I am writing this article in response to last Tuesday's Viewpoint, "No justice, no peace" by Abboud Kayyali, Fahed Al Farouki, and Dina Karam. While the article shed a new perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it did so through the use of some analogies that are not parallel to the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Firstly, the article accuses Israel of excessive force and violence in its attacks against the Palestinians, citing the UN and Amnesty International as sources. Unfortunately, the conclusions of those sources were somewhat biased. UN Security Council Resolution 1322, which condemned Israel for "excessive use of force," was passed only as a result of the fact that the United States abstained; the US explained afterwards that it abstained rather than veto the resolution because a veto would have "caused more Arab violence and put American lives at stake in the region." Amnesty International generally follows a procedure of investigating first and drawing conclusions second. However, the organization reversed that procedure when it condemned Israel's actions. On October 3, 2000, Amnesty International charged Israel with "excessive and indiscriminate force," but did not send delegates to investigate the matter until Oct. 5. Amnesty said that its delegates "would make recommendations to the Israeli government," but did not mention any possibility of recommendations to the Palestinian Authority. I think that Amnesty International generally does very good work and is a strong voice for human rights across the globe, but in this case it seems to have settled on a conclusion before investigating. One can therefore only question the reliability of its investigations concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Additionally, the amount of force employed by Israel is not excessive when compared to US and UN missions. Regarding the US intervention in Somalia, US Central Command told the New York Times in 1993 that "From all reports, the nature and degree of force used ... did not exceed what was necessary to counter this escalating fire and was consistent with the right of self-defense under international law...These gunmen do not wear uniforms or distinctive insignia; they do not carry arms openly; they are not led by accountable military leadership. They are not subject to military discipline and they do not comply with international law. It is they who initiated the firefight and who bear ultimate responsibility for this tragic loss of life." (Statement by US Central Command as reported in the Times, 10/14/93).
Though the Palestinian uprisings are certainly not identical to the situation in Somalia, the parallel is that Israel used the necessary amount of force to defend itself and its citizens against a dissident uprising. Most of the violence directed at Palestinians were cases in which large groups of Palestinians (though I do not at all mean to imply that they are representative of the Palestinian people) held marches armed with stones and other weapons at holy sites and strategic Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) posts within the occupied territories. Often, these locations were guarded by only a small handful of Israeli soldiers. When one, two, or three people are confronted with an angry mob throwing stones, the only possible recourse of action for the soldiers' self-defense - as well as the security of their post - is to use gunfire.
Furthermore, the argument that the Palestinians are only throwing stones is preposterous. Firstly, stone throwing itself is not an innocent activity - a person can be easily killed by a large stone thrown at the head. Secondly, the Palestinians are armed with much more than stones - they possess large numbers of illegally-acquired arms. In a BBC interview on Oct. 12, 2000, Muhammad Abu Hazia, head of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, claimed that the Palestinian police in Ramallah were forced to turn two captured Israeli soldiers over to an angry mob which subsequently murdered them "under the pressure" from the mob. When asked how the mob was able to pressure the police, Hazia answered, "Because the weapons in the hands of the people surrounding it [the police station] were much more than the weapons of the police." The cache of illegal arms held by the Palestinians is estimated at 30,000 to 40,000 weapons. Pistols, grenades, and M-16 and Kalashnikov assault rifles are smuggled into Gaza and the West Bank from Jordan and Egypt, stolen from Israeli soldiers or purchased from Israeli criminals. Efforts on the part of the Palestinian Authority to crack down on illegal weapons have been unsuccessful. The reported Palestinian violence and rioting includes far more than stone throwing. The crowds seen on television include civilians, Tanzim militia members who are heavily armed and wear plain-clothes (a direct violation of the Geneva Accords on war conduct), and Palestinian "security forces," both uniformed and non-uniformed. Against such armed terrorist attacks, Israeli forces have no choice but to retaliate with armed force.
Other parallels drawn in last Tuesday's Viewpoint were interesting but irrelevant analogies. While Ariel Sharon is committed to Israel's security and does not have the passion for finding a peace agreement that Ehud Barak did, he should not be compared to Hamas' Ahmed Yassin. Similarly, while I do not advocate the argument that Palestinians should simply go live in other Arab states, the examples of Russia or Africa as an alternative home for Israelis is incomparable; while there are Jewish communities within those countries, the ruling government and the majority populations share neither the ethnic background nor the religion of the Jewish Israelis.
I applaud the authors on a well-written article and I appreciate their effort to provide the campus with both sides of a controversial issue. I am concerned, however, that the desire to present opposing views often produces slanted or biased information, through no fault of the authors. Rather, the organizations that report the information have their own agendas and biases. I write this article as a response to an opposing Viewpoint, and I hope that the readers can come to their own conclusions given the information from both articles. Information for this article was taken from CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy for Middle East Reporting in America (www.camera.org).
Deborah Steinberg is a senior majoring in international relations and economics.
