Israel's Restraint
By Ambassador of Israel to the United States
His Excellency
Ambassador David Ivry
Published in the Washington Post
Friday, October 27, 2000; Page A35
The current wave of violence in the Middle East has left more than 100 Palestinians dead, while the number of Israeli fatalities has been relatively small. This uneven casualty ratio has raised questions by some as to whether the Israeli forces are too eager to pull their triggers in response to Palestinian violence. The answer to such concerns is clear: Israel has shown the greatest restraint possible in the face of continued violent provocations, and Israel's forces have made a maximum effort to avoid Palestinian fatalities.
Israel has no interest in the continuation of violence, and our tactical response has been to avoid actions that could lead to escalation. Every Israeli soldier on the ground receives strict orders as to the rules of engagement, which state clearly when it is permissible to use live fire. An Israeli soldier may respond only when shot at first or in a life-threatening situation. In either case his response must be directed at the source of the fire.
On Oct. 12, the day the two Israeli soldiers were brutally lynched in Ramallah, Israel responded by sending helicopters into action in Ramallah and Gaza. Not only were our pilots under strict instructions to surgically strike designated points but Israel also warned the Palestinians to evacuate the specified targets. It was no accident that there were no Palestinian fatalities in the Israeli counterstrike.
Israel's operational procedures for dealing with violent crowds involve the use of teargas and rubber bullets. Palestinians are propagating the fallacy that Israeli troops meet street demonstrators with live fire. Unfortunately, we have witnessed many incidents in which armed Palestinians have opened fire on Israelis from street demonstrations--using their fellow Palestinians as human shields. The Palestinian leadership has gone as far as closing the schools and busing children to points of friction, knowingly putting youngsters in harm's way. International treaties clearly condemn the enlisting of children to participate in hostilities. The international community should speak out against this reprehensible exploitation of children for political purposes.
Today's violence is quite different from that of the intifada in the 1980s. Israel then controlled the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Israeli soldiers were stationed inside Palestinian cities. Today, as a result of the Olso accords, 40 percent of the territories, including all the population centers, are under Palestinian control with more than 95 percent of Palestinians living directly under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. Our forces sit outside the population centers at points agreed to in the Israeli-Palestinian interim agreements. For violent incidents to erupt, Palestinians must seek out those forces or Israeli civilian targets.
During the intifada, our forces had to deal primarily with violent demonstrations. Currently, Israeli soldiers face armed Palestinian forces, either the official Palestinian security or the Tanzim militia (which, according to the interim agreements, should not have weapons at all). Palestinian gunmen have opened fire on Israelis in hundreds of incidents. Pictures of Palestinian boys with slingshots do not accurately reflect this new reality on the ground.
The ultimate irony of the current situation is that Prime Minister Ehud Barak has shown unprecedented flexibility in the peace process. The Palestinians, rather than opting to negotiate, chose to revert to violence. It was the Palestinian side that reneged on the cease-fire brokered by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Paris, and it was the Palestinian side that failed to implement the deal brokered by President Clinton at Sharm el-Sheikh. Israel did not want, seek or encourage this round of fighting. The questions must be asked: Which side has acted to contain and to end the violence, and which side has not ?
The truth about the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths is that Israelis have been actively seeking to limit fatal casualties in this conflict while, unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Palestinian side. As retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark wrote recently: "for the Palestinians, every casualty, even their own, can be a strategic gain." As long as the Palestinian leadership acts on the assumption that there is a net political advantage in bloodshed, surely they, and those in the Arab world who encourage this violent strategy, should be held accountable for the appalling and unnecessary loss of life over the past four weeks.
