Proactive Redemption in Responding to Palestinian Violence
by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 310, October 11, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Those who view Israel as a stepping stone for redemption
and as the Jewish national spiritual homeland will act differently in
responding to Palestinian violence than those who view Israel merely as a
safe haven. Thus, the government should do more than just approve security
operations against the terrorists. It should approve increased construction
in Judea and Samaria and in Jerusalem.

The ongoing discourse among Israeli cabinet members and, to a large extent
among settler leaders, has been largely over how to provide security to
Israelis. While this is obviously a valid objective, it has nevertheless
locked Israel into a defensive posture.

Israel’s defense doctrine, devised by Israel’s first prime minister, David
Ben-Gurion, seeks to transfer the battlefield into enemy territory, in part
because Israel’s narrow borders makes defensive maneuvering difficult. But
the main reason why Ben-Gurion favored this approach was his belief that to
win a war, even a defensive war, Israel had to seize the initiative. In
other words: Israel must be proactive, rather than, reactive.

It is not enough to arrest those who killed Israelis after they perpetrated
their crime. When you call such crimes terrorism, it blurs the need to
figure out what the terrorists tried to achieve. Even if it is hard to
pinpoint exactly who the masterminds are, the attacks create a trend that
undermines Israel’s strategic and vital interests and its very sovereignty
in its capital.

Under the government’s defensive strategy, the Israel Defense Forces is
tasked with providing security. The government expects the IDF to take a
series to steps to respond to the situation, with the expectation that the
overall operational effect would lead to the ebbing of violence. But reality
is more complex. When the Palestinians create a reality in which certain
areas are essentially off bounds for Jews – as has been the case in the
current reality we live in – they consider it an accomplishment.

Helping a derailed train get back on track is a technical solution that
restores order. The job is done when the train resumes normal operation. But
when it comes to the complex relations between human beings, even when calm
is restored, a new reality is created.

In this part of the world, to reshape reality according to one’s preference,
a proactive and strategic initiative is necessary. It is incumbent upon us
to subscribe to a new modus operandi to effect the desired change by
departing from the reactive pattern of behavior.

But what kind of proactive action would serve Israel in the current state of
affairs?

This question puts Israel is a critical crossroad that could define the very
essence of our presence on this land: Do we want Israel to be a homeland
where Jerusalem serves as the linchpin of statehood, with all the religious
and national implications; or do we simply want a country that serves as a
safe haven for persecuted Jews and is recognized by the international
community?

At the height of the War of Independence, in 1948, Ben-Gurion explained why
he set the capture of Jerusalem as a primary objective in the war. Speaking
before the Zionist General Council, he said, “I don’t need to tell you what
value Jerusalem has had in the history of the Jewish people and the land of
Israel and world. … If a land has a soul, then Jerusalem is the soul of the
land of Israel, and the battle for Jerusalem is paramount, not just in a
military sense. … We are duty bound to stand by Jerusalem, and it deserves
it. The pledge we took on the rivers of Babylon is binding now as it was
binding then, otherwise we would no longer be able to call ourselves the
people of Israel.”

Indeed, that pledge is recited by every Jewish groom: “If I forget thee, O
Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.” Jerusalem is a point in
the universe that encapsulates the Jews’ religion, nationhood and polity.
The Palestinians also consider it as their national focal point. That is why
the city has fueled this current conflagration.

In light of this reality, the government should do more than just approve
the security establishment’s operational plans. Proactive measures are
required that go beyond the authority of security authorities. At the
strategic level, the situation calls for increased construction in Judea and
Samaria and in Jerusalem. Such action will serve the national interest, not
just a narrow sectarian interest.

At this critical juncture, those who view this land and country as a
stepping stone for redemption and as a national homeland will act
differently than those who view Israel merely as a safe haven. We have to
make fateful choices that will shape our future here, and our decision
should be clear.

This article was originally published in Israel Hayom.

* Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen has joined the Begin-Sadat Center for
Strategic Studies as a senior research associate. He served in the IDF for
42 years, commanding troops in battle on the Egyptian and Syrian fronts. He
was a Corps commander, and commander of the IDF Military Colleges.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the
Greg Rosshandler Family