The War on Terror Versus Liberal Values

“Brigadier General Gadi Eisenkot, commander of the Israeli military forces in the West Bank, evaluates (in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth) that terrorism will continue for many years to come. The bitter truth is there is no absolute victory in this struggle.” This quote appears in Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel’s 2005 book “The Seventh War,” at the end of which the authors write: “He (Eisenkot) predicts that his young son, now five years old, will also fight in the territories.” These chilling words were said 20 years ago yet seem as if they were said today. This time, however, they are directed as criticism of Netanyahu talking about “absolute victory” and his refusal to prioritize release of the hostages over elimination of Hamas. Even today Eisenkot says “terror will continue for many more years,” but the hostages have no time. We will release the hostages and then continue to fight Hamas. This is also a common perception among protestors, retired generals, and the hostages’ families. Eisenkot’s chilling prophecy was realized in the most tragic way when his youngest son, five years old at the time, fell in battle in the Gaza Strip. Eisenkot failed to predict two things: the October 7th massacre, the greatest strategic blow in Israel’s history, which was launched by the same terrorism against which Eisenkot fought 20 years ago, and the fact that his son would not only fight against terrorism, but also fall in battle. Eisenkot did not imagine that October 7th was possible and certainly could not imagine the death of his beloved son.

I was exposed to these assessments while watching the July 13 interview Eisenkot gave to the program “Meet the Press,” where he reveals his full views on political/security issues. What drew my attention is the “coexistence” he sees possible between the fight against terrorism and the prospect of a viable liberal society. Paraphrasing his words, Eisenkot is essentially dealing with the question of how to maintain a free and democratic society alongside what he calls terrorism and what the world calls occupation.

The horrifying thing about Eisenkot’s predictions, even after the October 7 massacre and the heavy personal price he paid, is that he did not change his positions one bit. What was will be, and hence the logical conclusion is that in 20 years, terrorism might again take us by surprise and one of our grandchildren will fall in battle. This is the future according to Eisenkot and it is built on the concept that has become a national consensus connecting the right and left: there is no possibility of a political settlement, there is no Palestinian partner for peace and the Palestinian problem is fundamentally a security problem that Israel must manage, regulate and fight – but not solve. This is the “conception” with which the Israeli governments cooperated. They fed and contained Hamas and let Qatar pump in billions of dollars that were invested in the damned rockets and tunnels.

If defeating Hamas, according to Eisenkot’s view, is unfeasible, how does he define victory? “The victory of Israel is the ability to fight terrorism with focused determination, without it changing the values ​​of the Israeli society, and allowing us to continue developing a strong, progressive, high-quality country in which the young want to grow up and which is a magnet for Jews of the world. We must not fall into the black hole into which terrorism wants to throw us.” And here is the essence of the liberal concept: to maintain an occupation “without it changing society’s values.” This is what the struggle between the right and the left in Israel is all about. The right claims it is not possible to simultaneously maintain a democratic regime and fight terrorism. It claims that democracy in the form designed by Israel’s High Court is an obstacle to the war on terrorism because it is based on the Geneva Convention, international law, human rights, and other universal principles that limit the state’s ability to fight terrorism. The bottom line: an occupation can only be sustained by denying the basic rights of Palestinian citizens.

The sad thing in Eisenkot’s view, supported by the protest movement which made democracy its main banner, is that the current government is the ultimate proof that occupation cannot be sustained without it changing the values ​​of Israeli society. The El-or Azaria affair was a watershed and clear warning sign that trying to separate the occupation of a civilian population from the preservation of democratic values ​​is impossible. The soldier El-or Azaria shot dead a Palestinian who was involved in a terrorist act when he was already lying on the road, neutralized and not a danger to the soldiers’ lives. This happened in March 2006, when Gadi Eisenkot was Chief of Staff, Moshe Ya’alon the defence minister, and Bibi Netanyahu was Prime Minister. While Ya’alon and Eisenkot condemned the soldier on the grounds that he violated the values ​​of human dignity and purity of arms, MKs from the right, from Naftali Bennett to Avigdor Lieberman, supported the soldier. At first, Netanyahu supported Eisenkot and Ya’alon’s position, but when he realized where the wind was blowing, he reversed himself and announced: “The IDF soldiers, our children, are facing murderous terrorist attacks by terrorists who come to kill them. They need to make decisions in real time, under field conditions, under conditions of pressure, under conditions of uncertainty.” Defence Minister Ya’alon resigned from the government and is today one of the leaders of the protest movement against the judicial coup d’état.

Unfortunately, the “ideological” debate that has been going on for many years in Israel leads to a dead end. The solution of the right is to impose apartheid on an entire people, while the answer of the left is to live with the occupation as if it were “shrapnel in the butt (Naftali Bennet).” How is it possible that after a tragedy on the scale of October 7, and the fascist attempted coup, since January 2023, Israeli society continues to adhere to the same concept that brought it to the point of existential danger, both on the security and regime levels?

The power of the right in Israel is based on a simple truth: occupation and democracy do not go together. The State of Israel suffers from an inherent contradiction in being both Jewish and democratic. The Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, enacted in 2018, declares that “the State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people… The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” In August 2018, I wrote in the In the shadow of Israel’s nation-state law: The Left ducks: “In the wings is the ‘Basic Law on Legislation,’ which will define the limits of judicial review for years to come. In other words, the Arabs are the excuse, but the goal is to change the liberal lifestyle and the democratic space enjoyed by the Jewish majority.”

6 years have passed since then. Unfortunately, my hypothesis was fully realized with establishment of the ultra-right-wing government and the January 2023 announcement by Justice Minister Yariv Levin of the upcoming of the judicial revolution. By the way, this coup was nowhere to be found in the platform of the Likud party as it run in the elections. But the circumstances seemed ripe with the joining of Smotrich and Ben Gvir to the coalition. The principle is clear: democracy yes, but only for the Jews, and the fate of the Palestinians is to live in an apartheid regime. What Eisenkot and the protest movement are offering is an illusion, an attempt to halt the fascist train that has long since left the station.

Unfortunately, the “ideological” debate that has been going on for many years in Israel leads to a dead end. The solution of the right is to impose apartheid on an entire people, while the answer of the left is to live with the occupation as if it were “shrapnel in the butt.” How is it possible that after a tragedy on the scale of October 7, and the attempted fascist coup, Israeli society continues to adhere to the same concept that brought it to the point of existential danger, both on the security and regime levels?

The 5 million Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are an integral part of our lives. They cannot be disappeared, ignored or separated from them. The same unfortunate statement by Eisenkot, that terrorism will continue to accompany us in the generations to come, necessarily carries with it the insight that the Palestinians are here today and in the generations to come. And, if after 57 years of occupation, and 20 years since Eisenkot’s horrifying prophecy we have come this far, maybe it is time finally to understand that occupation and democracy cannot coexist. That a Jewish and democratic state is an inherent contradiction. And that the only way to maintain a democratic society and prevent another terrible massacre is to look for every way, every path, every point of light on the Palestinian side who would be willing to live according to universal democratic values ​​and on the basis of full equality between all the inhabitants of this land between the river and the sea.

About Yacov Ben Efrat