generally civil, and often friendly contacts, Israelis had with Palestinians at the
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releaseDocument text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
generally civil, and often friendly contacts, Israelis had with Palestinians at the
time. The local population had, after all, been under other occupation powers
before 1967: Jordan in the West Bank, and Egypt in Gaza. Assuming our
administration was less onerous, most Israelis believed a way to coexist could
be found. And that sooner or later, there would be a land-for-peace agreement
and we would withdraw from at least most of the territory. But as the years
passed, with no sign of a willingness by the PLO to consider any kind of peace
talks, we made the cardinal error of assuming the occupation was sustainable.
Yes, there might be periods of violence, but nothing that a combination of
political resolve, arrests, detention and, where necessary, military force could
not hold in check. For us, and certainly for me, the Palestinians became
essentially a security issue. As one of Israel’s finest novelists, David Grossman,
would lay bare in a bestselling book of reportage called The Yellow Wind, about
a year into the intifada, we had ceased to see the human effects of 20 years of
occupation, not only on the Palestinians but on Israeli society as well.
Yet the power of Professor Shamir’s presentation lay not so much 1n its
novelty as its succinctness, clarity and, above all, its timing. The rioting had
already gone on for longer than any of us had expected. It seemed to be
gathering strength. But until our meeting, we were still looking at it essentially
as a civil disturbance. 7hat was what began to change, for all of us.
What didn’t change was the need to try to bring the violence to an end. Dan
immediately put me in charge of looking for alternatives to live ammunition. I
began with our own research and development engineers. We also asked military
attachés in our embassies to talk to law-enforcement agencies, academics, or
anyone else with knowledge of non-lethal methods of crowd control overseas.
Some of the more far-flung examples seemed promising, at least until further
investigation. South Korea had years of experience in confronting student
protests — generally, though not always, managing to avoid fatalities. But it
turned out this typically involved sending in serried rows of up to 25,000 riot
police against a few thousand campus protesters. Besides the fact we’d have
needed an army the size of the Americans’ to field enough soldiers, it was absurd
to imagine dealing with dozens of far-flung confrontations on any given day with
parade-ground formations of troops.
We looked at anything that seemed it might work. In the early stages, most
of the attacks involved rocks and bottles. Our R&D engineers developed a Jeep-
mounted “gravel gun” that fired stones at a distance of up to 250 feet. They
could cause injuries, but weren’t lethal. We acquired launchers for pepper spray
228
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011699
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents