Many of you have no doubt seen horrible images out of Israel, following an arrest by IDF military police of several reservists suspected of torturing and sexually assaulting military detainees. This led to a full-scale riot by far-right forces in Israel, including military police and joined in by several right-wing coalition MKs, who successfully stormed several IDF military bases. Among those who joined in the riots are MKs Amichay Eliyahu (Otzma Yehudit), Zvi Sukkot (Religious Zionism), and Nissim Vaturi (Likud). Others who praised either the riots themselves, or the underlying justice of their cause, include Itamar Ben Gvir (Otzma Yehudit), Tally Gotliv (Likud), Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism), Yariv Levin (Likud), and Yuli Edelstein (Likud).
The image of Israel effectively at war with itself, with one faction -- well-represented in the current government -- violently protesting on behalf of the right to torture and rape Palestinian prisoners with impunity -- is sickening, and demonstrates the fundamental disgrace that is Netanyahu's government. That goes without saying, and I'll say no more on that.
The IDF's top brass is, unsurprisingly, incensed at the anarchic violence targeting the very core of its authority and ability to self-regulate. The response from Israel's civilian leadership has been more muted; calls for "calm" have featured heavily. Bibi, for instance, issued "an immediate calming of passions in the Sde Teiman base." President Isaac Herzog likewise urged elected officials "to show leadership — to relax and calm down," in response to the growing chorus of parliamentarians speaking out in support of the riots and in defense of the soldiers accused of torture (and in opposition, it must be said, to the other soldiers seeking to actual enforce order and rule of law).
The term "calm" grabbed me, since anyone familiar with Israel and security issues is well-familiar with the refrains for "calm" that follow this or that provocation. See, for example, the United States urging "calm" after Hezbollah's rocket attack on the Golan Heights that killed a dozen Druze teenagers. I have no quarrel with "calm" -- I think there are very good reasons to pause and take a beat rather than just rush headlong into potential escalation, even where the target is unquestionably a malign actor. But if one is tuned into the channels of pro-Israel rhetoric, one also knows how these calls for calm are received -- with contempt, as effectively a demand for appeasement and turning the other cheek in response to outrageous misconduct. "Calm" is what one says when one intends to just let the aggressor act without consequence.
Again, that's not my view. But for the people who do think that way, one wonders what it means to hear the Israeli government's response to violent attacks on the IDF in support of suspected war criminals being a plea for "calm". For them, it must sound like a prelude to acquiescence, no? Surely, they must be as repulsed by this form of appeasement as all the others. Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment