A Pipe Dream? its justified defensive measures

Submitted by John W Mcginley (United States), Apr 29, 2010 at 12:31

"Barak" and "Barack" have a lot in common although their outlooks are not congruent. And unfortunately they represent the reality of the situation. The only realisitic option at this juncture is that Israel settle on terms which have have the flavor of "Barak" rather than of "Barack." There never was, after 1967, any possibility, of the kind of clear cut "defeat" of the Palestinians of which your article speaks. But there could have been a course of strength which would have insured Israel's status as a completed nation strong engouh to defend itself from any challenge, military or political.

Your article corrrectly points out that the last realistic leader of Israel was Ariel Sharon. But you fault him -- I beleive wrongly -- for his decision to leave Gaza unilaterally. That decision was part of an intelleigent comrehensive strategy to effectuate with strategic gain for Israel what would have been invevitable anyway: total withdrawal from the Gaza. This would have had the effect of freeing Israel's power and will to what really mattered. I am referring to the transformation of the entire city of Jerusalem into what would then have become the undisputed captital of Israel in concert with consolidation of major human settlements in the West Bank (mostly in Judea rather than in Samaria and including a vibrant Jewish right and presence in Khevron). Such would have been a consolidation which would have been so totally irreversibly integrated into the pre-1967 borders of Israel that its sheer facticity would be an accomplished fact with or without a peace settement with the Palestinians.

Israel's greatest tragedy was that Sharon, after Sharon was incapacitated, was succeeded by the former mayor of Jerusalemrather than by the Kadima's Defense Minister. Olmert's reign was an unmitigated disaster.

History moves forward, not backwards. Israel's golden moment has come and gone. The conditions inside and outside of Israel have evolved in such a way that Israel is in its hour of greatest danger. From this point onward, intelligent compromise is the only alternative. Much less of the West Bank will, inevitably, be integrated into Israel proper. ((In this sorry situtation, I still maintain that some right of continued Jewish presence within the city limits of Khevron be inisted upon, geographical and losgistical factors notwithstanding.)) Further, Israel will have to, now, effectuate such a solution thorugh a land swap involving portions of central and east/central parts of Israel which are presently populated preominantly by Palestinians. [This has its own incidental advantages.] And yes, some compromise concerning East Jerusaelm with have to be effectuated, although there can be no compromise on the Old City. It most remain completely part of Israel regardless of what arragments are made for Muslims to worship in their mosques on the Temple Mount. And finally Israel should make it clear early on -- whether or not it upsets certain political factions in the United States -- THAT THERE WILL BE NO RIGHT OF RETURN for the so-called displaced Palestinians. Period.

It will take a number of years (probably a decade) to bring about such a settlement. While this is going on Israel must be prepared to defend all of its rights through its military forces whenever and however Israel may be attacked. If doing such sets back any putative ngotiaitons for a year or so, than so be it. Actions speak louder than words. Israel should not engage in "clearing" any of its defensive measures with the United States. And yes, even with the negative consequences for the Israeli population which such will entail, Israel Itself must detroy the Iran' nuclear capacity.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".