Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak earned the public criticism that came his way from the fringes of Meretz, in its current "Democratic Union" form, for his apology for the deaths of 12 Arab civilians during the riots of October 2000. Nineteen years too late, it was a transparent maneuver, but the apology itself is more disturbing than what motivated it.
On Sept. 29, 2000, the Palestinians launched the Second Intifada – the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Many Israeli Arabs took part in violent solidarity rallies at which rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown at police officers and Jewish civilians, and an Arab mob headed in the direction of Jewish settlements to attack them.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
It was mainly leaders of the two branches of the Islamic Movement who were fanning the flames, through the use of the modern-day blood libel "Al-Aqsa is in danger." They accused the Israeli government of intending to demolish the mosques on the Temple Mount and replace them with the Third Temple. These stories were baseless but they sparked a raging conflagration like they had done so many times since 1967.
Then-MK Abdulmalik Dehamshe, a member of the Southern Branch of the Islamic Movement and then-chairman of the Ta'al party, threatened that "we will sacrifice our lives to protect [Al-Aqsa] Mosque" and made it clear that he himself was "willing to be the first shahid who would die protecting" the Temple Mount. Later, in a message to then-US President Bill Clinton, Dehamshe promised that masses of Muslims and Arabs would answer the call to die a martyr's death for Al-Aqsa.
Sheikh Raed Salah, who led the riots, spoke in the same tones. Two days after the violence broke out, the Shura Council of the Islamic Movement put out a notice worded by Salah that praised the bloodshed for the sake of Al-Aqsa. Another senior figure in the movement stressed that "the oil lamp to Al-Aqsa might go out but we are willing to light Al-Aqsa up with blood because anyone who lights his blood [through violence] will never be extinguished."
The Or Commission, which was charged with investigating the events that led up to the outbreak of violence in October 2000 and which included an Israeli Arab judge, criticized the conduct of both the government and the police, but that criticism paled in comparison to the conclusions regarding the conduct of the Arab leadership. The commission found Salah guilty of inciting the Arab sector against a plan "that never had a foothold in reality" to replace Al-Aqsa with the Jewish Temple. MK Azmi Bishara, who would later flee the country after he was suspected of spying for and aiding Hezbollah during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, was identified by the commission even then as someone who was supporting the Shiite group. Dehamshe was found to be encouraging violence "to the point of casualties."
Barak's apology for the results of the October 2000 riots was an embarrassment. It was seen as a request for forgiveness from the same people who at the time took part in the "popular" incitement and terrorism. No one wants to see protesters get killed but these weren't just ordinary protests – they were violent, dangerous riots that were being spurred on by explicit incitement to wage a holy war.
Even if Israel made mistakes with its Arab population over the years – and it has – the harsh response to the October riots wasn't one of them. The current government, which Barak and his friends want to topple, is doing much to right the wrongs of its predecessors. It is investing over 10 billion shekels ($3 billion) in a plan to boost the Arab sector and promote the integration of Israeli Arabs into Israeli society. On the other hand, Barak's political and propagandistic apology could have been interpreted as justification for the violence, and worse – as legitimizing the figures in Arab society who seek to deepen the rift and undermine attempts to improve relations between Arabs and Jews in Israel.
