The IDF prefers the settlers
By Aviad Kleinberg
Haaretz, January 8, 2004
Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon has accepted the conclusions of the Israel Defense Forces in-house examination of the incident of the shooting of an Israeli demonstrator at Maskha last month. Ya'alon has refrained from taking steps against the officers and soldiers who were involved in this incident. The rules of engagement in the sector will be reexamined.
It is not true, then, that there is no learning of lessons in the IDF. If in the past the blame would roll its way down to the sentry, now it is dispersed entirely in the pure, clear air of the IDF. No one is to blame. Not the shooter, not the company commander who was in charge, not the brigade commander who approved, not the commander of the sector; the soldiers who prevented the swift evacuation of the wounded man are not guilty, nor are the settlers who danced, nor, of course, is the sentry. We have learned the lesson.
It is not clear who is in fact guilty. It is even hard to say that there is any guilt here. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that there has been a linguistic failure here, a cognitive mishap in which mainly the victims are guilty. But don't think that the IDF is not prepared for self-criticism. Apparently in some mysterious way the procedures are also guilty - the rules of engagement on the innocent are not sufficiently clear.
The instructions are good in and of themselves, of course, but because they are very complicated (Is it permissible to open fire only on a gathering of Palestinians, or also on a mixed gathering of Palestinians and Jews? And what about a gathering of Jews? And leftists, do they count as Jews because of their origin or as Palestinians because of their opinions?) - they are liable to cause misunderstandings among innocent people who are bearing loaded weapons. Therefore they must be reexamined - not in general, heaven forbid, but in the sector. In this particular sector there is a need for some airing, refreshing, re-reading, formulating, whitewashing. It is necessary to whitewash again. That is, to formulate. Oops.
What does this readiness to evade responsibility say? Is it just the instinctive tendency of every organization to protect its own people? Are the victims random? I don't believe so. Every historian learns to ignore declarations of intention and theoretical instructions and to examine deeds, especially if the latter cohere into a tacit policy.
The Catholic Church, for example, forbade the use of violence toward Jews, but its rules of engagement were also very hard to understand. From time to time regrettable misunderstandings occurred and a lot of Jews "met their deaths." The Church examined these regrettable incidents and came to the conclusion that there was no point in drawing conclusions about individuals. Unsophisticated observers could draw problematic conclusions from their behavior - for example, someone who killed Jews is not punishable. Odd.
When it is not the orotund declarations about the purity of arms and Jewish morality that are examined, but rather deeds - for example, the price that is exacted from those who are scornful of human lives - a very confused picture emerges. Akiva Eldar published in article (Haaretz, January 6) giving a partial list of punishments that have been imposed on soldiers who have been found guilty of "exaggerated" use of force. The most severe punishment that was imposed by the IDF (on an officer who was convicted of illegal use of arms, as a result of which a Palestinian died) was a suspended sentence and a two-year delay in promotion.
And the shooting at Israeli demonstrators at Maskha - was this yet another incident in a long series of incidents that the IDF plasters over? Yes and no. Morally, there is no difference between firing on civilians, whatever their nationality. With respect to the political culture that is emerging from the events, there has nevertheless been a step up. The IDF treats Arabs, in uniform or not, as the enemy. This is a norm that has exacted and is continuing to exact a heavy price from innocent civilians.
Apparently now the IDF is also signaling that it also sees people from the left - at this stage, the radical left - as the enemy and acts accordingly. When Jewish settlers in the territories throw stones, block roads, interfere with communications systems and violently attack soldiers, their actions are perceived as the legitimate expression of "our" protest. Not one IDF bullet has ever been fired on rightists in Israel. The decision to lie outright while ignoring evidence, some of which was documented on video, indicates that in the eyes of the IDF, the radicals of the left are not "ours." Their blood is permitted. There is no need for declarations. It is enough to examine the actions.
The severe punishment that has been imposed on the conscientious objectors from the left reinforces this suspicion. The IDF is full of understanding and empathy, affection and love for the Jewish settlers in the territories. They can purloin olives and wreck shops, steal land and shoot civilians and establish illegal outposts anywhere they please in the full confidence of support and help from the IDF.
For conscientious objection from the left, one gets slapped with a year in prison, and for shaking the separation fence - a bullet in the knee. This puts things in proportion. It must be said straight out: The IDF is not simply an instrument for carrying out policy; it has a policy of its own that supports in practice, if not in theory, the Jewish settlers in the territories. The time has come to draw personal conclusions.
