by Clifford D. May
Based on this experience, most Israelis fear that withdrawal from the West Bank would be disastrous. The power vacuum left behind soon would be filled by Hamas or the Islamic State or an al-Qaida affiliate or Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanon-based foreign legion. From the Judean Hills in the West Bank, all of Israel's major population centers could be targeted with mortars that no missile defense system can knock out. Israel would strike back with predictable consequences.
The peace process
between Israelis and Palestinians has ground to a halt. What should
American and European leaders do? Try not to make the situation worse.
That will be a
challenge. Many in the West believe that the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict is relatively easy to solve -- certainly not on a par with the
much bloodier wars being waged by Sunni and Shia jihadis in Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Libya, etc.
The Palestinians say
they want a state of their own. They should have one in Gaza and the
West Bank (territories Israel captured from Egypt and Jordan
respectively at the end of a defensive war in 1967). The Israelis want
security within recognized borders. Have the international community
promise them that. If Israelis and Palestinians can't work this out on
their own, impose a two-state solution. It's a tempting approach. Let
me explain why it's dead wrong.
Ten years ago this
summer, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to test the hypothesis
that Israelis could trade land for peace. He ordered the evacuation of
all Israelis from Gaza -- forcibly removing those who refused to
quietly pack up and leave.
He hoped Gaza would
thereafter become a peaceful place whose leaders would focus on
economic development, education and health care. If that happened, the
argument for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would become
compelling. But, he believed, if Gaza instead became a base for attacks
on Israelis, they would be able to strike back hard -- with the
understanding and support of the international community.
Recall what followed:
In 2007, Fatah and Hamas, the two major Palestinian political factions,
went to war with one another other in Gaza. Fatah, led by Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, was the loser. Hamas soon began
firing missiles -- thousands of them -- at Israeli villages. That led
to wars with Israel in 2008 and 2012. Then, last summer, on top of
missile attacks came the revelation that Hamas was building tunnels
designed to infiltrate terrorists into Israel for the purpose of mass
murder and hostage-taking. The result was an Israeli invasion of Gaza
and 50 days of war.
And Sharon, it turns
out, was wrong: Despite the fact that Israel was attacked and, as Gen.
Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it,
went to "extraordinary lengths to prevent civilian casualties," many in
the West -- including in a U.N. report issued this week -- blame
Israel at least as much as Hamas for the death and destruction suffered
by the people of Gaza last summer.
Based on this
experience, most Israelis fear that withdrawal from the West Bank would
be disastrous. The power vacuum left behind soon would be filled by
Hamas or the Islamic State or an al-Qaida affiliate or Hezbollah,
Iran's Lebanon-based foreign legion.
From the Judean Hills
in the West Bank, all of Israel's major population centers could be
targeted with mortars that no missile defense system can knock out.
Israel would strike back with predictable consequences.
All of which brings us
to this: Over the weekend, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius
visited Jerusalem and Ramallah, the de facto Palestinian capital, where
he discussed a resolution he is eager to advance in the U.N. Security
Council. It would call for the immediate renewal of talks between
Israelis and Palestinians and set a time frame of about 18 months for
them to reach a permanent agreement based on the 1967 lines and with
Jerusalem as a shared capital.
If, by the deadline, no
agreement is reached, Western governments would recognize a Palestinian
state. Is it possible Fabius does not realize that would give Abbas a
strong incentive not to compromise?
Even if, through some
miracle, the 80-year-old PA president did come to terms with Israel,
what would be the result? He was elected to a four-year term 10 years
ago. Hamas doesn't recognize his authority. It's likely that his
successor -- whoever that may be and however he may come to power --
won't either.
Knowing this, should
Israelis really be expected to make concessions that will endanger the
lives of their children? In the past, American presidents, Republican
and Democratic alike, have blocked such actions in the U.N. Security
Council. But President Barack Obama is threatening to break with that
tradition. There is speculation that he's actually encouraging the
French to take this step.
The glib reply:
"Something needs to be done!" But perceived urgency is not the same as
smart policy. How about this: Concentrate on incremental improvements.
With barbarians chopping heads just over the border, joint
Palestinian-Israeli security programs should be quietly expanded.
Instead of promoting boycotts against Israel, push for
Palestinian-Israeli economic cooperation, with Israelis providing more
and better jobs for Palestinians in the West Bank. In the absence of
such cooperation, a Palestinian state will inevitably end up a failed
state and a ward of the international community indefinitely.
Even Gaza presents an
opportunity for modest gains. At the moment, Hamas appears to be going
out of its way not to provoke another conflict. Its forces have been
moving against Islamic State sympathizers. Israelis should be
encouraged to reward such behavior.
Such a cautious
approach could save and improve lives -- Palestinian and Israeli alike.
No one will win a Nobel Prize and former enemies won't be seen hugging
and mugging for the cameras on the White House lawn. What we might see,
however, are Israelis and Palestinians learning that peaceful
coexistence is possible and, for those who don't yet know it, desirable.
At the very least, Western leaders would not be making matters worse.
Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times.
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12969
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment