There is a resounding ring of truth in Ya'alon's position: He sounds
like someone who was horrified by the findings of cruelty on the part
of soldiers toward the Palestinian population and like someone who
believes, with all his heart, in the supreme value of the words "Your
camp shall be holy" (Deuteronomy 23:15). He speaks with regret, which
sounds sincere, about the possibility that, in the heat of battle,
soldiers received a double message. He spoke this week about "crumbling
values." He told soldiers he met that even when they are ordered to
carry out unpleasant activities, like searching homes in the middle of
the night, and conducting examinations at checkpoints, they must act
sensitively and considerately toward individuals and families.
But
the reaction of the chief of staff begs a question: Where was he until
now? Is it possible that he did not receive the complaints from human
rights organizations, led by B'Tselem, pertaining to mistreatment of
the Palestinian population? Did he not read the compelling stories that
writers like Haaretz's Gideon Levy and Amira Hass have told about the
territories? Was he unaware of the following statistic: Since the
beginning of the intifada, nearly 1,500 Palestinians who were not
engaged in battle were killed?
The prevailing fashion in the IDF
this week is to admit that occupation corrupts but to point the
accusing finger at the political leadership that did not find a way to
end the conflict with the Palestinians - rather than pointing a finger
at the army. This is a convenient fig leaf: The "political leadership"
is an almost abstract term because, in this case, it includes all of
the Israeli governments since the Six-Day War. They are all, according
to the theory, guilty of causing the moral erosion of the IDF, which is
at the root of the shameful incidents that captured the public's
attention during the last month. And all of society is actually
responsible for the occupation - or, at least, those elements that
prevented Israel from contributing to its end because of their refusal
to give up territory.
When one reads the report the B'Tselem
investigation regarding the testimony of witnesses to the killing of
Qamail by naval commandos, the heart fills with shame: A Palestinian
lies near the home of a relative who hid him, surrounded by dozens of
Israeli soldiers who repeatedly send neighbors to check him to make
sure that he does not pose a threat. The Palestinians give soldiers the
wounded man's gun and his cellular telephone. They drag him out in
response to the orders of the soldiers, and identify him as the wanted
man. They remove all of his belongings, such as a lighter and
cigarettes, and hand them to the soldiers - but in any case, someone in
the unit decides to kill him.
When one hears and reads the
version of the story told by parents of these soldiers, the heart fills
with understanding: The naval commandos considered the potential
resistance of the wounded man to be a threat. They were afraid that
there was an explosives belt attached to his body. He was a known
member of the Islamic Jihad, and they took legitimate precautions based
on hard-learned lessons of the past regarding Palestinian terrorist
activity. The soldiers want to go home in one piece - and what right do
critics have to judge that?
The prime minister attacked those
who doubted the military ethics of the crack naval commandos on
Wednesday, and declared that the IDF is the most moral army in the
world. In the book, "The Seventh War," by Amos Harel and Avi
Isascharov, the writers present a quote of the prime minister's words
to then-chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, his deputy Ya'alon, and then-head
of the Shin Bet security services Avi Dichter, during a meeting in May
2001: "We have to attack the Palestinians at all locations, and at
once. They have to awaken every morning to find that they have 12 dead,
from all sorts of activities, without understanding how it happened."
When that is the leading commander's take, the IDF's amazement regarding its eroding morality rings of phoniness.