Separation—Only Separation |
249 |
bAnd the Arabs were allowed an incredible amount of local
bautonomy and freedom. In Marcus’s words, “Was there ever an
boccupation under which people could move so freely . . . and not
bencounter a single armed soldier?” Marcus’s bliss was shared
bby Peace Now sympathizer Shlomo Avineri, former director-
bgeneral of the Foreign Ministry. Writing in Commentary magazine
b(June 1970), he exclaimed: “The kind of military administra-
btion set up by Israel . . . was a brilliant improvisation. . . . The
bgeneral idea was that the less the military administration med-
bdled in the daily affairs of the population, the better, and the
bresult is that today Arab municipal self-government on the West
bBank and in Gaza remains intact and Jordanian and Egyptian
blaws are still the law of the land.”
bOf course, the real result of this “brilliant improvisation”
bwas that Israel’s failure to declare sovereignty over what it told
bthe world was Jewish territory merely convinced one and all that
bthe Jews were indeed “occupiers” and thieves. And the low pro-
bfile of the Jews and their leaving in place Arab laws and muni-
bcipal self-rule were convincing proof to the local Arabs that the
bIsraeli’s presence was only temporary. It was this disastrous pol-
bicy that kept the Arabs from leaving, that blocked Jewish sov-
bereignty, and that eventually led to the riots, killings, and re-
bbellion of today.
bThe architect of the disastrous policy was Moshe Dayan,
bwhose contributions to Israeli tragedy will yet be fully outlined
bin the history that will be written of our times. Dayan is a man
bwith an extraordinary ability to adopt contradictory positions.
bIn a 1968 newspaper interview on the occasion of Israel’s Inde-
bpendence Day, Dayan gave the following insight into his views
bon the territories—and himself. After calling for ensuring that
bcontact with the Arab countries not be cut off, he continued:
b“We Jews must not interfere too much in their domestic affairs,
bsuch as their educational system, their law courts, the way they
belect their leaders, and representatives, their newspapers, etc.
bWe must let them live their own lives. If these two conditions are
bmet, I don’t think that the Arabs of the West Bank would mind
bif Jews were to live in Hebron. . . . All in all, in terms of the
bArabs’ readiness to live side by side with us, I believe that the
bprospects are better today than they have ever been before.” No
bcommentary is necessary at all.