Soon after the terror attacks in Brussels, which Israelis evidently could relate to, Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy felt it was important to distinguish between different kinds of terror. While he proclaims ISIS terror as unjustifiable, he says Palestinian terror is “justified in its cause,” and both insults and misjudges the Palestinians when he says their terror is “the resort of those who have no choice, a tool of the weak to gain their more-than-justified goals.”
He states the apparent simplicity of the situation, that “ISIS’s goals are insane, the Palestinians’ goals are justified.”
Exactly which Palestinians’ goals is he talking about?
– The Palestinian woman who wanted to end her life after an argument with her husband, and decided that the most honorable way to die would be by trying to kill a Jew?
– The ones who wanted to take revenge on the deaths of terrorist-relatives killed by Israeli soldiers, by targeting innocent Israeli civilians?
– The ones who wanted to act against innocent Israelis because of the rumor fuelled by Palestinians that Israel was going to “change the status-quo” on the Temple Mount?
– The ones who view all Israelis as settlers and occupiers and justified targets?
– The ones who want to destroy Israel and replace it in its entirety with a Palestinian state free of all Jews?
– The ones who simply want any and all Jews dead, wherever they are?
Let’s give Levy the benefit of the doubt and assume that in his naivety, he thinks that the goal of Palestinian terrorists is not simply to murder Jews for being Jews, but for two states side-by-side in peace, and that at minimum all Israel has to do is leave the West Bank to achieve that. There’s a problem if that is his assumption — while Palestinian terrorists have given a variety of reasons for their attacks, pretty much all of those rooted in anti-Semitism, have any of them cited a 2-state solution as their goal? Probably not. Because the Palestinians who do want a 2-state solution, or to improve the lives of Palestinians, are not the ones who think that murdering innocent Israelis will help their cause.
Yet Levy absurdly claims that the conflict with the Palestinians has not been resolved “despite their desperate resort to terror, not because of it.” In fact it is, of course, the exact opposite. It is a fact, not merely a cliché, that if the Palestinians laid down their weapons Israel would have no reason to fight to defend itself. He continues, Israel “understands only force… only by force will the Palestinian problem be solved.” And by force, he explains, he means terror. Israel understands only terror. Only by terror will the conflict be solved. He claims that even if the Palestinians renounce violence, “they have no chance of getting what is theirs without terror.”
So according to Levy, all the Palestinians need to do in order for Israel to give up the West Bank, is to continue with terror attacks that reaffirm to Israel that it could be national suicide to do so.
Less than one week after advocating Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis, Levy slams the Israelis who support the IDF soldier who allegedly went against IDF protocol and values by killing a disarmed Palestinian terrorist, when he apparently knew that he didn’t pose a threat. It is not irrelevant that the Palestinian had just stabbed someone, which is what Levy himself justified, yet he completely ignores this by referring to Israeli “bloodlust”; and acts as though the Palestinian was an innocent civilian, in portraying the killing and the soldier’s supporters as motivated purely by “a hatred of Arabs and contempt for their lives” – instead of, more accurately, a hatred of Arab terrorists/would-be murderers, and contempt for a terrorist/would-be murderer’s life.
This does not make Israeli society, as Levy described it, “probably the most racist in the world today.” If terrorists were a race, then maybe he would have a point. It is very possible that Israelis do harbor a lot of hatred for people who try to kill them.