SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (10093)4/22/2002 2:08:38 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
The Bombing of the King David Hotel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division. The Irgun chose it as a target after British troops invaded the Jewish Agency June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were placed under arrest. The information about Jewish Agency operations, including intelligence activities in Arab countries, was taken to the King David Hotel.

A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain's restrictive immigration policy had condemned thousands to death.

Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and said three telephone calls were placed, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post, warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated.

On July 22, 1946, the calls were made. The call into the hotel was apparently received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews."1 As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: a total of 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the hotel proper were injured by the blast.2



In contrast to Arab attacks against Jews, which were widely hailed as heroic actions, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing of the King David.3

For decades the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament introduced evidence that the Irgun had indeed issued the warning. He offered the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.4



Notes

1. Menachem Begin, The Revolt, (NY: Nash Publishing, 1977), p. 224.

2. J. Bowyer Bell, Terror Out Of Zion, (NY: St. Martin's Press), p. 172.

3. Anne Sinai and I. Robert Sinai, Israel and the Arabs: Prelude to the Jewish State, (NY: Facts on File, 1972), p. 83.

4. Benjamin Netanyahu, ed., "International Terrorism: Challenge And Response," Proceedings of the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism, July 2­5, 1979, (Jerusalem: The Jonathan Institute, 1980), p. 45.



us-israel.org



To: Dayuhan who wrote (10093)4/22/2002 2:18:04 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Deir Yassin
By Mitchell Bard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United Nations resolved that Jerusalem would be an international city apart from the Arab and Jewish states demarcated in the partition resolution. The 150,000 Jewish inhabitants were under constant military pressure; the 2,500 Jews living in the Old City were victims of an Arab blockade that lasted five months before they were forced to surrender on May 29, 1948. Prior to the surrender, and throughout the siege on Jerusalem, Jewish convoys tried to reach the city to alleviate the food shortage, which, by April, had become critical.

Meanwhile, the Arab forces, which had engaged in sporadic and unorganized ambushes since December 1947, began to make an organized attempt to cut off the highway linking Tel Aviv with Jerusalem - the city's only supply route. The Arabs controlled several strategic vantage points, which overlooked the highway and enabled them to fire on the convoys trying to reach the beleaguered city with supplies. Deir Yassin was situated on a hill, about 2600 feet high, which commanded a wide view of the vicinity and was located less than a mile from the suburbs of Jerusalem. The population was 750.1

On April 6, Operation Nachshon was launched to open the road to Jerusalem. The village of Deir Yassin was included on the list of Arab villages to be occupied as part of the operation. The following day Haganah commander David Shaltiel wrote to the leaders of the Lehi and Irgun:

I learn that you plan an attack on Deir Yassin. I wish to point out that the capture of Deir Yassin and its holding are one stage in our general plan. I have no objection to your carrying out the operation provided you are able to hold the village. If you are unable to do so I warn you against blowing up the village which will result in its inhabitants abandoning it and its ruins and deserted houses being occupied by foreign forces....Furthermore, if foreign forces took over, this would upset our general plan for establishing an airfield.2

The Irgun decided to attack Deir Yassin on April 9, while the Haganah was still engaged in the battle for Kastel. This was the first major Irgun attack against the Arabs. Previously, the Irgun and Lehi had concentrated their attacks against the British.

No Easy Battle
According to Irgun leader Menachem Begin, the assault was carried out by 100 members of that organization; other authors say it was as many as 132 men from both groups. Begin stated that a small open truck fitted with a loudspeaker was driven to the entrance of the village before the attack and broadcast a warning to civilians to evacuate the area, which many did.3 Most writers say the warning was never issued because the truck with the loudspeaker rolled into a ditch before it could broadcast the warning.4 One of the fighters said, the ditch was filled in and the truck continued on to the village. "One of us called out on the loudspeaker in Arabic, telling the inhabitants to put down their weapons and flee. I don't know if they heard, and I know these appeals had no effect."5

Contrary to revisionist histories that the town was filled with peaceful innocents, residents and foreign troops opened fire on the attackers. One fighter described his experience:

My unit stormed and passed the first row of houses. I was among the first to enter the village. There were a few other guys with me, each encouraging the other to advance. At the top of the street I saw a man in khaki clothing running ahead. I thought he was one of ours. I ran after him and told him, "advance to that house." Suddenly he turned around, aimed his rifle and shot. He was an Iraqi soldier. I was hit in the foot.6

The battle was ferocious and took several hours. The Irgun suffered 41 casualties, including four dead.

Counting the Dead
Surprisingly, after the “massacre,” the Irgun escorted a representative of the Red Cross through the town and held a press conference. The New York Times' subsequent description of the battle was essentially the same as Begin's. The Times said more than 200 Arabs were killed, 40 captured and 70 women and children were released. No hint of a massacre appeared in the report. “Paradoxically, the Jews say about 250 out of 400 village inhabitants [were killed], while Arab survivors say only 110 of 1,000.”7 A study by Bir Zeit University, based on discussions with each family from the village, arrived at a figure of 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," evidence that the number of dead was smaller than claimed and that the village did have troops based there.8 Other Arab sources have subsequently suggested the number may have been even lower.9

In fact, the attackers left open an escape corridor from the village and more than 200 residents left unharmed. For example, at 9:30 A.M., about five hours after the fighting started, the Lehi evacuated 40 old men, women and children on trucks and took them to a base in Sheikh Bader. Later, the Arabs were taken to East Jerusalem. Starting at 2:00 P.M., residents were taken out of the village. The trucks passed through the Orthodox neighborhood of Mea Shearim after the Sabbath had begun, so the neighborhood people cursed and spit at them, not because they were Arabs, but because the vehicles were desecrating the Sabbath. Seeing the Arabs in the hands of Jews also helped raise the morale of the people of Jerusalem who were despondent from the setbacks in the fighting to that point.10 Another source says 70 women and children were taken away and turned over to the British.11 If the intent was to massacre the inhabitants, no one would have been evacuated.

After the remaining Arabs feigned surrender and then fired on the Jewish troops, some Jews killed Arab soldiers and civilians indiscriminately. None of the sources specify how many women and children were killed (the Times report said it was about half the victims; their original casualty figure came from the Irgun source), but there were some among the casualties. Any intentional murder of children or women is completely unjustified. At least some of the women who were killed, however, became targets because of men who tried to disguise themselves as women. The Irgun commander reported, for example, that the attackers "found men dressed as women and therefore they began to shoot at women who did not hasten to go down to the place designated for gathering the prisoners."12 Another story was told by a member of the Haganah who overheard a group of Arabs from Deir Yassin who said "the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the people being checked realized he had been caught, took out a pistol and shot the Jewish commander. His friends, crazed with anger, shot in all directions and killed the Arabs in the area."13

Contrary to claims from Arab propagandists at the time and some since, no evidence has ever been produced that any women were raped. On the contrary, every villager ever interviewed has denied these allegations. Like many of the claims, this was a deliberate propaganda ploy, but one that backfired. Hazam Nusseibi, who worked for the Palestine Broadcasting Service in 1948, admitted being told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims. Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident in 1948 told Khalidi "there was no rape," but Khalidi replied, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews." Nusseibeh told the BBC 50 years later, "This was our biggest mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror."14

Reaction
The Jewish Agency, upon learning of the attack, immediately expressed its “horror and disgust.” It also sent a letter expressing the Agency's shock and disapproval to Transjordan's King Abdullah.

The Arab Higher Committee hoped exaggerated reports about a “massacre” at Deir Yassin would shock the population of the Arab countries into bringing pressure on their governments to intervene in Palestine. Instead, the immediate impact was to stimulate a new Palestinian exodus.

Just four days after the reports from Deir Yassin were published, an Arab force ambushed a Jewish convoy on the way to Hadassah Hospital, killing 77 Jews, including doctors, nurses, patients, and the director of the hospital. Another 23 people were injured. This massacre attracted little attention and is never mentioned by those who are quick to bring up Deir Yassin. Moreover, despite attacks such as this against the Jewish community in Palestine, in which more than 500 Jews were killed in the first four months after the partition decision alone, Jews did not flee.

The Palestinians knew, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the Jews were not trying to annihilate them; otherwise, they would not have been allowed to evacuate Tiberias, Haifa or any of the other towns captured by the Jews. Moreover, the Palestinians could find sanctuary in nearby states. The Jews, however, had no place to run had they wanted to. They were willing to fight to the death for their country. It came to that for many, because the Arabs were interested in annihilating the Jews, as Secretary-General of the Arab League Azzam Pasha made clear in an interview with the BBC on the eve of the war (May 15, 1948): “The Arabs intend to conduct a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

References to Deir Yassin have remained a staple of anti-Israel propaganda for decades because the incident was unique.

Notes
1"Dayr Yasin," Bir Zeit University.
2Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948, (OH: New American Library, Inc., 1970), p. 141.
3Menachem Begin, The Revolt, (NY: Nash Publishing, 1977), pp. xx-xxi, 162-163.
4See, for example, Amos Perlmutter, The Life and Times of Menachem Begin, (NY: Doubleday, 1987), p. 214; J. Bowyer Bell, Terror Out Of Zion, (NY: St. Martin*s Press, 1977), p. 292-96; Kurzman, p. 142.
5Uri Milstein, History of Israel's War of Independence. Vol. IV, (Lanham: University Press of America. 1999), p. 262.
6Milstein, p. 262.
7Kurzman, p. 148.
8Sharif Kanaana and Nihad Zitawi, "Deir Yassin," Monograph No. 4, Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project (Bir Zeit: Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, 1987), p. 55.
9Sharif Kanaana, "Reinterpreting Deir Yassin," Bir Zeit University, (April 1998).
10Milstein, p. 267
11"Dayr Yasin," Bir Zeit University.
12Yehoshua Gorodenchik testimony at Jabotinsky Archives.
13Milstein, p. 276.
14"Israel and the Arabs: The 50 Year Conflict," BBC.

us-israel.org



To: Dayuhan who wrote (10093)4/22/2002 2:50:29 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
KAFR QASEM MASSACRE
29 October 1956: Israeli frontier guards started at 4 pm what they called a tour of the Triangle Villages. They told the Mukhtars (Aldermen) of those villages that the curfew from that day onwards was to start from 5 pm instead of 6 pm. They reached Kafr Qasem around 4:45 and informed the Mukhtar protested that there are about 400 villagers working outside the village and there is not enough time to inform them of the new times. An officer assured him that they will be taken care of. Then the guards waited at the entrance to the village. 43 Kafr Qasem inhabitants were massacred in cold blood by the army as they returned from work, their crime was violating a curfew they did not know about. On the northern entrance of the village 3 were killed and 2 were killed inside of the village. Amongst the dead were men, women, and children. Lutanat Danhan was touring the area in his jeep reporting the massacre, on his wireless he said "minus 15 Arabs" after a while his message on the radio to his H.Q. was "it is difficult to count".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another Account for Kafr Qasassem from:-
War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, and Command Responsibility
by Leslie C. Green
Kafr Qassem, 1959. In October 1956, during the Suez Crisis, a local commander in the Sinai, which had been seized by the Israel Defence Force, announced a curfew affecting a number of Arab villages. 41 Enforcing that curfew, Israeli border policemen serving in the Israel Defence Force (IDF) Reserves fired upon a group of peaceful Arab villagers who were returning to their village, Kafr Qassem, from their fields, completely unaware of the curfew. Forty-three villagers were killed. Three years later the men involved, members of a squad commanded by a Lieutenant Dahan, were brought to trial. They had been complying with an order specifically to shoot to kill, rather than arrest, any person moving outside the houses of the village after curfew. The order had originally been issued by a Major Melinki, who, when asked at the time if the order to kill included women and children, replied there was to be "no sentimentality. . . . The curfew applies to everyone." Melinki stated at the trial that he was only conveying an order from Brigadier S------ (who was subsequently charged, along with the officers responsible for transmitting the command, with issuing a "manifestly illegal" order, contrary to the Israeli Criminal Code, and was found guilty). The Israeli Military Court of Appeal stated:

D[ahan]'s responsibility for the acts of [these] men derives from his order to fire at the victims which he issued to his unit. . . . This makes D liable for procuring an offence under . . . the Criminal Code. . . . Although D was not present [when the] squad committed the murders . . . he was patrolling in the village, driving his car, and from time to time appeared near the [area from which the firing took place]; he was aware of what was taking place . . . and did not take any measures to stop the killings. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind his authority over [the group], his omission to act to stop the killings is the same as being accessory to the offence. . . . This is a sufficient ground to convict D as an accomplice . . . besides his responsibility for procuring the offence. 42

. . . A decision to kill a certain person . . . includes, of course, also a decision to kill a number of certain persons. . . . There is no need for the victims intended by the murder to be known to him personally. It is sufficient that he defines them as a group according to the signs of recognition he attributes to them, which enable their identification. Thus, it is sufficient for this purpose to have a definition stating "all those returning this evening to these-and-these villages." . . . When he gave his order Melinki knew that the returnees to the villages would be exclusively of the Arab race, and we may assume with certainty that had they not been Arabs the order would not have been issued with such severity. . . .

There is no doubt that the death of all the victims who fell at Kafr Qassem was the probable result of Melinki's order, even though as regards some of them, and perhaps most of them, there was no intention of murder in the sense of [the Israeli Criminal Code]. For these reasons we must uphold the conviction for murder.

. . . A reasonable soldier can distinguish a manifestly illegal order on the face of it, without requiring legal counsel and without perusing the law books. These provisions impose moral and legal responsibility on every soldier, irrespective of rank. . . . [A] commander of any rank must consider the morality of the order he issues and also its legality. . . . The commander who issued the original order and not in obedience to any superior, has no claim of justification. . . .

. . . Commanders . . . [are obligated] to give thought in issuing their orders and the higher the rank the greater the thought required of them. Such thought is required so that the orders will not cause illegal and immoral acts, and so that the soldiers will not be led to undermine army discipline [by disobeying orders]. . . . It is the duty of the commander to obey the law at all times . . . and . . . it is the duty of every soldier to examine, according to the voice of his conscience, the legality of the orders issued to be executed against others. 43 . . . The order to kill men, women and children [was] an order to murder, and no claim of justification will avail anyone who gives or executes such an order. . . .

hebron.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (10093)4/22/2002 2:55:45 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Palestinian Atrocities, Israeli Retaliations and the Laws of War
6 March 2002

The cycle is familiar. Palestinian terrorists intentionally attack Israeli women and children. Israel, having absolutely no choice, retaliates against PLO infrastructures, aiming exclusively and conscientiously at military targets. But sometimes Israeli fire unavoidably kills and injures Palestinian noncombatants, creating the false impression of lawlessness on both sides. This delusionary view can be compared to an interpretation of current U.S. attacks against al-Qaida fighters which blames this country for harms done to Afghan civilians.
It is important to better understand the profound moral and legal differences between Palestinian terrorism, which is always deliberately barbarous and indiscriminate, and Israeli retaliations, which are always consciously designed to avoid civilian casualties. From the standpoint of international law, two points must be made. First, the criminal intent of Palestinian terror represents an incontestable violation of humanitarian rules of armed conflict. It is essential, therefore, to distinguish between such terror and Israeli responses to terror, which are never intended to harm innocent parties. When television news reports create parallel images between Palestinian attacks upon Jews leaving the synagogue with nail-studded bombs and Israeli reprisals against PLO targets with infantry and air-launched missiles, they obscure an essential truth: The Palestinian resort to violence is grotesque and gratuitous, seeking only to inflict maximum pain and suffering upon the innocent, while the Israeli use of force is designed only for survival and self-protection. Does anyone really believe that Israel would use armed force against any Arab targets if the Palestinians ceased their campaign of mayhem and murder?

There is a second point. Ordinary people watching the evening news now routinely see pictures of Israeli reprisals against "refugee camps." What they are not told is that these camps are the constructed sources and seedbeds of anti-Israel terrorism, and that the deliberate PLO/PA use of these camps for such criminal purpose is an example of "perfidy" in international law. In the case of calculated Palestinian placement of Arab civilians in harm's way, it is a crime that assigns full legal responsibility for Palestinian losses with the PLO and Palestinian Authority.

The PLO/PA practice of intentionally placing its terrorist forces and assets in the midst of civilian populations is unequivocally a war crime. Although it is certainly true that the Law of War is designed to protect all noncombatants from armed attack, this authoritative body of rules also makes it perfectly clear that responsibility for civilian harms must ultimately rest with the side that engages in perfidy. When IDF infantry from the Golani and Paratrooper brigades, in coordination with armored units, head into the Jenin and Balata camps to root out would-be Palestinian suicide bombers, full responsibility for resultant civilian casualties rests with Yassir Arafat.

Deception can be an essential and acceptable virtue in warfare, but there is a meaningful distinction between deception or ruse and perfidy. The Hague Regulations in the Laws of War allow "ruses" but disallow treachery or perfidy. The prohibition of perfidy is reaffirmed in Protocol I of 1977, and it is widely and authoritatively understood that these rules are binding on the basis of general and customary international law. What, exactly, are the differences between permissible ruses and perfidy? The former include such practices as the use of camouflage, decoys, and mock operations. False signals, too, are allowed; as an example, the jamming of communications.

Perfidy, on the other hand, includes such treacherous practices as improper use of the white flag; feigned surrender or pretending to have civilian status. It especially constitutes perfidy to shield military targets from attack by placing or moving them into densely populated areas or to purposely move civilians near military targets. Indeed, it is generally agreed that such treachery represents the most serious violation of the Law of War, what is known as a "Grave Breach." The legal effect of such perfidy - the practice now engaged in by the PLO/PA - is this: Exemption (in this case, for Israel) from the normally operative rules on targets. Indeed, even if the PLO/PA had not intentionally engaged in treachery, any Palestinian link between protected persons and military activities would place all legal responsibility for Arab civiian harms squarely upon Yassir Arafat.

None of this is meant to suggest that terrorism represents a permissible use of force under international law. By its very nature, the PLO/PA plan of violence is overwhelmingly illegal. At the same time, the rules of war are as binding upon Palestinian terrorists as they are upon Israeli or American uniformed military forces. This is the result of a binding jurisprudential expansion of the laws of war at the common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and at the two protocols to these Conventions of 1977.

The recent harms to Arab civilians in PA Area A caused by Israeli reprisals are tragic and deeply regrettable, but the legal responsibility for this tragedy lies entirely with those whose perfidious conduct brought about such harms. Moreover, Israel has the indisputable right of self-defense against terrorist attacks originating from this territory, both the post-attack right codified at Article 51 of the UN Charter and the customary pre-attack legal right called "anticipatory self-defense." Israel has the right and the obligation under national and international law to protect its citizens from criminal acts of terrorism. Should Prime Minister Sharon ever decide to capitulate to perfidy and restrict essential retaliations accordingly, the State of Israel would surrender this basic right and undermine this basic obligation. The net effect of such capitulation would be to make victors of the terrorists, an effect that would assuredly increase rather than diminish the overall number of civilian victims, in both Israel and in the Palestinian territories. "Just wars," we learn from the seventeenth-century legal philosopher Hugo Grotius (a major source for Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence). "arise from our love of the innocent." Recognizing this, Israel - confronted by Palestinian terrorists who now seek to soften Israel for much larger forms of civilian destruction - must continue to use all applicable military force within the boundaries of humanitarian international law. Although perfidious provocations by the PLO/PA might elicit Israeli actions that bring harms to noncombatant Palestinian populations, it is these provocations, not Israel's response, that would be in serious violation of international law.

International law is not a suicide pact. Faced with a murderous terrorist adversary that persistently follows an announced strategy of unrestrained barbarism, Jerusalem cannot permit egregious Palestinian manipulations of civilian populations to preclude needed uses of Israeli military force. Rather, Israel must now make the entire international community aware that perfidy is a crime under international law, and that it is the Arab practicioners of perfidy, not those who are strategically disadvantaged by such a practice, that must be identified and punished as war criminals.

In the final analysis, Israel has no alternative to maintaining lawful self-defense operations against the Palestinian terrorist forces. Such operations need not be injurious to noncombatant populations so long as the PLO/PA do not seek to hide behind these populations as human shields. Bound by the laws of war of international law, these terrorists, whenever they choose to commit perfidy, are the responsible party for all resultant harms done to Palestinian civilians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971), Professor, Department of Political Science, Purdue University, lectures and publishes widely on Israeli strategic matters. His work is well-known to Israel's military and academic communities. He is also the academic adviser at the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, a Houston-based research facility and political action group.

tzemach.org



To: Dayuhan who wrote (10093)4/22/2002 2:58:11 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Palestinian parades and Israeli tears
Michael Freund

(March 13) - Last Saturday, shortly after midnight, Channel 2 broadcast footage of hundreds of Palestinians marching in a celebratory parade. The participants waved banners and jumped up and down in excitement as they applauded the latest news update: a suicide bomber had blown himself up outside a cafe in Jerusalem, murdering 11 innocent Israelis and wounding dozens of others.

There were no signs of remorse or regret, no dismay expressed at the loss of human life, nor any anguish voiced over the barbarity of the murderous act. Eleven innocent families had been torn apart, their loved ones taken from them in an instant of terror and death. And all the Palestinian marchers could do in response was cheer.

Less than 24 hours later, the television screen was filled with yet another harrowing sign of the times - Jewish parents standing beside an open grave, gazing in horror as the child they had cradled lovingly from birth was lowered into the ground. The haunting sounds of the kaddish could be heard, only this time it was being recited by the old on behalf of the young, rather than the other way around. Men and women in uniform broke down in tears as their 18- or 19-year-old comrades were laid to rest.

It has been suggested that soldiers should try not to weep at their colleagues' funerals because such scenes, when broadcast on television, might encourage the enemy to think that Israel has become weak and softhearted.

While I understand the logic, I thoroughly disagree with it. Some may view those tears as a sign of frailty, but to me they are a sign of strength, a sad but moving reminder that Israeli society values human life and considers its loss to be a tragedy and not a triumph. The flow of tears, perhaps more than anything else, underlines the profound difference between Israel and its enemies, between those who mourn death and those who rejoice in it.

Our enemies try to portray us as bloodthirsty killers who murder the innocent and revel in it. But they know as well as we do just how false that is. The IDF makes every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties when conducting anti-terror operations. Just last week, the defense minister apologized after the family of a wanted Hamas terrorist was mistakenly killed. By contrast, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has yet to issue any apologies for the Jewish blood he has intentionally spilled over the past 18 months.

Israeli society can be proud of its humanity and self-discipline, traits it has maintained despite unremitting Palestinian atrocities. We resort to our armed forces not because we want to, but because we have to. The death of Palestinians is greeted by Israel with neither glee nor amusement. You might see Israelis parading for peace, but you won't find them parading in praise of attacks on innocent civilians.

The Palestinians, however, have glorified death and destruction, lauding mass murderers as heroes and promising them entry into paradise. They have embraced senseless violence, and they have sought to provoke us into responding in kind. Ironically, in their attempt to dehumanize us, they have succeeded only in dehumanizing themselves.

Witness how they have deliberately infected their own children with the disease of hate, teaching their youth the "values" of cruelty and vindictiveness, breeding yet another generation to wage war, not peace.

Israel, though, has refused to yield to rage. With few exceptions, Israelis have thus far overcome their desire for revenge, demonstrating incredible restraint in the face of horrific Palestinian attacks. We have clung to our humanity and remained true to ourselves, and as long as we continue to do so, our enemies can never defeat us.

Israel, of course, must fight back. We must crush Palestinian terror and uproot it, sparing no effort to defend the country and its citizens. That is the army's task, and let us hope the government will finally empower our soldiers to fulfill it. But we, as citizens, face a different challenge - we must make sure not to surrender to the desire for vengeance. For if we do, we strip ourselves of our own humanity and hand Palestinian terrorists a terrible victory, one they do not deserve.

On Sunday night, Israel television broadcast an amateur video taken the previous evening in a Netanya hotel, while Palestinian gunmen were firing outside. In a particularly moving scene, a mother turned to her little children, who were crouching on the floor in trepidation. "Say Shema Yisrael," she implored them, invoking the age-old Jewish custom to reaffirm God's unity when confronting death. Gripped with fear, tears streaming down their little faces, the children proceeded to recite the ancient, holy verse.

Therein lies the real power of the Jewish people. For unlike our enemies, we teach our children to wield a far more noble, and powerful, weapon - that of faith. We teach them to respect human life, and to take it only when absolutely necessary.

The Palestinians may celebrate death, but we celebrate life. And that is what truly separates us from them.

(The writer served as deputy director of communications and policy planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.)

jpost.com