killing five Israelis.

A month before deploying the F-16s, the U.S. State Department accused Israel of an "excessive and disproportionate" response to Palestinian violence when it launched air strikes against targets in Gaza, even though the spokesman admitted the retaliation was "precipitated by the provocative Palestinian mortar attacks on Israel."¹⁶ The U.S. position is ironic given the so-called Powell Doctrine enunciated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, which holds that "America should enter fights with every bit of force available or not at all."¹⁷ Consider a few examples of the application of this doctrine:

General Powell insisted on deploying overwhelming force before going to war against Baghdad in the Gulf War. The Allied force of more than half a million troops demolished Saddam Hussein's army at a cost of fewer than 200 American lives while approximately 35,000 Iraqis were killed, including many civilians.
Powell also oversaw the invasion of Panama, which required the deployment of 25,000 troops and the use of F-117 Stealth bombers for the first time. Thousands of Panamanian civilians were injured and displaced and at least 100 killed. He said later, "Use all the force necessary, and do not apologize for going in big if that is what it takes. Decisive force ends wars quickly and in the long run saves lives."¹⁸
In reaction to an attempt to assassinate President Bush in 1993, the U.S. launched 23 cruise missiles at Iraq's intelligence headquarters and hit a civilian neighborhood in the process. Powell later said this was an "appropriate, proportional" response.¹⁹
The U.S. also deployed massive force in the Balkans and, in 1999, accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade killing three and injuring 20.

The United States has not hesitated to use overwhelming force against its adversaries, even though the threats have been distant and in no way posed a danger to the existence of the nation or the security of its citizens. While U.S. military objectives were accomplished, they also were routinely accompanied by errors and collateral damage that resulted in the loss of civilian lives.

Israel is in a different position. The threat it faces is immediate in time and physical proximity and poses a direct danger to Israeli citizens. Still, Israel has not used its full might as the Powell Doctrine dictates. The use of force has been judicious and precise. In those instances where mistakes occur — as inevitably happens in war — the incidents are investigated.

The bottom line is that Israel would have no need to respond with military force if the Palestinians were not attacking its citizens and soldiers.

MYTH

“Palestinian violence is the reaction of a people living under occupation, which will continue so long as the occupation persists.”

FACT

The idea that Palestinian violence is spontaneous is countered by the organized way that attacks against Israel are often carried out and the expressed intention of Palestinians, particularly from terrorist groups like HAMAS, to wage war so long as a Jewish state exists. The premise of the peace process was that by reaching an agreement with Yasser Arafat, violence could be controlled. If he cannot control the behavior of the people under his authority, then the agreements have little value. On the other hand, if he does have control, then it is clear he is using it to foment violence rather than prevent it.

The evidence suggests that Arafat does in fact have control over most activities by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. More than 97 percent of the Palestinian population is now under his jurisdiction. Arafat has demonstrated an ability to quickly eliminate Palestinians who challenge his rule by arresting and, in some cases, executing them. When he chooses, he has also arrested members of terrorist groups, but he has routinely released them so they can continue to attack Israel. He has allowed the terrorist organizations to produce explosives, build mortars, train members and recruit youngsters for suicide missions.

MYTH

“Israel has consistently refused to take any steps to calm the situation and its unrelenting attacks provoked Palestinian violence despite Yasser Arafat's appeals for restraint.”

FACT

On May 22, 2001, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared a unilateral cease-fire in an effort to calm the situation, and in the hope the Palestinians would reciprocate by ending their violent attacks against Israelis. Instead the Palestinians intensified the level of violence directed particularly at Israeli civilians. Yasser Arafat did nothing to stop or discourage the attacks. More than 70 attacks were recorded in the next 10 days, during which Israel held its fire and eschewed any retaliation. The campaign of Palestinian terror during the Israeli cease-fire culminated with the suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv disco June 1 that killed 20 people and injured more than 90, mostly teenagers. In the face of overwhelming international pressure generated by the horrific attack, and the fear of an Israeli counterattack, Arafat finally declared a cease-fire.

MYTH

“Israel tried to economically cripple the Palestinians by withholding tax monies due to the Palestinian Authority.”

FACT

At the beginning of 2001, Israel decided to withhold more than $50 million in taxes it owed to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in response to the ongoing violence. U.S. officials, and others, pressured Israel to transfer the money because of the PA's dire financial straits and inability to pay many of its bills. Israel recognized that its action was harsh, but believed it was necessary to demonstrate to the Palestinians that the inability or unwillingness to stop the violence had a cost. Israel must use whatever leverage it can to protect its citizens and this economic sanction was a milder response than a military one.

While Israel's action was blamed for the sorry state of the Palestinian economy, the truth was the Arab countries suspended the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars, collected as donations, meant for the PA. The justification for the Arab states' action was their concern that the funds would be embezzled and encourage further corruption in the PA.²⁰

MYTH

“Palestinians attack Israeli forces in spontaneous outbursts of frustration.”

FACT

Occasionally, Palestinians riot spontaneously for any number of reasons, from frustration to anger. More often, however, Palestinian violence is premeditated and planned by either terrorist cells within the Palestinian Authority or by the PA's own leaders. In the summer of 2001, for example, Palestinian commanders circulated instructions on confronting Israeli troops. The orders included the preparation of Molotov cocktails, hand grenades and barricades. Explosive "belts" were to be prepared for "hundreds of suicide youths who will be willing to confront the advancing troops." The insturctions also suggested conserving ammunition and attacking tanks only with "suitable weapons" and not with light guns. "Forward positions should be established by fighters willing to sacrifice their lives to stop the advancing enemy."²¹

“Israel is at war with an enemy that declines, in its shrewdness and its cowardice, to fight Israel's soldiers, but is instead murdering its civilians, its women and children.”

� Michael Kelly²²

MYTH

“The Palestinians have observed the cease-fire negotiated by CIA Director George Tenet.”

FACT

In June 2001 CIA Director George Tenet traveled to the Middle East in an effort to solidify a cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and lay the groundwork for a resumption of peace talks. The Tenet Plan called for an end to all violent activities. In the six weeks following Tenet's visit, however, Palestinians carried out 850 terrorist attacks resulting in 94 Israeli casualties, 17 of them fatalities.²³

“Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat must condemn this horrific terrorist attack, act now to arrest and bring to justice those responsible, and take immediate, sustained action to prevent future terrorist attacks.”

� President George W. Bush after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed
15 people, including six children, and wounded 90 when
he blew himself up in a restaurant in downtown Jerusalem.²⁴

MYTH

“Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian terrorists is immoral and counterproductive.”

FACT

Israel is faced with a nearly impossible situation in attempting to protect its civilian population from Palestinians who are prepared to blow themselves up to murder innocent Jews. One strategy for dealing with the problem has been the peace process. Since 1993, Israel believed that negotiating was the way to reach peace with the Palestinians, but after Israel gave back much of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and offered virtually all of the remainder, the Palestinians rejected their concessions and chose to use violence to try to force Israel to capitulate to all their demands.

A second strategy is for Israel to "exercise restraint," that is, not respond to Palestinian violence. The international community lauds Israel when it simply turns the other cheek after heinous attacks. While this restraint might win praise from world leaders, it does nothing to assuage the pain of the victims or to prevent further attacks. Moreover, the same nations that urge restraint to Israel have often reacted forcefully when put in similar situations. For example, the British assassinated Nazis after World War II and targeted IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland.

“If you've got an organization that has plotted or is plotting some kind of suicide bomber attack, for example, and [the Israelis] have hard evidence of who it is and where they're located, I think there's some justification in their trying to protect themselves by preempting.”

� U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney²⁵

In April 1986, after the U.S. determined that Libya had directed the terrorist bombing of a West Berlin discotheque that killed one American and injured 200 others, it launched a raid on a series of Libyan targets, including President Muammar Qaddafi's home. This was widely viewed as an assassination attempt. President Reagan denied it, but later admitted "it was possible, perhaps probable, that he might be at or near the intelligence center when our planes struck." Qaddafi escaped, but his infant daughter was killed and two of his other children were wounded. In addition, a missile went off track and caused fatalities in a civilian neighborhood. Reagan justified the action as self-defense against Libya’s state-sponsored terrorism. "As a matter of self-defense, any nation victimized by terrorism has an inherent right to respond with force to deter new acts of terror. I felt we must show Qaddafi that there was a price he would have to pay for that kind of behavior and that we wouldn't let him get away with it."²⁶

Israel has chosen a third option – eliminating the masterminds of terror attacks. It is a policy that has caused great debate in Israel, but is supported by a vast majority of the public (70% in an August 2001 Ha'aretz poll). The policy is also supported by the American public according to an August 2001 poll by the America Middle East Information Network. The survey found that 73 percent of respondents felt Israel was justified in killing terrorists if it had proof they were planning bombings or other attacks that could kill Israelis.²⁷

Deputy Chief of Staf Major-General Moshe Ya'alon explained the policy this way: "There are no executions without a trial. There is no avenging someone who had carried out an attack a month ago. We are acting against those who are waging terror against us. We prefer to arest them and have detained over 1,000. But if we can't and the Palestinians won't, then we have no other choice but to defend ourselves." ²⁸

Targeting the terrorists has a number of benefits. First, it places a price on terror: Israelis can't be attacked with impunity anymore, for terrorists know that if they target others, they will become targets themselves. Second, it is a method of self-defense: pre-emptive strikes eliminate the people who would otherwise murder Jews. While it is true that there are others to take their place, they can do so only with the knowledge they too will become targets. Third, it throws the terrorists off balance. Extremists can no longer nonchalantly plan an operation; rather, they must stay on the move, look over their shoulders at all times, and work much harder to carry out their goals. Fourth, eliminating terrorists can prevent attacks.

“I think when you are attacked by a terrorist and you know who the terrorist is and you can fingerprint back to the cause of the terror, you should respond.”

� U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell²⁹

Of course, the policy also has costs. Besides international condemnation, Israel risks revealing informers who often provide the information needed to find the terrorists. Soldiers also must engage in sometimes high-risk operations that occasionally cause tragic collateral damage to property and persons.

The most common criticism of "targeted killings" is that they do no good because they perpetuate a cycle of violence whereby the terrorists seek revenge. This is probably the least compelling argument against the policy, because the people who blow themselves up to become martyrs could always find a justification for their actions. They are determined to bomb the Jews out of the Middle East and will not stop until their goal is achieved.

“I think any time people are doing suicide bombings and blowing up your people at bus stops and in restaurants, you certainly cannot sit there and tolerate that.”

� U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld³⁰

Though the U.S. has a law that forbids assassination, in the wake of the murderous attack by terrorists on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was revealed that the Clinton Administration had, in fact, attempted to assassinate Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden in 1998 in retaliation for his role in the bombings of the United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. These attacks killed more than 200 people. Former Clinton officials now say that there is a loophole in the law prohibiting assassination that allows it in "self-defense." The Administration of George W. Bush subsequently expressed a similar view.³¹

Case Study

A Washington Post story about the “cycle of death” in the West Bank included an interview with Raed Karmi, an official in Fatah, the dominant faction in Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. The report begins with the observation that Karmi is running out to join a battle against Israeli soldiers and grabs an M-16 assault rifle. What the story fails to mention is that only Palestinian police are supposed to be armed. The story implies that Israeli and Palestinian violence is equivalent in this “cycle” because Karmi said he was acting to avenge the death of a Palestinian who the Israelis assassinated for organizing terrorist attacks. Karmi admits that he participated in the kidnapping and execution-style murder of two Israelis who had been eating lunch in a Tulkarm restaurant. Karmi was jailed by the Palestinian Authority, but he was released after just four months and subsequently killed four more Israelis, including a man buying groceries and a driver who he ambushed. “I will continue attacking Israelis,” he told the Post.³²

MYTH

“Israel's use of American-made weapons in retaliatory attacks against the Palestinians is illegal.”

FACT

The United States has been closely monitoring Israeli actions. Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) wrote a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell asking whether Israel was violating U.S. law by using American arms in its strikes against Palestinian terrorists. Powell responded in a letter dated August 17, 2001, that Israel's actions did not violate U.S. law. The law in question is the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and it states that defense articles will be used only for specified purposes, including internal security and legitimate self-defense. Israel has maintained that it has been acting in self-defense and the Bush Administration concurs.³³

Notes

¹Jerusalem Post, (March 4, 2001)
²Quoted in Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee First Statement of the Government of Israel, Israeli Foreign Ministry, December 28, 2000).
³Ibid.
⁴Israel Defense Forces.
⁵Jerusalem Post, (February 22, 2001).
⁶Ha'aretz, (March 1, 2001).
⁷Near East Report, (March 5, 2001).
⁸Arutz-7, (July 6, 2001); B'Tselem.
⁹JTA, (October 8, 2001).
¹⁰Jerusalem Report, (May 21, 2001).
¹¹CNN, IDF, Jerusalem Post, (November 28, 2000).
¹²Quoted in the Jerusalem Post, (April 1, 2001).
¹³Washington Post, (June 17, 2001)
¹⁴Letter from George Mitchell and Warren Rudman to ADL Director Abraham Foxman, (May 11, 2001).
¹⁵Briefing by Major General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Operation Branch, to the Foreign Press Association, Jerusalem, (May 20, 2001).
¹⁶State Department Briefing, (April 17, 2001)
¹⁷Time, (April 19, 2001)
¹⁸Collin Powell, My American Journey, (NY: Random House, 1995), p. 434.
¹⁹Washington Post, (June 28, 1993).
²⁰Ha'aretz, (February 11, 2001).
²¹Foreign Report, (July 26, 2001).
²²Washington Post, (August 15, 2001).
²³Jerusalem Post, (August 2, 2001).
²⁴Reuters, (August 9, 2001).
²⁵Fox News, (August 3, 2001).
²⁶RonaldReagan.com, Washington Post and other news sources.
²⁷JTA, (August 30, 2001).
²⁸Jerusalem Post, (August 10, 2001).
²⁹News Conference, (September 12, 2001).
³⁰Jerusalem Post, (September 10, 2001).
³¹Washington Post, (September 14 and 18, 2001).
³²Washington Post, (September 7, 2001).
³³Jerusalem Post, (August 24, 2001).

Previous
Next
Table of Contents
Index

To order the paperback edition, click HERE.

The “al-Aksa Intifada”

By Mitchell G. Bard

Since the Signing of the Declaration of Principles4 (September 13,1993-August 11, 1999)

Notes

Since the Signing of the Declaration of Principles⁴
(September 13,1993-August 11, 1999)