Rationale of an Alternative

A few weeks ago I wrote a series of essays in response to the “Geneva Accords” and the Ayalon-Nusseibe initiative (published in Israel Insider and the website of the Israel Hasbara Committee (IHC)), suggesting an alternative solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, presenting a series of arguments to justify my proposal.  Basically, I suggested that Israel endorses a fully independent Palestinian state in an extended Gaza Strip while annexing Judea and Samaria to the State of Israel. This should take place only after the elimination of the PLO and its Islamistic terrorist allies.

Since the publication of  “Separate and Sustainable Existence without the Geneva Plan” I have received substantial feedback, some criticizing my idea and others indicating that I was not explicit enough. I wish now to respond to these critiques. To make it easier for the reader I will include substantial parts of that essay to make this presentation self-contained.

One might ask why should Israel take calculated risks endorsing the creation of a 23^rd Arab state on part of its historical homeland, as well as absorption of a significant number of additional Muslim citizens. We are faced with four alternatives:

A:  Keeping the situation as is with some security improvements (the security fence, abandoning certain “over-exposed” Jewish settlements).

B:  Somehow convincing the Egyptians and the Jordanians to reoccupy the Gaza strip and parts of the “West Bank” and take responsibility for the Arab population in those territories.

C:  Establishing a Palestinian state in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip following the US sponsored “Roadmap” or one of its variants.

D:  Coming up with a proposal to overcome shortcomings of A. B. and C.

The first alternative invites continued political pressure that has increased lately, not only in the Arab world but also in Europe and Great Britain. If Arab propaganda in the US continues to increase the number of its “coverts” (which is happening today on US campuses), there might come a moment when the majority of Americans will side with the Palestinians, forcing Israel to surrender under the worse possible terms. 

The second alternative is both non-realistic and dangerous.  There is no conceivable way to convince Egypt to annex the terribly impoverished population of the Gaza Strip that is contaminated by violent revolutionary ideologies.  Israel can open up completely the international border at Rafah, but Egypt will not control or accept the Palestinians as Egyptian citizens, which they never were. The Egyptian government hardly controls its current oppressed population and does not need an additional major problem. 

The Jordanians might be more receptive regarding the territories of Judea and Samaria (although the addition of a million plus Palestinian Arabs might utterly destabilize its regime) but even if they were annexed to Jordan, it would potentially create a worse security problem for Israel than if those territories were politically independent under restrictions (the “Roadmap”). The stability of the Jordanian regime is limited. If taken over by a nationalistic Palestinian majority, its political and military goal would be to eradicate the state of Israel. And they might do this from a strategically advantageous position.

Furthermore, the 23^rd Arab state has already been created de facto by Peres and Beilin with the tacit consent of Rabin (Israel’s Prime Minister!) in 1991-93, legitimizing the PLO as ruler of the newly formed “Palestinian Authority” (a euphemism for “Palestinian State”). All what can be done today is to define the boundaries of that 23^rd Arab state, which has remained an open issue in 1993 (this is exactly what I am addressing in my proposal). Unfortunately, there is no clause in the Oslo Accords, endorsed by Bill Clinton that annuls the Oslo agreement if the Arabs violate it. This is why Peres and Beilin, who have made this glaring legal political blunder, keep adhering to it to save face.

We have already discussed the severe shortcomings of the third alternative (the “Roadmap”). This brings us to D. i.e., an alternative plan that is presented here.

My basic premises are:

1. There should be no political negotiations with terrorist organizations.  The US is not expected to negotiate with Al-Queda and its allied terrorist organizations, with the Hezbollah in Lebanon/Syria or with the Baatists in Iraq.  Likewise, Israel should not be expected to negotiate any political solutions with the PLO and its terrorist allies, notwithstanding Secretary of State Powell’s current political maneuvers at the expense of Israeli lives and American prestige.

Making concessions to terrorists will only encourage more vicious terrorism. Every terrorist organization has its political goals, but this does not legitimize terrorism.  The Islamists, who perpetrated 9/11 and blow up synagogues, want to Islamize the whole world (after killing off all the Jews and then the Christians). The Baatists, who murder Americans and Iraqis, want to continue their brutal oppressive regime in Iraq, and the PLO and its allies want to eradicate the State of Israel and kill its inhabitants.  None of these goals is open for negotiation.

2. Even if all terrorist organizations were eliminated from the land west of the River Jordan and a truly democratic regime were implemented in the Arab sector of the disputed territories (an illusionary scenario), the “Palestinian” state would have to be so constrained by the security needs of Israel, which would perpetually stir up resentment and bitterness in its citizens.  It is inevitable that this will encourage renewed violence against the “oppressive” neighboring Jewish state and probably invite external Arab support to fight and eliminate Israel.  This is the basic flaw in President Bush’s vision of the “Roadmap”. 

The “Roadmap to Peace” is at best a roadmap to a short-lived period of non-violence just like the Oslo Accords. It might serve the short-term goals of some politicians in the US and in Israel, but in the long run it is a roadmap to a humanitarian catastrophe in Israel and a political disaster for the US that would lose an ally and encourage worldwide Islamist violence.

3. Contrary to the hubris of some Israelis, the very existence of the State of Israel depends on the public support for the Jewish state in the United States. The US Administration, irrespective of the party in power, follows American public opinion in the short and especially in the long run. If public opinion in the US turns overwhelmingly against the State of Israel, as it does in Europe at this point in time, the US will not hesitate to impose severe sanctions on the Jewish state, as it did to South Africa not too long ago. This would bring Israel down to its knees or even lead to its elimination.

Without American military equipment Israel could not stand up to an all out Arab military assault, and without American business investments Israeli economy will collapse. The Arabs understand very well this Israeli weakness and have spent major efforts and monetary resources in a highly effective PR campaign, assisted by intrinsically anti Israel (and anti-American) media, to try and cut this lifeline of the Jewish state. 

Arab strategists must have concluded that since the elimination of the state of Israel by a military assault has been tried and failed three times in a row, a deadly political PR offensive is more likely to succeed.  Arab terrorism against the Israelis has therefore two objectives: the demoralization of the Israeli population and goading Israelis to retaliate militarily and so provide ammunition for the anti-Israeli PR war.  Israel has awakened rather lately to the existence of this vital front and has failed so far to effectively counter this critical Arab assault.

The corollary of this critical dependence on US public opinion is that the US public must favorably accept any military or political solution to the conflict. Any solution must, therefore, be sellable to the American public in readily understandable terms.  Unlike some American politicians, the American public is not likely to apply double standards and will accept actions of Israel that are in line with American ethical values.

4. A violent confrontation between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist organizations is unfortunately unavoidable, if Israel wants to survive.  Following an appropriate Israeli PR campaign in the US, this confrontation will be strongly supported by US public opinion.  Such a confrontation cannot avoid recapturing all of the disputed territories, at least in Judea and Samaria (my proposed solution does not necessitate the recapturing of the Gaza strip). However, Israel cannot repeat its mistake of 1967 and not have a plan for what to do with its military victory. Israel must figure out ahead of time its political intents and objectives, just as it must know its military objectives. Moreover, it must be prepared ahead of time to explain its motives and objectives to the American public. This Israeli PR effort is as important as winning the war, and routing out the terrorists. Winning the war on Palestinian terrorism at the cost of losing American public opinion is worse than a Pyrrhic victory. Israel has already experienced such a situation in 1956 (the Sinai campaign) and 1982 (the Lebanon incursion).

5. My proposed plan of a unilateral endorsement and support of the creation of a fully independent Palestinian state in the Gaza strip takes into account all the elements of the preceding four premises. This plan does not only reduce the demographic danger to the Jewish majority in the Jewish homeland, but it also offers the Arabs an unprecedented opportunity of prosperity and peace.

The basic assumption in my proposal is that in no practical scenario will the Israelis expel the Palestinians from their villages and towns even during an all out war following flagrant Arab aggression (it is highly unlikely that this would be accepted by even a friendly American public), and that the Arab desire to eliminate the State of Israel by attrition (i.e., terrorism) or by a major military assault will never materialize (as long as Israel has US support). Just as non-realistic will be Israeli Jews’ consent to live in their ancient homeland as a political minority in a country dominated by Muslims. In other words, the solution must be a two-state solution.

But as stated before, the entwined geography of the proposed new Arab state alongside Israel as the US Roadmap implies, mandates that the Palestinian state be demilitarized, have limited control of its airspace, have limitations on the entry and exit of people, have limited rights to form military alliances with other countries, and be economically extremely dependent on the State of Israel for many decades to come.

In addition, there are the cardinal problems of dividing the sovereignty over the ancient Jewish capital of Jerusalem, the Arab acceptance of Jewish communities in Palestinian sovereign territory, the “right of return” of the descendents of the 1948 Arab refugees, and the awkward non-contiguity of the Gaza Strip in the proposed Palestinian state.  Arafat’s PLO may accept most of these restrictions for a while, just as they did in 1993, but only in order to gain ground that will be used eventually to try to dislodge the Jewish state by a combination of renewed terrorism, international political and economic pressure, and by an extramural military assault, probably by Egypt, which prepares its military for this opportunity to erase its humiliation in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.

Even if the Palestinians gave up on their "right of return," which is not very likely because it would legitimize Israel (see “A Justified Precondition but for Very Different Reasons”), the implementation of the Roadmap or its variants would continue to ferment Arab dissatisfaction, which undoubtedly would be exploited by extramural Arabs to continue to undermine the existence of the Jewish state by incessant terrorism. Such terrorism would continue, even in the unlikely event that the PLO dismantled competing radical terrorist organizations, such as Hammas and Islamic Jihad, as required by the American "Roadmap to Peace."

There is little doubt that the “Conquest” (“Fatah” in Arabic) terrorist movement would sprout daughter terrorist organizations such as the “Al-Aqsa Brigades,” which is officially financially supported by the PA, or the ”Armed Resistance Committees” that were responsible for the murderous attack on the American Convoy near Beit Hannon in the Gaza Strip. We saw similar behavior of continued violence in Northern Ireland perpetrated by splinter groups of the IRA, in spite of a highly publicized political settlement. Continued Islamic terrorism in Kashmir that was subdivided to achieve peace with the Muslims is another example. In brief, neither party would be satisfied. Under the current American proposal the Palestinian Arabs will not get full political independence, not to mention having to give up formally their dream of eradicating the Jewish state, while the Israelis will still face terrorism along a hardened but still permeable long border.

Consequently, let us create a separate and sustainable coexistence of a predominantly Jewish state and a viable fully independent Arab state in the Gaza Strip; the area of that state could be possibly increased from 360 to say, 600 square kilometers. 

At the same time, all other PA territories west of the Jordan would be annexed to the State of Israel.

 

All Palestinians, including the stateless Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria, could then become automatically citizens of the new Palestinian state in Gaza, regaining internationally recognized citizenship. On the other hand, Arab inhabitants of the "West Bank" will be offered full Israeli citizenship pending their acceptance of Israeli nationality (i.e. analogously to naturalized American citizens, they will be required to swear exclusive allegiance to the laws of the democratic State of Israel, including recognition that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people). Militant religious or nationalistic Arabs amongst them will have the option to become citizens of the independent Palestinian state of Gaza, whether they move there physically or not. If they choose to stay within the borders of Israel as alien residents, they would have to obey all laws of the land, except for service in the armed forces. Like alien residents in the US, they will have no voting rights. If such alien residents break the law they may be deported to the Palestinian state (again, as is provided in the US law for resident alien felons who could be deported to their country of origin). In any case, to survive in a potentially hostile neighborhood, the State of Israel must develop and institute an immutable national constitution that mandates expulsion of aliens as well as citizens (including clergy) who are found guilty of sedition or treason in a court of law.

While Arab “administrative” detainees will be released, Palestinian Arabs residing in the annexed territories suspected of lethal terrorist activities in the past, will be detained; if found guilty in a criminal court they would serve appropriate jail sentences in Israeli jails. This would also apply to Palestinian political leaders who ordered indiscriminate lethal terrorist raids against Israeli civilians.

Immigration of Muslims from other countries into the State of Israel would be limited, however, to maintain a demographic balance (similarly to the immigration quotas that used to be enforced in the US).  Immigration of Jews will also be controlled, mainly by economic considerations and to keep criminals out, except for Jewish victims of religious or ethnic persecution (again, similarly to US immigration laws). 

My proposal offers the Arabs a politically and economically viable Palestinian state, while giving Israel its required long-term security and alleviating an impending Islamistic demographic threat in the remote future (see “A danger the is not Real”).

Let us analyze the features of this suggestion:

1. The historical geopolitical position of Gaza at the crossroad of three continents lends itself to becoming again a commercial and industrial city-state, similar to Singapore or Hong Kong. There is enough land in the Gaza Strip in its current size for a large population with a flourishing economy. The population density in the Gaza Strip is currently 3542 people per square kilometer. Economically flourishing Singapore and Hong Kong have 6667 and 6767 people per square kilometer, respectively. However, the GDP in Gaza is $600 per capita, compared with $24,000 and $26,000 in Singapore and Hong Kong, respectively (the statistics are from the 2003 World Fact Book of the U.S. CIA).

Moreover, unlike Hong Kong and Singapore, the Gaza Strip has commercially valuable natural gas reserves and possibly also oil. Also, the coast of the Strip with its wide beaches could compete for North European Tourists with the French Riviera and the Spanish Gold Coast, as well as with Israel’s Eilat and Jordan’s Aqaba. The Port of Gaza could compete with Alexandria as a cruse terminal for the Eastern Mediterranean, similar to Dubai. Finally, if it became a democracy, free of despotic rule, the new Palestinian state in Gaza could provide financial services for the whole Middle East as well as for Europe (competing with Switzerland and Lichtenstein), taking over the role of Beirut, which has lost its prominent international financial status under the suppressive dictatorial rule of Damascus.

2. Using the 2003 CIA figures, there are at present 1.26 million Arabs in the Gaza Strip and this population could double or triple, given the appropriate political and economic incentives. Adding 240 square kilometers to the Gaza Strip could economically support additional two million people who could live very comfortably in the new commercial-industrial Arab country. The new Palestinian state could, therefore, readily absorb all the Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria who are currently deprived of all civil right.

3. The Gaza Strip does not pose an insurmountable military threat to the state of Israel (even if annexed by Egypt, which is not very likely, or even if Egypt or another Arab country sends hostile troops there; let’s remember that in 1979 Israel was ready to offer the Gaza strip to Egypt as part of the peace deal with Sadat). In any case, Israel must maintain its military strength to confront potential aggression from any Arab country in the region or a combination of such.

4. The border between Israel and the Palestinian state in Gaza may be completely open to commerce (free trade) and to licensed temporary non-resident workers, or it may be hermetically sealed, depending on the political relationship between the two independent countries.

5. On the "West Bank" there are 1.68 million Muslims; while within Israel there are today 905,000 Muslim citizens (US CIA 2003 data). Thus if Israel annexed the West Bank, it would include approximately 2.6 million Muslims and more than 5 million Jews plus over 700,000 other non-Jews. Even if all these Muslims chose Israeli citizenship, they would constitute less than a third of the Israeli electorate. Therefore, the fear of a demographic takeover of the State of Israel by Islamists would be unfounded, especially as the Muslim birth rate is likely to decrease dramatically once their dismal economic conditions improve. The GDP of the Arabs on the "West Bank" is today <$800 per capita compared with >$19,000 of Israelis (this figure includes the GDP of 1.6 million non-Jewish Israeli citizens!) It is noteworthy that in 1949 there were 20% non-Jewish citizens in Israel and the same percentage remained today, after 55 years, in spite of a significant illegal and semi-legal infiltration of Arabs into the lucrative Jewish state and in spite of the relatively higher Arab birth rate. Moreover, there is little reason for the non-Muslim non-Jewish Israeli citizens to form an anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli political block.

The new Israeli Muslim citizens would have plenty of incentives to improve their standard of living rather than sacrifice their livelihood to violent, religion-motivated illusions. The experience of the last decade must have taught them that hatred and terrorism do not improve the standard of living, except for that of the corrupt terrorist leadership. Given a free choice, there is little doubt that the new Israeli Arab citizens will adopt Western democratic values and abandon militant Islam. Besides, the State of Israel will outlaw militant radical Islamism, just as it outlawed militant radical Judaism, i.e., Rabbi Kahane’s followers. 

Israeli Muslims will have to make the same choice Muslims must make in Italy, Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Canada or the USA. Notwithstanding potential abuses by unscrupulous local politicians, if members of Muslim minorities chose to join militant international Islamism to the detriment of their host countries, they would be crushed and expelled. No country will tolerate an ethnic or religious minority that tries to undermine its regime. It is noteworthy that France, the cradle of egalitarianism, restricts the legal rights of a major fraction of its Muslim population, already today.

This proposed solution would alleviate terrorism and allow Jews and Arabs to coexist in peace and prosperity in two truly independent states. Terrorism cannot be sustained without the active support of a large segment of the population as well as hefty extramural financial support. Consequently, Arab terrorism will not be maintained in Israel, just as it has not been committed by the overwhelming majority of the current Muslim citizens of Israel, over the last fifty-five years. In the absence of financial support to potential terrorists and a legal ban on religious incitement against any religion or ethnic group, and prohibition of political movements that advocate hatred of any ethnic group, Arab terrorism in Israel would be eliminated. It must be remembered that following a protracted history of Arab violence, freedom of expression might be curtailed, just as certain civil rights have been curtailed in the US as a result of the global war against Islamistic terrorism.

Most importantly, while this proposed political solution will allow the Jews in Israel to maintain a separate and sustainable existence as an ethical, democratic society, it will also allow the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to maintain a social and political structure of their choice under entirely unrestricted conditions.

Let us examine first the advantages of this suggested solution and then its requirements:

1. It would allow the coexistence of two completely independent states for two people, living side by side as envisioned by President Bush.

2. It offers a fair and ethical solution to the conflict, giving the Palestinians in Gaza and in Israel unprecedented political freedom and economic opportunities they would never have otherwise.

3. It would not require displacement of any Palestinian Arabs (except for known or suspected terrorists who would have to undergo due process and handled accordingly). Moreover, it would offer a political solution to the festering Arab stateless refugee problem.  Consequently, it would eliminate that sore political and humanitarian dilemma.

4. It would not require any “peace agreement” with any Palestinian organization or endorsement by any Arab country. This is a highly significant advantage of this unilateral plan in view of the history of repeated violations of such agreements by the Arabs.

5. The relationship with Arab countries may remain hostile or a “cold peace” could be maintained with some of them. However, the proposed solution will deprive the Arabs of some of the more virulent aspects of their propaganda.

6. It would allow the Jews to rule 90% of their ancient homeland while offering Christian and Muslims free access and Jurisdiction over their holy places, as has been demonstrated by the Jewish state in the last 55 years.

7. It would alleviate the arguments about the Jewish villages and towns established beyond the 1949 armistice line, as well as about the 261 Arab “illegal settlements” set up in parallel in the same disputed territories since 1967.

8. It would demonstrate that a fairly large Muslim minority could live in harmony with Jews and Christians (free of militant Islamistic oppression). The State of Israel could thus offer a model to certain European countries, such a Holland, Italy or Germany, even the US, how to maintain a Muslim minority citizenry free of Wahabistic influence.

9. Considering the unmatched rapid expansion of Israeli technology, this political solution would provide well paying jobs to the new Muslim naturalized citizens as well to the citizens of the new Palestinian state. At the same time it would allow Israel to remain economically competitive in the HiTech market vis-à-vis the US and Japan.

10. At the same time, with an appropriate non-theocratic regime (see Singapore), the Palestinian Arabs could enjoy a booming economy unmatched in the Arab world, surpassing even the newly democratized Iraq.  The economic success of Israel shows that oil export is not a prerequisite for prosperity in the modern world.

11. The accommodation of a large Muslim minority is expected to make the Jewish orthodoxy in Israel more tolerant of non-Jews and secular Jews, bringing Israel closer to separation of “Church from State,” following the US model. 

The other “peace plans,” including the American “Roadmap,” are likely to polarize the Jewish population, pitting the nationalistic Jewish orthodoxy against secular liberal Jews. This polarization that in other “two state” solutions would focus on free access to Jewish holy sites in Judea and Samaria, might end up in a Jewish civil war where both Jews and Arabs might become victims of extremism.

12. Israel’s proximity and its national interests would protect the integrity of the new Palestinian state if it became affluent and the envy of some Arab neighbor (see Beirut). This would be similar to the “unofficial” protection of Jordan by Israel as a buffer state between Israel and Saudi Arabia or Iraq. However, Israel will have to keep a watchful eye on the new Palestinian state since even Jordan, whose strategic interests dictate a harmonious relationship with Israel, did not hesitate to attack the Jewish state in 1967 and to side with Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War.

13. It would deprive the militant Islamic nations from being militant “protectors” of the Palestinian Arabs (without giving them substantial assistance except for arms to kill Jews, salaries for terrorists, and payoffs to their families).

14. Removal of the Palestinian issue might destabilize certain despotic Islamic regimes and eliminate a religious unifying cause among Muslims worldwide (see Mahathir Bin Mohammad of Malaysia). From the political standpoint of the United States this would be a certain advantage.

15. It would substantially reduce the security burden of Israel that impedes its economic progress. Obviously, it would make Israel’s security fence unnecessary, which it would become a historical relic like the Great Wall in China.

16. The US would end up with a strengthened democratic staunch ally in the Middle East. If the new Palestinian state became a true democracy (which is likely given the huge economic benefits) the US would acquire another political ally.

Let us now examine the tough prerequisites of the proposal:

1. This plan requires total recapture of Judea and Samaria, following a major terrorist attack, and arrest of the leadership of the PLO and its allied terrorist organizations (no such action would be necessary in the Gaza Strip). It would, therefore, meet violent resistance from the Palestinian Wahabists and other Islamistic clergy whose future would be very dim in the new constellation. This might result in severe bloodshed of Jews, Christians and Arabs (including many Arab proponents of this solution who would be considered traitors to the Arab cause). In any case, Arab international militancy will have to be squelched in any case by decisive force as part of the Islamistic war against the West.

2. Military enforcement of this plan by Israel will require unqualified American political and economic backing, because the French and their allies in the EU, Canadians, and American “liberals” (in brief, all those who wish to see the Jewish state liquidated) are expected to scream murder and try to undermine this plan as part of their global anti-American campaign. This would call for a tremendous political determination by the American Administration in response to appropriate public support.

3. American support of Israel could result in terrorism in the US to dissuade the Americans from supporting the Israelis. However, if Israel was defeated by the Arabs, which would be very likely within 20 years following implementation of the current “Roadmap” or its related “peace plans,” the US will be the next victim of an invigorated Arab aggression. By then Europe might be a Muslim satellite, leaving the US, Russia and China as the major adversaries of emboldened Islam. If Russia and China remain more dictatorial (which quite likely) and therefore more ruthless, militant Islam may conclude that the US is a softer target, where it could eliminate both Western democracy and its techno-economic base.

4. Israel would have to give up part of its territory to the new Palestinian state in Gaza, and possibly vacate some Jewish town and villages, including Kfar Darom, which existed in the Gaza Strip before 1948. However, these “land for peace” concessions would be a small price to pay for a peaceful, long-term coexistence. This would also show the Palestinians that creation of their independent state (not a landlocked Bantu-land, as stated in Arab propaganda) was not a one-sided deal.

5. As stated above, a critical component of this proposed plan is to gain the hearts and minds of the American public in face of Arab propaganda and leftist opposition to any solution to the problem other than the eventual liquidation of the Jewish state, the creation of which they consider a historical mistake. An aggressive PR counter offensive in the US must therefore, precede the implementation of this plan.

Notwithstanding the expedient position of the American Secretary of State, who is ready to negotiate with Arafat or his emissaries, the American public must become aware that tolerating the PLO regime in the “disputed territories” is worse than tolerating the Baatist regime in Iraq.  Tens of thousand of young hateful fanatic murderers are potentially more dangerous for the Western world than some weapons of mass destruction.  These might be the people who will wield such weapons as super suicide bombers. 

This process of “education” for murder has been going now for ten years, since the implementation of the ill-fated Oslo “peace process.”  Little time is left before those youngsters, who have been taught little more than hatred and terrorist techniques, will hatch and be activated by the PLO, Hammas or Al Queda in the streets of Tel Aviv, New York or Chicago.  This factor alone, carefully documented for years, should have been sufficient to justify the immediate removal of the PLO from power.

One might then wonder at the restraint of the Israeli government facing this unprecedented threat to its citizens and to Western civilization. The reason for this restraint is the heavy political and economic pressure of the American Administration on the Israeli government. This pressure is the indirect result of the ambivalence of the American public bombarded for years by Arab propaganda regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.

If the Administration were confident in having the public firmly behind it in handling the variety of Islamistic threats, including the mass production of potential murderers by the PA, it might have acted very differently. The ambiguous public reaction to the terrorism in Iraq enhanced by irresponsible statements by some of the leaders of the Democratic Party makes American Administration less decisive, which is reflected in a similar indeciveness of the Sharon government.

Most importantly, the American public must realize that Yasser Arafat is a devout Islamistic terrorist like Osama bin Laden, but at the same time he is just as corrupt as Sadam Hussein, stealing a billion Dollars from his people and stashing them in personal European bank accounts, and just as ruthless in intimidating potential political opponents.  Still the American Administration has prevented the Israelis from going after Arafat, presumably for fear of European uproar. However, the same administration has not hesitated to Ignore Europe and the “Arab street” when it went after Osama bin Laden and Sadam. As stated above, the Administration seems not confident in the backing of the American public. This explains the double standard applied to threatened American versus Israeli national interests.  What is overlooked is, however, that tacit support of Arafat has already cost tens of American lives, and might result in much greater American losses in the foreseeable future.

Last but not least, the American public must recognize that Israel is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East with full freedom of the press and equal rights of all its citizens, irrespective of creed, faith, gender or sexual orientation.  The Arab citizens of Israel enjoy a higher standard of living than in practically any Arab or Islamic country, including the major oil producers. This much for the Arab “Apartheid” propaganda.

These points are just the tip of the iceberg of objective arguments that must be brought to the attention of the American public to counter the lies of Arab propaganda, making everyone understand Israel’s intent to liberate the Palestinian Arabs and the world from the scourge of PLO terrorism. Moreover, it must be made clear to the public that, as stated repeatedly above, the ideology behind my proposed solution of the conflict follows the classical American values of personal freedom and equality under the law.

Naturally, I am biased in favor of my proposed plan. I may have overlooked, therefore, some of its disadvantages and shortcomings. I welcome any objective, constructive criticism. Open-mindedness to criticism is a major advantage of Western culture over contemporary Islam.  I do believe that a major reform in Islam, making it compatible with Western civilization, is still going to occur in the 21^st Century. It is way overdue. However, the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot wait. My proposed alternative unilateral political solution to the current peace initiatives, including the US sponsored “Roadmap to Peace,” warrants, therefore, serious consideration.

November 23, 2003

Enclosed are excerpts from a typical critique of this essay:

Dear Michael

It's interesting how much we think alike in general, but there certainly are differences. I disagree with you. First - I hope you don't think this is too flippant - having been to Gaza, I'm hoping someday to go there as a vacationer. The parts that the Jews live in have become beautiful. Also, it is important to Israel's security to monitor Arab traffic on the Mediterranean. And I don't see how anyone can trust the Arabs to keep their word. You don't give up real estate for a hope and a wish and an unreliable promise.

I don't see the Temple Mount or the tabernacle site in Elon Moreh or Rachel's Tomb as 2-D icons. I got very emotional when we climbed the Aliyah step on the South side of the Temple Mount. In fact, I think that it is a failing that too many Israelis see these physical survivals of our fundamental identity as a people just as symbols or just as real estate. Arafat certainly understands that it is their physical presence – their having been there for thousands of years - that is important. Why else would he be destroying the Temple artifacts?

 

I also don't agree that Israeli Arabs are loyal. Michael Kleiner of Herut has said that estimates of Israeli Arab radicalism and their identification with the 'Palestinians' go
as high as 90% - but of course this is kept private.

Sincerely

 Berni

And here is my response:

Dear Berni:

Let me respond to your critique of my "Gaza plan":

 

1. It does not call for ANY agreement with Arabs so I do not have to trust them, which I don't anyhow because their religion permits deceit of infidels.

2. It alleviates a major part (about 45%) of the demographic problem as I detailed in my essay.

3. What is not less important, we end up with "two states for two people” without endangering the future of the State of Israel. The formation of a "Palestinian" state (no matter how big) is a prestige item for George Bush and even more so for the EU. Even if we get away with the status quo for the next five years, we may end up with a Hillary or Dean in the White House who will not hesitate to throw Israel to the dogs (i.e., the Arab controlled UN and the American Democrats some of whom claim already today that Israel has no right to exists), if not sending American Planes to bombard Tel Aviv (remember Belgrade!). The disengagement from the Arabs in one way or another must take place before 2008. Sharon understands this. What I am proposing is, however, substantially more advantageous to the future of Israel than leaving Arab enclaves in Judea and Samaria, which I am extremely worried about.

4. Strategically the Gaza state’s threat is insignificant because, just like the State of Israel with an Arab state in Samaria and Judea, it is vulnerable along a lengthy border. If the Egyptians moved into Gaza a significant army it would be cut off like the Third Army in 1973. The Egyptians know this and may not move a significant part of their army even to Rafah for fear it will be surround and cut off.

5. As far as controlling the Mediterranean, Israel has a MUCH longer coastline than the Gaza Strip. Besides, to control the Mediterranean Israel needs these days the Hills of Judea and Samaria and not the dunes of Gaza.

6. I must smile at your lamenting the potential loss of the Gaza Riviera.  If the Palestinians will be sensible you will be still able to go there as a tourist. Following your logic the Lebanese coast up to and including Beirut are by far more attractive. Should Israel try to occupy those?

7. Like many Jewish Americans you seem to be paranoid about the Israeli Arabs contrary to the facts on the ground (see my essay "A danger that is not real").

By the same token we should be worrying about the Chicanos in California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona who do have a small militant Mexican nationalistic element that claims than the USA has stolen their land, which should be part of Mexico. As long as these people do not use violence they should be tolerated like any other ethnic minority or crazy political party (we have many lunatics in this country and so does Israel). If and when these people become violent they must be kicked out of this country, the sovereignty of which they deny. The same should be true of Israeli Arabs.

The key issue in the Arab Israeli conflict is the recognition of the historical right of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland including all its national and religious symbols (see my essays "Israel's Right to Exist” and “Targeting Symbols”). We can live in harmony only with Arabs who accept this right. The trouble is that at this moment Israel has no constitution that obligates all its citizens to accept this right (see my "A Danger that is not Real").

With best regards,

Michael