Russian version
West Bank Terrorist State
- Информация о материале
- Автор: R. James Woolsey
The folly of Israeli disengagement. Monday, May 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
What does one say to a good ally who seems determined to reinforce
failure? That the U.S. will pay for the undertaking?
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was in Washington last week, where
he asked for advice and assistance in financing the withdrawal of 50,000
to 100,000 Israeli settlers from 90% to 95% of the West Bank and major
portions of Jerusalem, and for the Israel Defense Forces to be repositioned
largely near the security barrier Israel is constructing. Most Americans
are inclined to believe that such disengagement may be a reasonable step
toward a two-state solution, even if some territorial disputes remain to
be negotiated. It is also widely assumed that Palestinian hostility to
Israel is fueled by despair that can only be reduced by Israeli concessions.
Both assumptions, however, may be fundamentally flawed.
The approach Israel is preparing to take in the West Bank was tried
in Gaza and has failed utterly. The Israeli withdrawal of last year has
produced the worst set of results imaginable: a heavy presence by al Qaeda,
Hezbollah and even some Iranian Revolutionary Guard units; street fighting
between Hamas and Fatah, and now Hamas assassination attempts against Fatah's
intelligence chief and Jordan's ambassador; rocket and mortar attacks against
nearby towns inside Israel; and a perceived vindication for Hamas, which
took credit for the withdrawal. This latter almost certainly contributed
substantially to Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections.
The world now needs to figure out how to keep Palestinians from starving
without giving funds to a Hamas government in Gaza resolutely focused on
destroying Israel. Before his massive stroke last year, Ariel Sharon repeatedly
said he would not replay the Gaza retreat in the West Bank. With good reason:
Creating a West Bank that looks like today's Gaza would be many times the
nightmare. How would one deal with continuing launches of rockets and mortars
from the West Bank into virtually all of Israel? (Israel's Arrow missile
defense will probably work against Iranian medium-range ballistic missiles
but not against the much shorter-range Katyushas.) A security barrier does
no good against such bombardment. The experience in Gaza, further, has
shown the difficulty of defending against such attacks after the IDF boots
on the ground have departed. Effective, prompt retaliation from the air
is hard to imagine if the mortar rounds and Katyushas are being launched,
as they will be, from schools, hospitals and mosques.
Israel is not the only pro-Western country that would be threatened.
How does moderate Jordan, with its Palestinian majority, survive if bordered
by a West Bank terrorist state? Israeli concessions will also make the
U.S. look weak, because it will be inferred that we have urged them, and
will suggest that we are reverting to earlier behavior patterns--fleeing
Lebanon in 1983, acquiescing in Saddam's destruction of the Kurdish and
Shiite rebels in 1991, fleeing Somalia in 1993, etc.
Three major Israeli efforts at accommodation in the last 13 years have
not worked. Oslo and the 1993 handshake in the Rose Garden between Yitzhak
Rabin and Yasser Arafat produced only Arafat's rejection in 2000 of Ehud
Barak's extremely generous settlement offer and the beginning of the second
intifada. The Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 has enhanced
Hezbollah's prestige and control there; and the withdrawal from Gaza has
unleashed madness. These three accommodations have been based on the premise
that only Israeli concessions can displace Palestinian despair. But it
seems increasingly clear that the Palestinian cause is fueled by hatred
and contempt.
Israeli concessions indeed enhance Palestinian hope, but not of a reasonable
two-state solution--rather a hope that they will actually be able to destroy
Israel. The Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas axis is quite explicit about
a genocidal objective. When they speak of "ending Israeli occupation" they
mean of Tel Aviv. Under these circumstances it is time to recognize that,
sadly, the Israeli-Palestinian issue will likely not be the first matter
settled in the decades-long war that radical Islam has declared on the
U.S., Israel, the West and moderate Muslims. It will more likely be one
of the last.
Someday a two-state solution may become possible, but it is naive in
the extreme to believe that this can occur while the centerpiece of the
radical Islamic and Palestinian agendas is maximizing Jewish deaths. A
durable compromise will be achievable only when we no longer, to borrow
from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "define deviancy down" for the Palestinians.
Today we cannot envision the 250,000 Jewish settlers who live outside
Israel's pre-1967 borders being permitted to live at all, much less live
free and unmolested, in a West-Bank-Gaza Palestinian state. But some 1.2
million Arabs, almost all Muslim, today live in Israel in peace among some
five million Jews--about double the percentage of Jews now in the West
Bank as a share of the Muslim population there. Israel's Arab citizens
worship freely--one hears muezzins calling the faithful to prayer as one
walks around Tel Aviv. They vote in free elections for their own representatives
in a real legislature, the Knesset. They give every evidence that they
prefer being Arab Israelis to living in the chaos and uncertainty of a
West Bank after Israeli withdrawal.
A two-state solution can become a reality when the Palestinians are
held to the same standards as Israelis--to the requirement that Jewish
settlers in a West Bank-Gaza Palestinian state would be treated with the
same decency that Israel treats its Arab citizens. Until then, three failures
in 13 years should permit us to evaluate the wisdom of further concessions.
Mr. Woolsey, a former director of Central Intelligence, is co-chairman
of the Committee on the Present Danger.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/
Russian version
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a