At first glance, this weekend's attack in Hebron seems like the hundreds that have preceded it. Upon closer inspection, though, one sees this as a marked change from recent militant activity.
Of the 12 people killed, nine were soldiers or border policemen. This ratio resulted not from a missed chance to murder civilians, but rather from a calculated action; dressed like the Jews returning from prayer at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the initial assailant fired shots to instigate a military response. Soon thereafter, the first attacker was joined by two more, who chose to wait for the soldiers to respond and then complete the attack. The official Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) report lists the coordinated use of grenades and machine gun fire as part of a "complex ambush."
But this is just the latest, and will by no means be the last, attack. Like a demonic game of Whack-a-mole, every thwarted Palestinian attack results in two more springing up. This weekend's difference, then, was in that nature. Friday night saw an act of aggression specifically targeted at the soldiers of a nation. According to the Jerusalem Post, "The killings marked one of the highest death tolls suffered by Israeli forces in a single encounter since the Mideast violence erupted more than two years ago." Unlike terrorism, which focuses its virulent lens on civilians, this attack was an act of war.
Yet it fits in a pattern emerging from the Palestinian side of the conflict. Earlier this year, Israeli forces intercepted a shipment of 50 tons of weapons (including mortars, anti-tank missiles and other weapons of war) bound for Palestinian hands with the writ of approval from Yassar Arafat. Unlike Israel, which has continuously acted with restrain when more punishing options were available, these actions are bellicose and it is incumbent upon Israel to brand it thus and act with an appropriate response.
The intentions of Arafat's stratagem are clear--make war on the state of Israel. At the time, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon begged the world to ask the question, is Arafat "irrelevant?" Now the answer is that the question itself has become irrelevant.
While it may seem bipolar to advocate one label as important and not another, in the end it is the results that these labels will yield that matter. Even if Arafat is "irrelevant" or even exiled, there will still be attacks against Israelis. If the "cycle of violence" is finally declared a war, however, Israel escapes from the cuffs that bind its proverbial hands and can truly act to stop the violence, not just postpone it.
After all, a single terrorist attack against the United States was enough to warrant a war in Afghanistan and a broader War on Terror. Why shouldn't two years of endless violence yield the same result?
It is high time Israel and the rest of the world called this rat what it is: If war is the breakdown of diplomatic solutions by any other means, then the violence in Israel would certainly qualify. Indeed, it seems as if the Palestinians want this as well. It is no coincidence that just as the latest attacks corresponded with a U.S. diplomatic effort, like Anthony Zinni and others before, each United States envoy is received by a new round of terrorist attacks.
It seems clear the Palestinians do not want to negotiate, they want to fight. Nor does it seem to be strictly a leadership issue. One can see this when the streets of Gaza are filled cheerful rioting, effigy burning and parading following every Israeli killed; this same hysterical joy was seen after Sept. 11. Even Arafat himself has been quoted as saying his goals are to drive the Israelis not back to the line of 1967 or even 1948, but into the Mediterranean Sea.
As was made clear at Camp David two years ago, there are no terms, no conditions and no compromises would be sufficient. In what has now become clichZ, the Palestinian people missed their chance to establish a state for themselves. Preferring to sap Israel of its resources rather than harvest any of their own, they forfeited any rights they may have had to a piece of it. The Palestinians have dug their own grave, and now must lie in it.
Out-technologied, the Palestinians will most likely continue to resort to guerrilla warfare and terrorism. This is no surprise, given Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, shortly before Camp David II, under the same circumstances. In fact, it seems as if the entire second intifada has been orchestrated under the presupposition that Israel will simply leave the West Bank and Gaza. It is not unreasonable to think that, like the Japanese overtures of peace before Pearl Harbor, Arafat's words and even attendance at the talks were nothing more than formalities. This war will be different from that fought in Lebanon, however. This time, Israelis will be fighting in Judea and Samaria and Gaza--on their land.
Although there are reasons why war may not have been declared sooner, the time has come to do so. As America prepares a war of its own in the Middle East, the threat of triggering a larger regional conflict is countered with the realization that one is going to be started anyway. Perhaps the first sign of this recognition is the IDF's decision to bury the civilians who died in Hebron with a military funeral. Israel would do well to finally call Arafat and the rest of the Palestinians at their game.
