What to do about terror attacks in Jerusalem.

 

By Ami Isseroff

 

The recent spate of terror attacks in Jerusalem has sparked calls to "do something" from all quarters. Everyone offers a 'solution' that suits their ideological convictions and political needs. Following the latest depraved bulldozer attack, there were again demands to destroy the houses of suicide terrorists.

The problem with the suggestion of destroying homes of terrorists is that other than letting off steam, it seems to serve no purpose. An IDF study had earlier indicated that the policy did not deter terrorists, which is why it was discontinued. It makes sense, If a person is willing to blow himself to bits or face certain death, they are unlikely to worry about having their house destroyed. A man who abandons his family and gives up his life to kill Jews is probably not really concerned about whether or not his family will have a place to live while he is enjoying his 72 perpetual virgins in paradise.

On the other hand, dovish Israelis suggest that acts of terror originating with Jerusalem Arabs should be a motivation for giving up Arab parts of the city. There are perhaps good reasons for compromising on Jerusalem and turning over Arab areas to Palestinian rule. Jabel Mukaber and Shuafat were never Jewish national or religious symbols. That is a matter for political consideration. But responding to terror by making concessions is a really bad idea. When I lived in Jerusalem, in the area that had been part of Israel since 1949, a Katyousha rocket landed a block from my apartment, on Kaf Tet November Street. Should Israel have given up Kaf Tet November street in order to avoid terror attacks? In the fifties, terrorists infiltrated and attacked just south of Rehovot. Should we have given up Rehovot to avoid terror attacks?

The most obvious solution has not been suggested. Retreating in the face of terror and blowing up houses are not taboo, but this solution apparently is. The last three attacks, the two bulldozer attacks and the attack on Yeshivat Merkaz Harav, were carried out by Arabs who worked for Jews. Without advocating denial of employment to all non-Israeli Arabs, is it nonetheless too much to suggest that if more Jews were available to do these jobs, there would be less non-Israeli Arabs doing them, or to demand periodic in depth security checks? If some Yeshiva students had studied bus driving, not a forbidden occupation by Jewish law, perhaps the tragedy of Merkaz Harav Yeshiva would have been averted, and if there was an adequate pool of Israeli bulldozer operators, offered a reasonable salary, the bull dozer attacks would not have taken place. A fanatic with an Islamist skull cap who works for less money than Israelis but goes on a rampage and injures or kills people is not a great "bargain." Apparently however, advocating decent wages and Israeli labor is a forbidden idea, unlike retreating in the face of terror or destroying houses of presumably innocent relatives.

Ami Isseroff

Original content is Copyright by the author 2008.