Evelyn Gordon
Analysis from Israel

PA’s Response to Eilat Attack Facilitates Anti-Israel Terror

Published August 22, 2011

As Jonathan noted yesterday, Hamas-run Gaza provides a grim warning of what an independent Palestinian state might look like. But the picture presented by Israel’s alleged “peace partner,” the Palestinian Authority, isn’t a whole lot better, as its response to last Thursday’s cross-border raid near Eilat makes clear. That attack killed eight  Israelis and wounded 30 on sovereign, pre-1967 Israeli territory. Yet the PA’s response was to condemn not the assailants, but Israel.

On Saturday, PA President Mahmoud Abbas sought an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss “halting Israeli aggression” in Gaza. Not a word about halting the anti-Israeli aggression that sparked Israel’s retaliatory airstrikes. Indeed, the PA didn’t even acknowledge that aggression’s existence. Instead, as the Jerusalem Post  reported, “PA officials claimed that Israel was stepping up its attacks on the Gaza Strip in a bid to thwart the September statehood bid and avoid the internal economic and social crisis.”

Mohammed Subh, the PA envoy to the Arab League, for instance, charged that “Israel is preparing for war to distract attention from the Palestinian Authority’s plan for September [its bid for UN recognition as a state] … We were expecting Israel to intensify tensions in the region as we approached the September deadline.” Nimer Hammad, a senior adviser to Abbas, offered an alternative theory: “The Israeli government is trying, through this new aggression, to avoid internal pressure because of the demonstrations,” referring to the recent socioeconomic protests.

Not a single Palestinian official acknowledged the truth: that Israel was responding to a vicious cross-border attack. And about the attack itself, the PA hadn’t a word to say. This, as Israeli government officials told the Jerusalem Post, is a new low: Even Yasser Arafat would issue pro forma condemnations of terror attacks (albeit only in English); the “peace-seeking” Abbas dispensed even with this.

But that’s not so surprising, given that Abbas has continued Arafat’s tradition of inciting terror. Earlier this month, for instance, Palestinian Media Watch reported on a new Ramadan special, innocuously titled “The Best Mothers,” now airing on the PA’s government-run TV station. Already, it has featured the mothers of two terrorist “martyrs” – a bomb-maker and a female suicide bomber. In both cases, these “best mothers” lauded the terrorist activities that killed their offspring.

So here we have the face of Israel’s “peace partner”: It actively incites terror, refuses to condemn it, and seeks to prevent Israel from exercising its right of self-defense against it. In short, it facilitates terror in every way possible short of actively perpetrating it – or in other words, in every way possible while the Israel Defense Forces still maintain security control over its territory – and would likely ramp up its activities if the brake provided by the IDF’s presence were removed.

Abbas can get away with this because the world persists in seeing him as a “peace seeker” and ignores all evidence to the contrary. But it’s high time for Israel and its friends to stop cooperating with his charade.

Originally Published in: Commentary
Original Link: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/22/eilat-attack-pa-response/
Posted in Uncategorized
Originally Published in:

Original Link:

Subscribe to Evelyn’s Mailing List

Featured Post

Why Israel Needs a Better Political Class

Note: This piece is a response to an essay by Haviv Rettig Gur, which can be found here

Israel’s current political crisis exemplifies the maxim that hard cases make bad law. This case is desperate. Six months after the coronavirus erupted and nine months after the fiscal year began, Israel still lacks both a functioning contact-tracing system and an approved 2020 budget, mainly because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is more worried about politics than the domestic problems that Israel now confronts. The government’s failure to perform these basic tasks obviously invites the conclusion that civil servants’ far-reaching powers must not only be preserved, but perhaps even increased.

This would be the wrong conclusion. Bureaucrats, especially when they have great power, are vulnerable to the same ills as elected politicians. But unlike politicians, they are completely unaccountable to the public.

That doesn’t mean Haviv Rettig Gur is wrong to deem them indispensable. They provide institutional memory, flesh out elected officials’ policies, and supply information the politicians may not know and options they may not have considered. Yet the current crisis shows in several ways why they neither can nor should substitute for elected politicians.

First, bureaucrats are no less prone to poor judgment than politicians. As evidence, consider Siegal Sadetzki, part of the Netanyahu-led triumvirate that ran Israel’s initial response to the coronavirus. It’s unsurprising that Gur never mentioned Sadetzki even as he lauded the triumvirate’s third member, former Health Ministry Director General Moshe Bar Siman-Tov; she and her fellow Health Ministry staffers are a major reason why Israel still lacks a functional test-and-trace system.

Sadetzki, an epidemiologist, was the ministry’s director of public-health services and the only member of the triumvirate with professional expertise in epidemics (Bar Siman-Tov is an economist). As such, her input was crucial. Yet she adamantly opposed expanding virus testing, even publicly asserting that “Too much testing will increase complacence.” She opposed letting organizations outside the public-health system do lab work for coronavirus tests, even though the system was overwhelmed. She opposed sewage monitoring to track the spread of the virus. And on, and on.

Moreover, even after acknowledging that test-and-trace was necessary, ministry bureaucrats insisted for months that their ministry do the tracing despite its glaringly inadequate manpower. Only in August was the job finally given to the army, which does have the requisite personnel. And the system still isn’t fully operational.

Read more
Archives