Why did the violence begin? 

The wave of terrorism and violence that began in September 2000 is the result of a deliberate Palestinian decision to use violent means to advance their cause.

Contrary to what has been claimed in various circles, the visit of then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to Jerusalem's Temple Mount in late September 2000 did not cause the violence. It was merely a pretext to launch a premeditated campaign against Israel, which came to be known as the 'Terror Intifada'.

The Palestinian leadership made a strategic decision to pursue violence rather than negotiation months before the Temple Mount visit. Palestinian officials themselves divulged this fact in statements they made in Arabic-language media resources. On December 6, 2000, the semi-official Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam reported as follows:

"Speaking at a symposium in Gaza, Palestinian Minister of Communications, Imad Al-Falouji, confirmed that the Palestinian Authority had begun preparations for the outbreak of the current Intifada from the moment the Camp David talks concluded, this in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself. Mr. Falouji went on to state that Arafat launched this Intifada as a culminating stage to the immutable Palestinian stance in the negotiations, and was not meant merely as a protest of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount."

Similar statements have been made by other Palestinian officials, in the Palestinian and Arab press and media.

More significantly, the 'Temple Mount visit' myth was debunked in April 2001 by the Sharm el-Sheikh (Mitchell) Fact-Finding Committee. The committee, composed of American and European leaders and headed by former US Senator George Mitchell, extensively investigated the cause of the violence which began in September 2000 and disproved the Palestinian claim regarding the Temple Mount visit.

The true roots of the current situation can be found in the Palestinian rejection of the concept of negotiating only by peaceful means. In July 2000, a Middle East Peace Summit was held at Camp David, hosted by then US President Bill Clinton and attended by Palestinian Authority [PA] Chairman Yasser Arafat and then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak. At the summit, it became clear to all that a negotiated settlement could only be achieved if both sides demonstrated flexibility. Israel expressed its willingness to make far-reaching, unprecedented compromises in order to arrive at a workable, enduring agreement. However, despite this willingness, when it became clear to the Palestinian leadership that Israel could not fulfill every Palestinian demand, and that Israel also had interests which needed to be addressed through reciprocal compromise, the Palestinian Authority chose to break off the negotiations without offering any comparable concessions of its own. Consequently, President Clinton placed the blame for failure of the talks squarely at Arafat's feet.

Following the summit, the Palestinian leadership decided to attempt to achieve through violence what they could not achieve through negotiations - a solution without compromise. This strategic decision by the Palestinians undermines the foundation of the peace process - the understanding that the solution must be predicated upon compromise rather than intractability, and upon negotiation rather than violence. The Israeli-PLO talks began in September 1993 on the basis of Arafat's clear pledge to abandon terrorism and commit to a negotiated solution. Every violation of that pledge erodes the basic principle that terrorism cannot be justified or tolerated. Terrorism can never be a legitimate means for achieving political goals. 

From Israel's perspective, ending what the Palestinians view as 'occupation' or 'the denial of their rights' is not the primary issue of contention, as that matter could have been equitably addressed through the talks already in progress. In the negotiations since September 1993, Israel has gone far in addressing Palestinian aspirations in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel negotiated the establishment of an elected Palestinian Authority, which has gradually expanded its jurisdiction and authorities, and the PA now administers a significant portion of territory and 97% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza.

But Israel did not stop there. The Israeli government made known to the Palestinians, at the Camp David Summit, its willingness to move forward in the peace negotiations, and to make far-reaching political, historic and strategic compromises in order to achieve peace.

Israel had sought to resolve its differences with the Palestinians at the negotiating table, yet the Palestinian Authority was unwilling to abandon its strategy of armed struggle. The PA had been given a real opportunity to achieve a resolution through negotiations and compromise, and to bring tangible, considerable benefits to its people. However, Israel's olive branch was met with a hail of gunfire, rocks and firebombs. 

The Palestinian decision to pursue violence as a political tool is the true source of the wave of Palestinian violence and terrorism that began in September 2000.

return to top


t Why doesn't the violence end?

There is no 'cycle of violence', rather there is Palestinian violent action followed by Israeli defensive reaction. The Palestinians have to abandon violence and terrorism so that peaceful negotiations can resume.

There are those who claim that the Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in a 'cycle of violence'. According to this logic, unilateral measures by Israel could end this cycle. However, this theory disregards the dominant characteristic of the conflict - that of Palestinian violent action followed by Israeli defensive reaction. If Palestinian violence and terrorism were to end, Israel would have no reason to take defensive countermeasures. 

 
Photo: IDF Spokesman 
Tel-Aviv suicide bombing at the 
Dolphin disco - June 1, 2001

 
 
The current confrontation was deliberately initiated, and continues to be nurtured by the Palestinian leadership as a strategic choice on their part. This was true from the earliest days of the crisis, and it remains true today. To that end, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have: 

used official Palestinian media to incite the Palestinians, especially Palestinian children, to continued violence against Israel and Israelis;

authorized the Tanzim militia (an organ of Yasser Arafat's Fatah PLO faction) to fire upon Israeli civilians and soldiers, with weapons supplied by the Palestinian Authority;

refused to arrest those directly responsible for terrorist attacks;

released dozens of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists who were already in Palestinian prisons, signaling to these organizations that they have a green light to launch attacks against innocent Israeli citizens;

done nothing to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure which permeates the areas under Palestinian Authority control;

refused to act in accordance with their obligations under the existing agreements to collect illegal weapons. Instead, the Palestinian Authority has attempted to smuggle in and to produce locally vast amounts of illegal arms and ammunition, including heavy weapons such as mortars and Katyushas rockets;

taken advantage of every Israeli attempt to ease restrictions on Palestinian daily life by launching renewed attacks on Israeli civilians.

These policies of the Palestinian leadership have led to a long series of bloody terrorist attacks, including car bombs and suicide bombings in Israeli cities, drive-by shootings, and road-side ambushes targeting family cars, commercial vehicles and even school buses. As long as the lives of innocent civilians are being threatened on a daily basis, Israel has had no choice but to react in self-defense.