The theoretical ramifications embodied in the release of the Arab terrorists from Israeli jails has yet to be properly understood by the government of Israel. Government officials, to date, have not even been able to offer an accurate analysis of the practical implications of the release, parroting the line that the Israeli government was forced into adhering to signed agreements of previous administrations. The real implications, however, have now come to haunt the citizens of Israel with the 1997 pre-Purim bombing of a Tel Aviv cafe and the escalation of Arab violence throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In addition to exposing the practical consequences of the perverse prisoner release policy, the stark realities of the horrendous bombing in Tel Aviv must give us insight into the dark and frightening significance of the Israeli amnesty of Palestinian terrorists.

Reason dictates that if we are to accede to the idea that peace is being made between Israel and the Palestinians and that as prerequisite of that peace: 1) both sides are equal partners in the process, and 2) an amnesty for the combatants is required, we are compelled to conclude that the Palestinian cause is in some way a just cause. However abhorrent this deduction may be to many people, logic requires that we recognize its meaning at least within the context of the prisoner release. The Israeli government must come to grips with what it has done in negotiating a peace that includes the two aforementioned principles. Additionally, the government of Israel must acknowledge that it has, by its own actions, sanctioned, however unwillingly, the means by which the Palestinians specifically, and the Arab nations in general, have maneuvered their agenda into the center of world politics and the heart of Israeli statecraft.

This is not the place to examine the history of the Arab/Islamic battle against Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, however it must not be forgotten that the creation of a Palestinian entity was and is part and parcel an Arab/Islamic strategy to reverse the David and Goliath roles of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Twenty-one Arab nations verses Israel would never have fostered world sympathy, or for that matter, Israeli guilt, for the righteousness of the Arab cause. A poor, outnumbered and defenseless "Palestinian" people is, on the other hand, a different story. The scenario of the Palestinian verses the Israeli allows for Jewish domination, oppression and abuse of an orphaned Arab people. Tanks, aerial bombardment and missiles from Arab nations did not succeed in driving the Jews to self doubt, confused understandings of self-preservation and ultimately to questioning its right to the Land of Israel, but rocks, molotov cocktails and bullets of Palestinian terrorists did. Few, if any, Israeli soldiers refused to fight wars against Arab armies while scores of military personnel refused to do battle against the stones and homemade bombs of the Palestinians. No songs are written about the joy of life without Syrian, Egyptian or Jordanian guns trained on the Jews of Israel while Israeli youth sway to the sounds of living without Judea, Samaria and oppressed Palestinians in blissful harmony. The role reversal has worked. The world views the conflict in terms of Palestinian verses Israeli interests. More to the point, Israel, by its participation in the Oslo peace process, has come to embrace this supposition and grant the entire premiss legitimacy at the negotiating table.

In making the Palestinians a full partner in peace, Israel has de facto awarded the Palestinian position credence to its claims and ultimately given countenance to its modus operandi. Given the parameters of the Oslo peace process, Israeli negotiators were forced to settle that the individuals who waged war against Israeli civilians, did so for morally neutral political reasons. Although the distinction between nationalistic motives and criminal motives of a particular crime exist in law, the distinction between noble nationalistic motives and base nationalistic motives do not. To convict the perpetrator of violent and deadly acts with statutes created specifically for nationalistic crimes is a far cry from condoning those acts as morally justifiable due to motivations and circumstances. It is well-known that not all acts of violence are criminal nor are they all morally reprehensible. As in all things human, judgement must be rendered as to the nobility or baseness of an act depending upon motivations and circumstances. Refusal to make such judgements strips one of humanity.

It is clear that not to delineate between base and noble causes within the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict is at the heart of the equal partner relationship. If a group acted on behalf of what they thought to be a just cause, are we automatically expected to find legitimacy in their behavior? If the answer is yes, then we are allowing for the use of Palestinian terrorism as a means of Arab/Islamic political expression. By logical conclusion, when Israel releases from its prisons convicted political prisoners, i.e., convicted Arab terrorists -- especially those with blood on their hands, this is what necessarily is being said. It is wholly nonsensical to state that the grievances of one party, if felt deeply enough and regardless of their behavior, entitle that party to equal footing with any other party. By making all positions equal or basing rights upon conviction, all rational dialogue is essentially destroyed. For in holding such a position the foundations of right and wrong, justifiable and unjustifiable, legitimate and illegitimate are laid waste by feelings and emotions, not to mention, deceit and deception.

Either a position ultimately has merit or it does not. This is not to say that many shades of grey do not present themselves within any complex argument. Accounting for the possible legitimacy for certain parts of an argument determines the amount of merit found within a given position. If Israel is seeking a resolution to Palestinian claims and believes that there are genuine grievances needing resolution, then based upon the level of "just grievance," Israel can grant the Palestinians a portion of "partnership," rather a place within a negotiating process. However, full partnership denotes the complete rightness of the Palestinian cause and negotiating a resolution based upon this notion is merely an attempt at balancing the needs of two legitimate positions. Should such a deluded idea be entertained, it is hardly applicable to the current situation for there exists no quid-pro-quo. While there is an entire segment of the Israeli body politic that calls for the creation of a Palestinian state and the rights of the Palestinian people to their land, there is no Palestinian, leader or otherwise, stating that it is right that the Jewish people return to the Land of Israel, create a national body and receive the opportunity to realize a two thousand year old dream in peace.

In fact, when all is said and done, Israel has lost a portion of its own legitimacy by acquiescing to the Palestinian claims. The very premiss of a Jewish State is put into question when all rights become equal. Yes, Israel still insists on its right to exist within secured borders, however in recognizing Palestinian demands, Israel has bought into the Arab/Islamic strategy negating a Jewish right to the Land. Israel is playing a game of semantics on the game board of total rejectionists. Hoping to out-maneuver the opponents, Israel has set itself up for total defeat by accepting the rules and regulations of those who seek Israel's destruction.

Perhaps the greatest victory in this strategic war was the release of Arab terrorists from Israeli jails. The prisoner release is the clearest sign of Israel's granting full legitimacy to the Palestinian cause. After all, no one is claiming that the prisoners are no longer guilty of the charges for which they were imprisoned, nor has any party claimed that less are the atrocities committed. To the contrary, when the Arab terrorists returned to their brethren, celebrations of their acts marked festivities throughout the Palestinian controlled areas of Eretz Israel. It is particularly worthy to note that one of the released women with Israeli blood on her hands was praised by the president of the Palestinian Authority and given a position within the PA as reward for services rendered. The notion of contrition is not present from any quarter leaving no doubt that freedom is based solely on a political resolution of the dispute as defined by the Palestinians and not the miscarriage of justice.

If there was ever to be a prisoner amnesty, it should have come at the conclusion of a settlement when all violence had ceased. Should Israel come to the conclusion that the Palestinian war against the Jewish state had found some sort of resolution, then, and only then, Israel might consider a unilateral decision to give amnesty to the perpetrators of nationalistic criminal activity within the conflict. When the journey of political settlement is properly navigated to the satisfaction of the Israeli government, perhaps this sort of gesture could be contemplated. Instead, the prisoner release, while the conflict rages on, has enforced the effectiveness and legitimacy of Palestinian terrorism. Indeed, the prisoner release is an incitement to violence perpetrated by Israel's adherence to the Oslo Accords. At Israel's own doorstep lies the doomed images of ever increasing violence against Israeli citizens. There can only be a single solution to curb the already out-of-control process of Israel's destruction: end the Oslo negotiations. As long as the Arab/Islamic conception of conflict resolution remains "Palestine" and violence, there can be no gestures, no offerings, no negotiations and no peace.
# Click for the B'tzedek commentary index.