Published by The Freeman Center

The Maccabean Online

Political Analysis and Commentary
on Israeli and Jewish Affairs

"For Zion's sake I shall not hold my peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I shall not rest."


by David Basch 
Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (December 30, 2010)
30 December, 2010
"What is the road to Israel's survival? It is certainly not ceding her strategic territory to Arabs who want to destroy her. However, the dilemma seems to be that not ceding land locks in a growing and hostile Arab population within her boundaries...."
"The ends of securing Israel and her people justify Israel's strong action, instead of jumping through the hoops of suicide that is advocated by others...."        

Paul Gross in his recent article, "If we don't act, they will," -
JPost -12.28.10) advocates appeasing the Arab side in the hope of
attaining peace for Israel. In this, he is continuing a policy that
has moved Israel downhill for decades after the 1967 War -- all for
the sake of the illusion that the Arabs want peace and are willing to
accept an Israel that they think they can destroy. Gross imagines that
these appeasements which have weakened Israel will win Israel friends
when experience shows they do not.

The Arabs have ample reason to think that they can destroy Israel. The
string of such appeasements enacted again and again by Israel in
attempts to buy the same "Arab peace rug" tell the Arabs they are
winning. Gross calls for continuing these surrenders that have only
brought Israel weakness, further alienation from her allies -- not the
good will that Gross imagines -- and total demoralization. Why in the
world would the Arabs want to make peace when they think Islam has
given them the right to destroy Israel and are on the road to victory?
They think they will eventually have all of Israel.

Gross warns of a world that will force dangerous concessions on Israel
unless Israel does so willingly. But what hope is there for Israel in
the long run since, eventually, the Arabs will in the same way succeed
in getting the world to annul what is left of Israel? If Israel does not
stand fast here, it is downhill the rest of the way.

While Gross gives reasons about the advantages of a two-state solution
that exists in his dreams, what he fails to recognize is that this
would only be a stage in a continuing Arab onslaught. After all, a
two-state solution is not what the Arabs want -- they could already
have had this -- they rather want no Israel. So if Israel is to exist,
it will be on the basis of its strength, not owing to foreign
rescuers. Weakening itself in pursuit of peace is a form of suicide.

What is the road to Israel's survival? It is certainly not in ceding
her strategic territory to enemies who want to destroy her. However,
the dilemma seems to be that not ceding land to the Arabs locks in
a growing, hostile population that could eventually by democracy
annul the State of Israel. But if this Arab population is curbed from
exercising democratic rights, this, it is alleged, will be fatal to Israel's
democracy. Gross's solution to preserve democracy is to rid Israel of
Arabs by ridding Israel of strategic lands.

But this is not so simple since ceding strategic lands enables the
enemy to move its military forces to closer in to destroy Israel as
occurred with Gaza. The idea that the ceded lands would be
demilitarized is a Leftist delusion.

This situation is only a dilemma for Israel when Leftist
ideological blinders are applied that give priority to secondary
factors like democracy. Under the circumstances, Israel's priority
should be securing the existence of its righteous nation -- the kind
of nation that is ultimately capable of creating a workable democracy
when conditions permit. Preserving the nation comes first.

For example, to protect Israel's society and its democracy, one can
envision the creation of a two-chambered Knesset with representation
formulas that would prevent the Arabs from taking over the country
by their vote. The idea that defending Israel by doing so is something
unacceptable is a Leftist hysterical notion that ignores the reality
of the dangers that must be overcome. It is actually the lesser
of more drastic actions that too should not be considered unacceptable
in the context of the dangers.

For example, in the case of violent insurrection by Arabs, force would
be met with force and remedies other than coddling would be put into
effect. These may not win the approval of New York Times editors nor
the Arab dominated UN General Assembly, but the ends of securing
Israel and her people would justify Israel's strong action instead of
jumping through the hoops of suicide that is advocated by others.
The specific actions to preserve the Israeli nation I will leave to others
more competent to conceive of and to implement. The point is
that creating a hostile, irredentist Arab state is not a better way.

Capitulation to the Arab enemy as Gross advocates in order to secure
the friendship of other nations will not help, Such surrender did
not help Czechoslovakia and the West against Hitler. Nor did such a
despicable surrender help Israel when it gave the Arab enemy a second
military front in Gaza. As we have seen, Israel won no new friends for
this insane gesture.

The only way forward for Israel is to do what she needs to do to make
herself stronger and her enemies weaker. Israel must make the enemy
pay mightily for aggression. Not only must attacks be repelled, but
counterattack made with such force that the enemy is thrown back
for great losses, further from the goal of rolling back Israel. It is not too
much to suggest that the Arabs must befaced with the prospect
of their own utter devastation as the consequence of their attempts to
destroy Israel.

Note here, the prospect of their utter devastation will truly have an
impact on the Muslim enemy since it will enable them to desist from
jihad because Islamic law allows desisting when the consequences of
jihad will bring them ruin. It is an escape hatch from war that Israel
should avail itself of.

And just as Israel won the respect and friendship of the nations of
the world when she was victorious in the 1967 War, so will Israel win
this respect and friendship in the wake of decisive victory
against her enemy today.

In the vacuum of victory, Israel has forced its friends to choose
between friendship to Israel or to the Arabs. That choice should be
removed by decisive Israeli victory -- the moral solution to the problem
of aggression by nations seeking to destroy a member nation among the
world of nations.