Here we go again 
by Naomi Ragen
(November 18) If we become a country that is unlivable, indefensible,
and completely without the self-worth to reject terror attacks as the
heinous crimes they are, then what reason does our state have to
exist at all? 

When the pipe bomb went off in the lively seaside village of Netanya
recently, I remember thinking: Oh no. Here we go again. 

The bombings. The "I can't condone" of the Palestinians (why can't they say
"We condemn?") The hemming and hawing of the politicians. 

And, sure enough, there was our prime minister, talking about boxing
matches, and how in a fight you sometimes had to absorb blows, but that
we, Israel, would deliver the final "knockout." 

My 86-year-old father-in-law was in a bank only a few blocks from the
blast. Both he and my mother-in-law, who survived Auschwitz and slave
labor marches, have lived in Netanya for 22 years. Often they tell us it has
been the best time of their lives. 

And so, when I think of Ehud Barak's boxing-ring image, I wonder where
my in-laws fit in. Does Barak mean to shove them into the ring and sit back
and watch the results? Isn't a government supposed to fight the battles of
citizens like my in-laws? Isn't that why we fought so hard for an independent
state? 

Just a few weeks ago, in accordance with the peace agreements, Barak
released Arab prisoners convicted of aiding, abetting (and in certain cases,
actually committing) murder. One of the men released was involved in the
kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldier Nachshon Wachsman. 

At a press conference, Nachshon's mother, Esther, said: "A country has to
be worthy of the sacrifices its citizens make to defend it." 

A country which forgives those who murder and injure its citizens has lost
the moral right to demand these kind of sacrifices. 

I discussed this subject with some friends, firm Barak supporters, people
who believe deeply in the peace process. One of them was a man who saw
the heaviest fighting in the Yom Kippur War, a battle in which only five tanks
out of 28 remained after the Egyptians shelled them. He is a brave man, a
good man, a war hero. He loves Israel with all his heart. 

"These terrorist attacks are terrible," he acknowledged. "But we can't let the
extremists deter us from pursuing what is best for our country. And that is
peace. 

"Once the Palestinians have something to cherish, they won't want to
endanger it with these kinds of attacks. If you have nothing to lose, you
become more extreme." 

I responded, however, that people are divided - not over peace, everyone
wants peace - but about whether, after all the agreements are hammered out
and implemented, we will actually achieve it. Will we have a real, touchable,
feelable peace? A peace not of words, but of deeds? A peace under which
my in-laws won't be shoved into boxing rings with murderers? Under which
they, and everyone else in Israel, will be beyond the line of fire? 

He agreed. 

"But think about it," he continued. "It will make no sense for the Palestinians
to encourage terrorism after they have a state and a stable economy and all
the opportunities to grow. Things will be good for them. Why would they
want to endanger that?" 

"And since when has good sense ever played any part in the history of the
Middle East?" I couldn't help replying. 

IN THE meantime, as we are pursuing this beautiful, ephemeral, shining ideal
that is out there, pursuing it even though we admit to ourselves it may all be a
mirage - like some precious spring of water conjured out of longing by
desert wanderers dying of thirst - what of the reality? 

As we move towards the dream, are we not divesting ourselves of all the
precious reasons that we had to found the Jewish state in the first place?
Relinquishing our ability to defend ourselves, to punish those who attack us? 

After all, the bombs in Netanya were put together in areas under the control
of the Palestinian Authority. If, as the police and army have been telling us
ever since Oslo, "we'll do our best, but such attacks are impossible to
prevent altogether" giving the world reason to say, as the BBC did after the
Netanya bombing, that Israelis "are used to" these attacks being part of the
peace process, then what, in heaven's name, is there left for us? 

Is it, to paraphrase the ultimate obscenity of terrorism expert Yoram
Schweitzer: "We can learn to live with terrorism. After all, traffic accidents
claim many more victims"? 

I don't think any human being, for any reason however lofty, should be
asked to learn to live with terrorism. If we become a country that is
unlivable, indefensible, and completely without the basic national self-worth
to reject such attacks as the heinous crimes they are, then we have no choice
but to ask ourselves: What reason does our state have to exist at all?