THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN
1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro TO MAKE A TAX EXEMPT DONATION VISIT:
http://www.freeman.org/paypal.htm |
Framework Proposal for a National Strategy Regarding Judea and Samaria and the Issue of Eretz Israel Arabs
by Arieh Stav
The program will be consolidated by the Ariel Center for Policy Research, will be submitted to Members of Knesset Arie Eldad and Binyamin Elon, who will get signatures from as many Knesset members as possible. The fundamentals of the proposal were formulated in discussions with the two members of Knesset and received their approval and their support.
*
Consolidating a political proposal with the intention of halting Israel’s defeatist campaign that is manifest in its most extreme form in the conduct of the Olmert Government.
• The Israeli public, the overwhelming majority of which (the silent majority) considers Israel defeatism an existential threat; however it lacks a clear, reasonable alternative supported by the political echelon.
• Many organizations, both within the Jewish world and beyond, primarily in the United States, which identify with the national camp but lack a determined, unequivocal message coming from Israel.
• Many Senators and Congressmen in Washington are perplexed in light of Israel’s defeatism and suddenly find themselves in a position of being "holier than the Pope".
A political program that opposes the government policy requires a synthesis of two components:
1. A detailed political proposal, based on the work of a reliable, independent think tank.
2. Parliamentary support for the proposal.
*
After 21 years of publishing Nativ and 11 years since the founding of the Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR), the time has come to issue a national program and no longer suffice with criticism – justified and reasoned though it may be. Over the course of two decades, more than 1,000 erudite articles from a long line of first-rate scholars have been published in Nativ. The ACPR has, as of today, published 175 studies and a series of books covering most of the aspects relating to the existential rationale of the State of Israel. However, as mentioned above, all of the copious material dealt predominantly with criticism and not with a political proposal that comes to offer a solution to the tangled web of existential problems facing the Jewish state.
The proposal in question includes a framework program for national strategy in the issue that is the crux of the problem: The areas of Judea and Samaria and the Arabs living there (referred to euphemistically as "Palestinians"). The complications that surround all of the problems facing the State of Israel – from the Iranian nuclear threat via the conduct of the political echelon, through the relations with the United States – all primarily stem from the lack of a resolution to this problem.
A perusal of the defeatist campaign of Israeli governments since the transfer of Sinai and the destruction of the settlements in the Camp David Accords through the systems-collapse in the Olmert Government, raises very difficult question marks regarding the ability of the State of Israel to survive if and when this government or the one that succeeds it, implements its plot to establish a sovereign Arab entity in Western Land of Israel, i.e. a terrorist entity in the heart of the Jewish state..
The strategic trend, as of today, is perfectly clear. The objectives of Teheran and Damascus (and the Iranians make these statements openly and declaratively) is to surround Israel from the north, the south and the center with an Arab terrorist entity that will lead to the destruction of the State of Israel. The miserable performance of the IDF during the Second Lebanon War proved to Israel’s enemies that 4,000 Hizbullah fighters armed with rifles and rockets circa World War II are capable of standing against a modern army armed with strategic weapons systems.
In the period that has elapsed since the war, there has been a far-reaching escalation in the scope, the armaments and the preparedness of the Hizbullah troops in preparation for the next war.
A similar situation is taking place in the south. The ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Israel against the settlers of the Gaza Strip transformed Gaza into a Hamas military base almost immediately. Here too, the rate of armament is lethal and within a year or two, Hamas will gain the operational capability to strike at planes and armored vehicles as well as rocket capability that will threaten Beersheba.
The establishment of an Arab terrorist state on the outskirts of Greater Tel Aviv will subject Israel to a choke hold from all its borders and will strip it of its right to exist even within the 1949 borders. This trend – which cannot be described as anything other than national suicide – is openly and declaratively led by the Olmert/Livni Government.
Thus, the time has come to make public a sane proposal in order to attempt to block the defeatist trends that have become, as mentioned above, the staple of the political echelon.
The proposal in question does not contain a magical formula for a "New Middle East", "peace" or "resolution of conflict". It is problematic and difficult and will therefore encounter Arab hostility and international, primarily European, antagonism. However, it will be received supportively by broad circles worldwide, including by many of Israel’s friends in the two houses of Congress – the central focal point of power in the West. Furthermore, the sole advantage of this proposal is that it is the "least of all evils" as every alternative is nothing other than a recipe for national disaster.
The concrete proposal that will be submitted to members of Knesset will be based on a comprehensive study carried out by the Ariel Center and will appear in book form in Hebrew and English. The study will be divided into two sections:
A. An analysis of the current situation through analysis of the short term political trends.
B. The political proposal that is intended to thwart the current campaign of defeatism.
*
A. An analysis of the current situation through assessment of the short term political trends.
1. General foreword
2. Israel as a forward outpost of the Western civilization against the Islamic expanse – and therefore a primary and decisive objective in the "war of the civilizations".
3. The Arabs of Eretz Israel – the Arab-Moslem spearhead in its war against Israel.
4. The establishment of a "Palestinian state" and its legal, military and political ramifications.
(The demand for partition borders, return of refugees, military pacts, membership in the Arab League, etc., i.e. "The Palestinian state will be established upon the ruins of the State of Israel!" – Yizhak Rabin)
5. The delusion of the "peace process" – the Geneva document as a representative model of political blindness.
6. Defeatism as an outgrowth of the weariness of the Israeli public.
7. Trends of self-destruction among the Israeli Left.
8. Escalation of the Israeli Arab struggle to destroy the State of Israel from within (a state of all its citizens, autonomy in the Galilee, etc.).
B. Political Proposal
1. Extending Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
2. "Jordan is Palestine" and restoration of Jordanian citizenship to the Arabs in Judea and Samaria.
3. Municipal autonomy for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria (on the basis of the Camp David Accords) accompanied by a total disarmament of the autonomous areas.
4. The areas of Arab settlements located on private property (the Mosaic Program by Dr. Yuval Arnon Ohanna).
5. Military liquidation of the military infrastructure in Gaza and according responsibility for the area to Egypt.
6. Israeli Arabs: Equal rights in exchange for equal obligations.
*
The submitted proposal relies to a certain extent on the "Israeli Initiative" – MK Binyamin Elon’s program. That is in terms of its two primary components: A. Extension of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria; B. Restoring Jordanian citizenship to the Arabs of Judea and Samaria.
The proposal is unilateral, i.e. no one is deluding himself at present that the Arab side will accept the proposed resolution. However, that is a situation that is ongoing for sixty years and any proposal that contains anything less than Israel’s political and military liquidation is summarily rejected by our neighbors. (See on that note the Saudi proposal that is unifying many of the Arab enemy countries at present).
At this stage, we have approached several experts in this field, presented the principles of the program and invited them to participate in the project, each expert in his own discipline. The intention is to consolidate a group of 10 to 12 experts in order to cover the central topics in the proposal.
The intention is to publish the study within six months, i.e. towards the end of 2008.
The study will be published in the form of a 250-300 page book, in Hebrew and English in cooperation with one of the big publishing houses in Israel.
The political proposal – the gist of the study – will be submitted in the form of a 20 page booklet, half in Hebrew and half in English.
Thank you,
Arieh Stav
FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL FOR A NATIONAL STRATEGY REGARDING JUDEA AND SAMARIA AND THE ISSUE OF ERETZ ISRAEL ARABS
by Arieh Stav
Comments by Bernard J. Shapiro, Chairman,
Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
The Framework Proposal concept is an excellent idea and we are thankful that it was proposed by the Ariel Center For Policy Research, under the direction of Arieh Stav.
The sections: Central Objective & Projected Audience are in agreement with my views.
The section on Implementation leaves much to be desired. While the individual items are correct, they do not create a whole. That is, while I agree with them, they would not work.
My reasons:
A. While the analysis of the current situation and short term political trends is again very correct, there is NO WAY to implement proper change in the proposal.
B. The Political Proposal - Again mostly correct.
The problems with it are both historical and philosophical. It is 30 years too late for municipal autonomy for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. Israeli policy since 1967 has created a Palestinian nationalism. The Genie can not be put back in the bottle. Pandora’s box has already been opened.
I agree that the TRANSFER of the hostile Arab population must be accomplished. This can be done through:
1. Economic incentive
2. Enforcement of laws protecting the Jewish population. Demolition of illegal Arab occupation of State lands.
3. Rapid settlement of Jews in lands of Judea and Samaria
4. Improved transportation from Judea and Samaria to the Israeli coast. This would create huge bedroom communities for the coastal industries and businesses.
5. Removal of all restrictions on real estate development in Israel. This includes voiding the agreement that the Jewish National Fund (JNF) made with the Israeli government, that allows it to give Jewish land to Arabs.
Item #5 on the Political Proposal calling for turning over responsibility for Gaza to Egypt is a non-starter. Israel must liquidate the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza and then re-settle the expelled Jews to re-build their homes. Gazan Arabs that are unhappy with this and are hostile to the Jewish State should be allowed forcefully to find homes in Egypt.
Item #6 offering Israeli Arabs equal right for equal obligations should be amended to include acceptance and loyalty to Israel as a Jewish/Zionist State and renunciation of the existence of a "so called palestine" as a separate nation.
Re: The Two Comments:
No one should fool themselves into thinking that giving the Arabs of Judea and Samaria Jordanian citizenship would solve anything in the long run. Jordan is not as friendly (population wise) as we are led to believe. Though the government is helpful and friendly, that could change in the blink of an eye. Should American troops leave Iraq and it falls to Iran, the consequences would be severe for Israel. With Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza under Iranian control, it could easily extend its reach to Jordan and the Judean-Samarian ridge overlooking Israel’s vulnerable coast.
My Bottom Line (Conclusion)
Israel’s central problem is psychological and no amount of beautiful rhetoric and wonderful proposals can change that.
When will the Nationalist Camp realize that we are "at war already" with the PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah supporting tyranny that rules Israel? At what point will Israelis realize that the CIVIL WAR they fear, IS ALREADY TAKING PLACE AND THEY ARE LOSING?
Why don't members of the Nationalist Camp understand that FORCE is being used by only ONE side and that is the government. The monopoly on power must be broken or there is no hope.
Under the Nazis, the Jews of Warsaw numbered over 500,000. They were depleted with regular deportations aided by Judenrats (Jewish leaders). The Revolt in Warsaw began when the Jewish population was down to 50,000 (or 90% murdered). At what point is it OK to rebel?
When is civil disobedience OK? When is civil war a better course than suicide? All throughout history there have been rebels and loyalists. History is usually written by the victors but truly there is seldom a universally accepted moral standard as to what is a proper rebellion and what is not. We can say with absolute certainty, however, that the Jewish return to Zion and our struggle today for Eretz Yisrael are more righteous than any other struggle for national liberation in the history of the world.
Conditions in Israel may have passed the period where civil disobedience would be effective. A massive outpouring of Israelis prepared to get arrested in civil disobedience would have stopped the Sharon’s Expulsion of Jews Plan two years ago. Now, it appears that only civil disobedience and a willingness to fight for their homes will save the country.
We must expect the government to try to disarm Zionist patriots, to spy on them and to send agents provocateurs to discredit them. It is quite possible that the IDF will withdraw from Yesha and leaving the Jews with a difficult choice: being massacred or abandoning their homes. Their ability to defend themselves will have been thwarted by the government in collusion with the terrorists.
The Jews of YESHA must not be passive pawns in the political surrender of their homes. They must fight the Arabs, where necessary, to maintain their travel, water, and land rights. When the Israeli government retreats, leaving them behind PLO battle lines, they must be prepared to go on the offensive militarily to secure safe contiguous areas of Jewish control. The defeatist Israeli leaders, who have surrendered our Jewish rights to Eretz Yisrael, should be told that there are still proud Jews in YESHA who will give up neither their inheritance from Abraham nor their right of self-defense.
Exercising one’s right to self-defense is a moral imperative. There is a lot of hypocritical talk coming from the government about the danger of Jew fighting Jew. These warnings are coming from the Left who delighted in shooting Zionist (Betar) teenagers swimming to shore after their forces sank the Altalena in 1948. These same hypocrites are putting the Jews of YESHA in life threatening peril. They care nothing about Jewish lives!
Should the Jews of YESHA be forced into military combat -- most likely against Arabs, but, G-d forbid, perhaps also against Jews -- they would be fully justified. They will be fighting for the security of Israel and the future destiny of the Jewish people. These brave Jews would be continuing the long tradition of Hebrew Warriors, including Joshua, David, the Maccabees and Bar Kochba, who fought against all odds to save their people and their country.
The glorious Hebrew Warriors who defeated five Arab armies in 1948, three in 1967, and two in 1973 must not surrender their Jewish homeland to evil terrorists, who delight in killing Jewish babies. The Brave Heroes of Zion must not limit themselves to passive civil disobedience. Freedom sometimes needs to be secured through the barrel of a gun. If it is considered patriotic to die fighting Arabs for Israel’s survival, then it is just as patriotic to fight against Jews who would lead Israel to destruction. While such internal Jewish fighting would be dreadful, it is a consequence of the government’s disregard for the security and well being of its citizens. At this great time of trial and apocalyptic threat, the safeguarding of the future of the Jewish people’s right to Eretz Yisrael must take precedence.
Israelis my age have fought and died in four wars and I understand their desire to be free of constant conflict. Unfortunately, there is no magic cure. I wish I could write more optimistic words. Sadly, beyond the neighboring states that Israel is negotiating with now lies another ring of unmitigated hostility led by Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.
As Jews we are all involved in this historic struggle to survive. It is not our fate or that of the Israelis that we should retire from this struggle. The only peace the Arabs are prepared to give us is the peace of the grave.
In blood and fire was Israel born and on a hot anvil was she forged. The brave young soldiers of Israel must take a quick glance back to the crematoria of Auschwitz and then go forth to face the enemy knowing that there is STILL no alternative (ein briera).
Our World: Calling Israel's bluff
Sep. 1, 2008
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
|
Hamas and its international collaborators have a new plan. To forcibly end Israel's embargo of Gaza's seacoast, they intend to operate a "ferry" service that will sail from Cyprus to Gaza every couple of weeks. The plan was announced on Friday by American Hamas collaborator Paul Larudee. Larudee and 32 other Hamas collaborators from North America and Europe disguised themselves as "peace activists" last week as they ran the gauntlet of Israel's naval blockade in a bid to facilitate Hamas's unfettered access to the high seas.
Israel is fully cognizant of what these Hamas collaborators are up to. It knows they are trying to force the country to concede its vital interest in maintaining the blockade to prevent massive quantities of heavy weaponry from being brought into Iran's Hamas-controlled enclave. Israel understands what is at stake. But it has absolutely no idea how to contend with this new challenge. Speaking to The Jerusalem Post over the weekend, defense officials said that they have no policy for contending with additional ships in international waters that set sail for Gaza with the declared aim of ending Israel's blockade of the coastline.
The Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government claims that its handling of last week's blockade runners was successful. By allowing the ships to sail to Gaza and then return to Cyprus, the government argues that it averted a public relations trap that Hamas and its collaborators set for it. Had Israel interdicted the ships, they argue, Hamas and its allies on board would have been able to demonize Israel by accusing it of preventing humanitarian aid from getting through to suffering Hamas supporters and regime officials in Gaza.
While Israel's decision to capitulate rather than defend its interests did in fact avert bad headlines, that success should be a comfort to no one. For Israel's decision to permit the ships to sail to and from Gaza exposed two of the government's most egregious and devastating strategic failings.
IN STANDING down in the face of Hamas's high seas challenge, Israel demonstrated yet again that it prefers to capitulate rather than pay a price to defend its vital interests. And Israel's readiness to surrender came as no surprise to either Hamas or its European and North American agents. They have watched for three years as Israel has taken no action to end Hamas's use of Gaza's border with Egypt to smuggle sufficient quantities of advanced weaponry into the area to transform Gaza from a tactical nuisance into a strategic threat to southern Israel. Through its refusal to launch a military operation to retake control over Gaza's international border, Israel has daily demonstrated its unwillingness to fight to secure its vital interests of ending Iranian encroachment on its borders, and weakening with the intent of overthrowing the Hamas regime in Gaza. Knowing this, Hamas and its international collaborators rightly assumed that Israel would similarly take no action to prevent their access to the high seas.
The blockade runners were also quick to capitalize on was Israel's other major failing: Its consistent refusal to recognize and contend with the role of international collaborators in advancing the Palestinian war effort against it. Hamas's international allies knew that Israel would take no action against the ships because they have watched for years as Israel has capitulated to their colleagues who challenge the IDF in support of Palestinian terrorists in Judea and Samaria. They saw for instance in the weeks leading up to their decision to set sail to Gaza that the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government has preferred to humiliate and court martial IDF commanders operating against terror collaborators in Ni'ilin rather than formulate a coherent information and law enforcement strategy against them.
Since 2001, international groups posing as peace activists and human rights champions have enjoyed generous funding of European governments as they have violently challenged IDF counter-terror operations in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Operating under the aegis of groups like the International Solidarity Movement, the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions, Anarchists Against the Wall, Rabbis for Human Rights and other EU-funded anti-Israel groups, these terror collaborators have actively engaged in criminal behavior to thwart lawful IDF actions.
They have illegally entered closed military zones. They have illegally interfered with IDF operations. They have worked openly with Palestinian terror masters including Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh. In so doing, these groups have been fully integrated into the Palestinian information war against Israel which itself is a vital component of the overall Palestinian war effort against Israel.
Far from acting to expose these criminals as terror collaborators, and then targeting their European governmental financiers, outlawing them, and arresting, imprisoning or deporting their members, Israel has not even tried to challenge their false self-identification as "peace activists." In surrendering the war of words to its adversaries, Israel has facilitated their war efforts against it. In legitimizing Hamas's international allies, Israel has ensured that as they have promised, they will expand their use of blockade running ships to enable Hamas's free access to the high seas.
The terror-enabling ships' successful challenge of the government demonstrated once again that under the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government, Israel's deterrent capacity has utterly collapsed. In international affairs, deterrence is the only truly effective way to prevent war. Deterrence is predicated on a state's ability and willingness to credibly threaten its adversaries' vital interests if its own are endangered. Under the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government, Israel's deterrence has collapsed because the government freely dispenses threats that it has no intention of carrying through. Rather than frighten its enemies and so convince them to relent in their attacks against the country, Israel's reckless recourse to empty threats under the current government has emboldened them and so placed the country in ever greater jeopardy.
THIS ABYSMAL and dangerous state of affairs was fully in evidence with the government's decision last week to tell the local media that it had just "reached a strategic decision" not to permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Showing again its contempt for Israel's empty sloganeering, Iran announced it has finished installing 4,000 uranium enriching centrifuges at its Natanz nuclear facility, that it is preparing an additional 3,000 centrifuges for use, and that it has armed Hizbullah with long range missiles.
In light of our enemies' open contempt for the government's continued use of empty threats it is clear that far from preventing war, the government's continued utilization of threats actually increases the likelihood of war. The question that necessarily arises then is why is the government still making threats that its enemies do not believe?
THE ANSWER to that central question was provided on Sunday morning at the government's weekly meeting. That meeting was dominated by statements by Kadima ministers who are running to replace Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in this month's party leadership race. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, and Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter all outdid one another in their criticisms of Olmert's last ditch bid to conclude and accord with Palestinian Authority figurehead Mahmoud Abbas that will commit Israel to surrender Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to the Hamas-dominated PA before he leaves office.
Their criticisms of Olmert were shocking for what they say about the fundamental cynicism of Kadima's would-be leaders. After all, in his feverish attempts to strike his deal with Abbas, Olmert is simply discharging the policies that all of them have repeatedly signed off on. Indeed, Livni has chaired Israel's negotiating team, and Mofaz and Dichter, like Shas leader Eli Yishai have repeatedly supported Olmert's and Livni's efforts in the face of outspoken criticism from Likud.
The cynicism of Kadima's would-be leaders exposes the actual target audience of the government's wholly discredited threats against Israel's enemies. That audience is not Israel's enemies, but the Israeli people. The government knows full well that none of Israel's enemies take its threats seriously. Between Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, Fatah and their international collaborators, not a day goes by when Israel's bluff isn't called. The government makes those threats not because it actually intends to defend the country, but because it wants us all to believe that it will defend the country despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
BUT BEYOND that, the criticisms that Olmert's own Kadima colleagues launched Sunday against the policies he is advancing with their full support and participation tells us two fundamental truths about the nature of the Israeli public.
First, it shows us that Kadima's leaders understand that in advancing the cause of capitulation to the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, they are acting against the wishes not only of the general public, but of their own party members. Livni, Mofaz and Dichter are vying for the support of some 70,000 Kadima members who alone have the right to vote in their primaries. By attacking Olmert for carrying out capitulationist policies they themselves have supported, they are signaling that they understand that those policies are opposed not only by their political opponents, but by their political supporters.
The second fundamental fact that their condemnations of Olmert exposes is a troubling one. While Livni, Mofaz and Dichter - like Yishai - understand that Israel's enemies are unmoved by their protestations of readiness to protect the country - they all believe that Kadima members and the Israeli public as a whole are willing to believe their cynical lies. And the polls seem to back them up. Despite the Kadima-Labor-Shas government's systematic destruction of Israel's deterrent capacity, public opinion polls show that one in five Israelis still intend to vote for Kadima in the next elections. Shas's support has not been significantly degraded since the last elections. As for the Labor party, its recent fall in the polls is due to the exposure of a new corruption scandal surrounding Defense Minister Ehud Barak and his wife, not to Barak's facilitation of Hamas's entrenchment in Gaza. Although Likud still leads Kadima in the polls, the Right's projected parliamentary majority is a narrow one.
The Kadima ministers' cynical manipulation of public opinion so prominently on display on Sunday morning together with the utter collapse of Israel's deterrent capacity makes clear the Right's central political challenge today. Likud Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu and his allies must convince the public to call the government's bluff, just as Israel's enemies have. Until the public stops its habit of believing wholly discredited threats and declarations on the part of the government, the incompetent politicians scuttling Israel's national security will continue their failed policies. Moreover, they will stand a chance of winning the public's trust to continue on this disastrous course for years to come.
A New Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon
Former Chief of Staff, Israel Defense Forces
· Solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, says mainstream public opinion, and the rest will follow. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only one of many afflicting the Middle East , and it is by no means the dominant one.
· The Palestinian leadership continues to evade accountability. Today the watchword is "weakness." The image of political impotence has become a precious asset in the Palestinian strategy. The problem is not Abbas' actual capabilities. The problem is his unwillingness and lack of determination to create and govern a viable and accountable state.
· Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others have called for more foreign assistance for the Palestinians. This strategy has no chance of success if it is not linked to reforms. Unless the Palestinians are first convinced through education to give up the extremism which informs their national and religious aspirations, they cannot be expected to be full partners in building a vibrant Palestinian economy.
· The central conflict of the Middle East is not territorial but ideological; not about borders but about Islamic Jihadism and Western liberty. No ideology, least of all radical Islam, can be defeated by concessions, which encourage, energize, and inspire Jihadists. Those who wish for peace must face and assimilate this fact, and realize that territorial concessions, or any concessions in any realm in the struggle against militant Islam, have been consistently counterproductive.
· From Oslo to Annapolis , we have engaged in a top-down strategy. We aimed to reach a political horizon or a final settlement agreement with the Palestinian leadership, hoping that political reform among Palestinians would follow. I propose we replace this approach with a bottom-up strategy in which the PA first proves its willingness and ability to govern.
Current efforts to achieve a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are based on a number of deeply flawed assumptions. These have in turn produced an erroneous paradigm and a manifestly failed strategy for seeking peace and security which is preventing us from moving forward.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Is One of Many in the Middle East
Solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, says mainstream public opinion, and the rest will follow. Since the November 2007 meeting at Annapolis , this has become the U.S. administration's policy.
I have a great personal desire to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solved, for the benefit of Israelis and Palestinians, and for the benefit of all the region's peoples. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that it is not the epicenter of the region's many ills. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only one of many afflicting the Middle East , and it is by no means the dominant one.
The most important fault-lines of the strife in today's Middle East are found rather in non-localized conflicts such as pan-national Islamic Jihadism against the West, the Shia-Sunni divide, and the Persian-Arab contest for power and influence. Within Muslim societies, across the region and beyond, there is a struggle between nationalists and Jihadists. Many, if not most, Muslim nations in the Middle East are torn internally between groups that believe happiness is achievable in this world, and groups who preach martyrdom (istish'had), the killing of infidels, and happiness in "the next world."
There are indeed more than a few struggles in the Middle East in addition to the Israeli-Palestinian one. None of them emerged from it, and none are dependent on it. Admittedly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been exploited by those seeking to inflame passions in other arenas, often cynically and with a view to influence the prevailing wisdom in the West. It is essential for our own well-being that we maintain our clarity of vision in the face of misinformation and false optimism.
Implacable Palestinian Rejection of Israel
Another myth is that at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the "occupation." This term refers to the territories conquered by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967. Among Palestinians from all sectors and factions (Fatah, Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, DFLP, etc.) there are those that use the term "'occupation" simply as a euphemism for Israel ("from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River"). This view has proponents even among Israeli Arabs. They consider Israelis to be foreign colonialists and the entire land mass of Israel including its cities, towns, villages, and kibbutz farms as "occupied" territory.
The Palestinians have maintained a posture of implacable hostility to Israel's most fundamental and inalienable rights. The PLO, for example, existed and launched terror attacks against Israelis before 1967 when the West Bank and Gaza were not yet occupied by Israel . The PLO's pre-1967 raison d'etre has not magically disappeared in the meantime. Both Fatah and Hamas continue to maintain charters denying Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state. We find the rejection of Israel forms an integral part of the Palestinian ethos, and is expressed in no less than the founding documents and actions of the largest and most important Palestinian factions.
Rejectionism, far from being a "mere" matter of official policy or posturing, reaches the rhetoric of the Palestinian national leadership (including Mahmoud Abbas), the educational curriculum, and the Palestinian media. It deeply informs Palestinian strategy and policy. During the preparations for the Annapolis conference, it was demonstrated in the Palestinian refusal to make a basic declaration of their belief in "two states for two peoples." Instead they spoke only of "two states," avoiding explicit recognition of the Jewish people's right to an independent state. This quibbling over words is only the tip of an iceberg.
If the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were a territorial compromise within Mandatory Palestine, I have no doubt we would have reached this long ago. Instead, from the dawn of Zionism to the present day, the Palestinian leadership has rejected every partition plan proposed, and has reacted violently to all political initiatives seeking a settlement along those lines. This occurred in 1937 in response to the Peel Commission, in 1947 as a reaction to the UN partition plan, and in 2000 when the Palestinians rejected former Prime Minister Barak's proposal at Camp David .
Attempts by Israel at peace through territorial concession have been met, again and again, with violence by Palestinians. The core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the "occupation" according to its meaning in Western discourse. Rather it is the "occupation" in the Palestinian sense: The relentless refusal of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state. Professor Bernard Lewis put it succinctly in the Wall Street Journal on November 28, 2007 , a day before the Annapolis Conference: "'What is the conflict about?' There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel , or about its existence..If.the issue is the existence of Israel , then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise between existing or not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist."
Do the Palestinians Want a State?
It is often said that the Palestinians desire and are capable of establishing a state that will live in peace alongside Israel . Those who believe this is so must explain why the Palestinian leadership, from the implementation of the Oslo Agreement in May 1994 through to the present, have failed to take even the first baby steps toward establishing a state - this in spite of overwhelming and unprecedented international support.
The facts suggest that the Palestinian leadership has been motivated by something other than a desire to create a thriving state. Although the Palestinian national movement stands out in recent history as the cause celebre of the international community, and despite massive political and economic support, the Palestinians have failed to create and nurture stable, efficient, and accountable political institutions. They have also crushed what little civil society they had. I do not think this failure was inevitable; I believe it is directly due to Yasser Arafat's conscious decision to create a society based on "gang logic."
Arafat and his cronies brazenly violated every agreement they signed with Israel . By eschewing the principle of "one authority, one law and one gun," Arafat was able, with craftiness, to evade responsibility for what was occurring. He used Hamas, PIJ, and other terror organizations as proxies, though he had the power and legitimacy needed to confront and disarm them. While his proxies were fighting Israel, Arafat could remain aloof and appear innocent. Moreover, to bolster his influence over the chaos he had created, Arafat established his own direct terror proxy, Fatah Tanzim, or the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade as it became known after September 2000. Arafat's war by proxy required a certain level of permanent instability in Palestinian institutions, and it was this that led to the "gang logic" which we now see mostly strikingly in inter-Palestinian violence.
Arafat has since been replaced by Mahmoud Abbas, yet the Palestinian leadership continues to evade accountability, according to a modified version of Arafat's strategy. Today, the watchword is "weakness." The image of political impotence has become a precious asset in the Palestinian strategy. Western politicians, as well as many Israelis, believe that Mahmoud Abbas is the only alternative to a far more extreme Hamas. They believe, therefore, that he should be strengthened economically, and equipped with additional weapons and ammunition. This approach has not and will not pay dividends because the problem is not Abbas' actual capabilities. The problem is his unwillingness and lack of determination to create and govern a viable and accountable state.
Mahmoud Abbas is not weak. He possessed more than sufficient power to institute reforms when he was elected on January 9, 2005 . He has chosen to avoid the attempt to govern his people effectively, or to create a political culture based on "state logic." He chose "weakness" instead as his method of preserving and partially controlling the many heads of the Palestinian Authority that he inherited from Arafat. There is little difference between Arafat's "gang logic" and Abbas' "weakness" - both are designed to avoid the daunting task of Palestinian nation-building, while permitting the continuation of a bloody struggle against Israel.
The Key to the Conflict Is Not Economic
A third prevailing misconception in the Western understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict relates to the economy. This misconception holds that the key to the conflict is economic. Those who hold this view believe, just as the architects of "Oslo" believed, that a prosperous Palestinian economy would neutralize extreme nationalism and religious fanaticism, leading to peace and an improved security situation for Israel . While the improvement of the Palestinian economy should be part of any strategy for attaining peace, I do not think that the Palestinians can be forced to enjoy an improved economy and the fruits of prosperity while their own priorities remain entirely elsewhere.
Although the PA has received no less than $7 billion from donors in recent years, neither Arafat nor Abbas has managed to improve the basic living conditions of the Palestinian people in any significant way. On the contrary, the Palestinian economic situation began to deteriorate precipitously from the moment Arafat rose to power in 1994, and continues to do so under the regime of cronyism he instituted. Examples of wasted economic opportunity abound on all levels, and Palestinian terror groups have directly devastated economic resources. They engineered the closure of the Erez industrial zone which employed 4,500 Palestinians and provided for their families. After the disengagement from Gaza in 2005. the Palestinians wantonly destroyed the greenhouses left behind by the evacuees which were purchased by former WorId Bank President James Wolfenson and others for their benefit.
There is no doubt that the Palestinian economy is in dire need of assistance. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other prominent figures have called for more foreign aid to be directed for this purpose to the Palestinians. However, unless further foreign aid is directly connected to reforms within Palestinian civil society, there is no chance of success. Unless the Palestinians are first convinced through education to give up the extremism which informs their national and religious aspirations, they cannot be expected to cooperate in the creation of their own prosperity. They can do neither of these things before first imposing law, order, and security in the territories under their control. No law can be imposed while the Palestinian leadership continues to reject all responsibility, whether under the guise of "weakness" or otherwise. Responsibility will never be assumed as long as the Palestinian people continue to nurse the dream of the disappearance of Israel as the Jewish homeland.
In light of historical experience, there are some fundamental questions we have to ask ourselves. Can we trust that a future Palestinian entity in the West Bank will not become Hamastan, as occurred in Gaza ? Could such an entity, even according to the 1967 borders, be economically viable? Would the Palestinians be satisfied with those borders as a final settlement? Would it bring stability, peace, and tranquility to the region? Are these borders defensible for the State of Israel?
A Palestinian Entity in the 1967 Borders Threatens Both Israel and Jordan
I believe, in light of the Palestinian leadership's behavior since its inception, and especially since Oslo , that the answer is an unequivocal "no." As things stand today, a Palestinian entity according to the 1967 borders would present an existential threat to Israel , to the stability of the region, to Western interests, and to Jordan .
The paradigm of the "two-state solution" within the boundaries of former Mandatory Palestine under the present status quo is both irrelevant and dangerous. It is irrelevant because today there is no Palestinian partner willing to accept it as a final settlement. It is dangerous because it fosters illusions which undermine our resolve and embolden our enemies. Ultimately, the "two-state solution" paradigm, at this juncture, threatens the security and stability of the region.
The paradigm of the "two-state solution" is based on Israeli territorial concessions. It rests on the same idea which stands behind the "land for peace" principle which has dominated Israeli politics since 1967, and which bore fruit when peace was made with Egypt in 1979. The principle then enjoyed the support of the vast majority of Israelis. A slim majority of Israelis likewise supported unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza in 2000 and 2005, respectively. These Israelis, like many in the West, believed that peace and tranquility could be reached by addressing Hizbullah's and Hamas' talk of "occupation" as a simple territorial grievance. We now know the results. Both from Hizbullah and the Palestinians, the reaction came in the form of concerted terror wars, rockets fired at Israeli cities, and kidnapped soldiers. There is no clearer proof needed that the central conflict of the Middle East is not territorial but ideological; not about borders but about Islamic Jihadism and Western liberty.
No ideology, least of all radical Islam, can be defeated by concessions. Concessions encourage, energize, and inspire Jihadists. Those who wish for peace must face and assimilate this fact, and realize that territorial concessions in the struggle against militant Islam have only been counterproductive. As Bernard Lewis has said, this conflict is not about the size of Israel , but about its very existence.
What is worse, the mistaken paradigm and conceptions regarding Jihadism and the Middle East prevent the emergence of a new strategy. While the pundits and the public continue to debate "the solution," the problem has slipped from their view. The problem is Islamic Jihadism and Palestinian rejectionism towards Israel's most basic rights. Whoever realizes this, realizes also that what is needed is not a solution based on failed paradigms and wishful thinking. What is needed is a long-term strategy based on realistic assumptions culled from experience.
Begin with Changes in Palestinian Political Culture
Let me briefly outline a new strategy for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From Oslo to Annapolis , we have consistently engaged in a "top-down strategy." We aimed to reach a political horizon or a final settlement agreement with the Palestinian leadership, hoping that political reform among Palestinians would follow. This approach was based on the mistaken paradigms outlined above, and failed. I propose we replace this approach with a "bottom-up strategy" in which the PA first proves its ability to govern. Real gains in stability and security on the road to peace can then be consolidated through political agreements. Experience teaches that political agreements which precede real changes in Palestinian political culture are useless, or worse.
The process of change in Palestinian society can and should be supported by Israel and the West, but most of the burden will necessarily fall on the Palestinian leadership to assume the responsibilities of good government. The process of change must begin in the territory which falls under their responsibility in the West Bank (areas A and B) and must encompass educational, law and order, security, economic and political reforms. All reforms should be carried out in parallel, with clear benchmarks in each area.
The reform process suggested would not be dependent on any issue related to a final settlement. The enforcement of law and order in Palestinian cities, for example, is not dependent on a final settlement, or on any other outstanding matter of negotiation. The same is true for the entire package of proposed reforms - none depend on new agreements.
During the imposition of law and order in the West Bank, the IDF must continue to operate in the area in order to foil attacks against Israelis, and in order to prevent the rise of Hamas in the West Bank similar to its rise in Gaza . Gaza will be considered a hostile entity as long as Hamas ideology holds sway there, and as long as it continues to serve as a base of operations for launching terror attacks against Israelis. Ultimately, only a decision by the Palestinian leadership can impose law and order on the Palestinian street, and that decision is theirs alone.
The key to all other reforms is educational reform. During the implementation of the Oslo Accords we were forced to confront a Palestinian educational system designed to inculcate hatred of Israel . It sought in a variety of ways to undermine Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state. It took pains to deny every connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel , called openly for our annihilation, and promoted terrorism and Jihadism. While the Palestinian leadership was negotiating with Israel , it was educating its young for a war of annihilation. This must change before there is any chance for the Palestinians to reach a final settlement with Israel .
An entire generation of Palestinians has already been educated according to this curriculum. Change will not come quickly. It is clear, however, that demanding Palestinian educational reform is the only path to solving the conflict which will not require Israel to relinquish the idea of a Jewish homeland, and in which Islamic Jihadism will not be unwittingly strengthened.
At the same time, there is no need to wait for the end of this process before dealing with the refugee issue, as is sometimes argued. The refugee issue should, in fact, be dealt with as soon as possible and in parallel to educational reforms in the PA. A humanitarian solution to this issue will serve to neutralize it as a weapon against Israel . As educational reform in the PA encourages new thinking and new paradigms, a regional settlement which would satisfy both parties is likely to emerge.
Today, Mahmoud Abbas is engaged with all his energy on the political horizon issues instead of using all his energy to meet certain benchmarks regarding reforms. Dealing with issues such as a political horizon or financial support is another way for him to escape the actual need to deal with reforms. So instead of dealing with law and order in Jenin, he speaks about Jerusalem and borders. First of all, let's see if the Palestinians are able to manage the autonomy that they have now to run their civil affairs and to govern themselves. That should be the main mission of former Prime Minister Blair.
Iran Is the Main Destabilizing Force in the Middle East
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the core of the Middle East's instability. It is, in fact, the Iranian regime which is the main destabilizing force in the Middle East today. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been exporting the ideology behind the rise of Islamic Jihadism, and it remains the base and center of gravity for worldwide Jihadism. We cannot afford to avoid confronting the Iranian regime. Until it is defeated, there will be no stability in Iraq , Lebanon , the Palestinian Authority, or any other nation in the Middle East .
Iranian leaders today are allowed to feel secure despite their commitment to global Jihadism. They have made a massive commitment of human, financial and military resources in order to undermine moderate regimes from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. So far, they feel like they are winning as Hizbullah gains power in Lebanon and Hamas is strengthening its grip in Gaza. The June 2008 ceasefire agreement brokered by Egypt between Israel and Hamas is another achievement for the Jihadists. Iran is also advancing its nuclear project as it violates agreements and understandings with international institutions. The Iranian regime, with its rogue activities, has escaped paying any significant price.
Yet the government of the Ayatollahs is not a natural one in Iran , nor does it enjoy wide popular support. It will not last forever.
At the Hudson Institute in 2006 I spoke of the military capabilities needed to meet the Iranian challenge. Almost all Western air forces are capable of implementing a mission against Iranian nuclear installations.
I believe that the Iranian nuclear project can be stopped. I believe that in the end we will witness an internal change in Iran because of the domestic economic situation. Although they benefit from high oil prices, they're not in good economic shape.
Economic sanctions are the best tool to encourage those, who are considered to be 70 percent of the Iranian population, who reject the ayatollahs' way. I believe the nuclear program can be stopped by putting the regime in the dilemma of deciding whether it goes ahead or not. They do not feel the dilemma so far. They feel like they are winning, and that they can do whatever they want because of Western weakness and lack of determination. Indeed, those who try to avoid economic sanctions because of their particular economic interests actually enhance the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran.