Scenarios of Israel’s Future
Michael Anbar PhD
Hearing the sad news about the latest murderous attacks in Jerusalem, one keeps wondering when will all this end? What is the future of the State of Israel and where is it going? One wonders if Israel has a long-range strategy based on a rational choice among the possible alternatives. What is that strategy? What is the future of the Jewish people; a future intimately interwoven with the future of the one and only Jewish state as well as with the future of Western civilization, which is based on Judaic fundamentals?
Let us try and analyze the current situation objectively:
The continued existence of the Jewish people, the oldest nation on planet Earth, has been threatened in the last 70 years as never before. The Jewish ideal to be a light onto the nations, a light that shows the way without coercion, is now in danger of being extinguished. This nation, with its unique culture, which helped it survive for 3300 years thanks to its intrinsic ingenuity and ethics, has been maligned and persecuted consecutively by three supremacist political movements -- the Nazis, the Communists and now the Islamists. But unlike the Communists who wanted to eliminate Judaism by assimilation, the Nazis and the Islamists have made the physical eradication of the Jewish people a central dogma in their ideologies. Nazism has been crushed and eliminated by Western civilization, but not before murdering almost half of the world’s Jewry. Presently, the 100 million strong Islamists are the current mortal enemies of Judaism. Unlike the Nazis they add to their virulent anti-Semitism a religious fervor reminiscent of defunct medieval Christianity.
The anti-Jewish propaganda (not necessarily anti-Israeli) ongoing throughout the Islamic world parallels anti-American hateful misinformation. Lately, these activities spread also to certain European countries. Ironically, the Jew hating genocidal Islamists, who want to exterminate the minute Jewish nation (~0.2% of the world population) with its unique culture, are being actively politically supported by non-Muslim leftists, including Jews, who would put up a bitter fight at the prospect of extinction of endangered sub-species of frogs or butterflies. The number of Jew-hating Muslims is not trivial. It is estimated that about 10% of the 1.3 Billion Muslims are sympathizers and supporters of Islamism. This number is likely to grow if Islamism is politically victorious.
The blatant animosity of Islamism toward Jews stems from the chasm between the ethical values of Judaism and Islam. For one, Judaism glorifies life while Islam is passionate about death. Unlike Allah, the Jewish God never asked people to die so as to kill an enemy (See “It is all about Ethics”). This animosity is emboldened by the 1400-year-old Islamic tradition about the violent attacks of Muhammad on the Jews of Arabia that resulted in their brutal extermination. The hatred of Judaism by Islamists would have existed even if Jews had not resettled in Israel, their ancient homeland. Jews were massacred, persecuted or oppressed by Muslims since the emergence of Islam. [Bat Ye’or The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1985)]
The so-called “occupation” of disputed territories or establishment of Jewish “settlements” in the ancient Land of Israel (on both sides of the “green line”; See “Israel and the “Palestinian” Subculture” and “An Open Letter to MK Avraham Burg.”) is not the true cause of the animosity, they are just excuses for traditional Islamic Judeophobia. Osama bin Laden and his ilk in Arabia and Egypt would still have lashed out at the Jews as part of their assault on the West. This could be seen in the recent infamous speech of Mahathir Bin Mohammad of Malaysia.
Mahathir Bin Mohammad, the Malaysian PM, came up at the opening of the tenth session of the Islamic summit conference, in Putrajaya, Malaysia, October 16, 2003, with a classical anti-Semitic diatribe. He stated that Greedy, bloodthirsty Jews control the whole world, including America, and that there is a "Jewish agenda" to keep Muslim nations weak. This little evil people must be eliminated by the Islamic Umma, continued Bin Muhammad, “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews.” (http://www.oicsummit2003.org.my/speech_03.php )
The resettlement of the Land of Israel by Jews from all over the world has been an intensified manifestation of an intrinsic two-thousand-years-old Judaic tenet to reestablish Jewish sovereignty over the ancient Jewish homeland (See “Do they understand what Zionism is all about?”). This was rekindled by 19th Century nationalism that was followed by augmented religious Christian and Islamic Misojudaism. (Miso-Judaism = Gr. hate of Judaism; I prefer “Misojudaism” to Judeophobia = fear of Jews and obviously to anti-Semitism, which is a racist, meaningless obsolete term, however to avoid confusing the reader with this new term, I will continue to use those old, more familiar terms)
Following the pogroms in Russia and the Ukraine, 19th Century Zionists realized the need for reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in its ancient homeland, and some Zionists have perceived instinctively the impending Holocaust in Europe. Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1880-1940, historian, author and politician, founder of a major faction of the Zionist movement, had an incredible premonition or an outstanding historical insight of the impending Holocaust, more than twenty years before it happened. Jabotinsky advocated the mass emigration of Polish Jewry to Palestine (under the British Mandate in those days). Today we have much clearer indications of an imminent disaster. This time half of the post-Holocaust world Jewry that has established a significant political presence in the ancient Jewish homeland, is at a well-perceivable risk of extermination.
The existential danger to the State of Israel extends to the whole Jewish nation. The Judeophobic Muslims believe that Allah has concentrated so many Jews in the Land of Israel to make it easier for the Muslims to eliminate them by the sword. The Arabs, under the guidance of Egypt, have created and supported the PLO for this purpose, years before 1967, to coordinate demoralizing terrorist attacks on the Jewish state by a host of semi-autonomous terrorist organizations. This terrorism is intended to break down the morale of the Israelis and force them into a non-defensible position so as to facilitate the “great” genocidal Arab military attack. Such an Arab attack will most probably involve Syrian chemical and biological warfare against the densely populated Israel. This threat would still be around even if Iran did not attain nuclear warfare capability. Surprisingly, the US is continuing to arm the Egyptian army with modern military hardware. In view of the recent political changes in Libya, Israel is the only conceivable target of these arms.
The “Roadmap to Peace”, contrived by the US Department of State as part of the political effort to build up a UN coalition against Iraq, was dead on arrival. President George W. Bush killed it by his June 24, 2002 speech. The PLO will not convert and turn the PA into a democracy voluntarily more readily than the Baath Party did in Iraq. To reach any political solution of the conflict one will have to get rid not only of Yasser Arafat, the “Rais”, but also of the whole PLO leadership and infrastructure.
What then could be the different scenarios that can take place in the Arab-Israeli conflict and what are their respective consequences?
1. Liquidation of the Jewish state
The destruction and elimination of Israel, “the Zionist entity” in Islamistic lingo, has been the declared objective of the Arabs in the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973. (See “Crime and Punishment”) Suffering painful casualties, Israel has repeatedly repelled those assaults. But since the Arabs have not given up on this intent, future military attacks on the minute Jewish country are still possible. If Israel lost its moral strength and determination, such a future assault may be devastating. The destruction of the Jewish state is still a possibility. Israel must maneuver wisely to minimize its chances, and possibly prevent it from ever taking place. This danger will continue to exist until the West decisively defeats Islamism and the Arab countries change from theocracies to democracies.
In the meantime, considering different possible scenarios for the future of Israel, we should not exclude the worse of all possibilities for the Jewish people and the West. Israel would not survive if the UN, controlled by the Muslim and other Third World countries, had its way. Unlike the democratic multicultural United States and Canada, the Arab nation is subdivided into 22 individual countries that share a single cultural background, each with its own despotic ruler. This paradox is reflected in the incredibly bizarre, unethical behavior of the UN when dealing with any conflict involving the Arab nation.
One incredible scenario would be to liquidate the Jewish state in an orderly fashion by mass emigration, dispersing its Jewish population worldwide to prevent its physical annihilation by the blood thirsty Arabs. This is a ridiculous scenario, almost a cruel joke if not occasionally seriously entertained in some quarters behind closed doors. Such a scenario would meet the immediate wishes of the Islamists who do not tolerate any Jews in Dar el-Islam, the Islamic world domain. Also the world’s liberals, Marxists and anarchists including some Jews, who claim that the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was a gross mistake (See Tony Judt “Israel: The Alternative,” NY Review of Books 50, [16] October 23, 2003), would gladly endorse this “solution”. Such a “benign solution” (voluntary ethnic cleansing) will be applauded also by pacifists and humanists. Also the US Department of State and the British Foreign Office, seemingly oblivious to the global Islamic assault on the West, will be happy about removal of a major friction point between the Muslims and the West. The UN’s Secretary General would then proudly declare that a “major blunder” of the UN has been finally corrected and a new holocaust has been prevented by international political wisdom.
It is clear, however, that the Israelis will never accept such an option. The devastation of Israel as a politically independent Jewish state will certainly involve a bloody battle of cataclysmic dimensions, with far reaching consequences, affecting not only the Jewish people but also all of Western civilization.
Judaism, which has survived the last 2000 years on the hope of eventual return to the Jewish ancestral land, could not go on after such a cataclysm, which surpasses the Holocaust in its national and religious ramifications. Giving up on the premise of eventual return to Israel, which was upheld even in the most dreadful times in Jewish history, would amount to the end of Judaism, as we know it, entailing rapid assimilation and religious conversion of Jews worldwide.
Israeli socialist political leaders, including Burg, Beilin, Mitzna, Sarid and probably also Peres and Barak, who were ready to willfully concede the uncompromised Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem for sheer political expediency, have never understood the conceptual meaning of Zionism in Judaism. Willfully giving up the very idea that Jerusalem is exclusively the ancient capital of the Jewish nation (hence its symbolic meaning also in Christianity) is almost as a tragic momentous decision, from a Jewish national standpoint, as giving up sovereignty over the rest of the Land of Israel. Consequently, it is conceivable that pragmatic Jewish socialistic pacifists, raised on Marxist atheistic, anti-national ideology, might accept the liquidation of the religion-based “Zionist entity” (as the Arabs call the State of Israel). Otherwise, it would be hard to explain their readiness to put Israel and the Jewish people in existential danger, tantamount to national suicide, in order to reach “peace” with the insatiable Arabs. These misguided politicians refuse to realize that Islamism mandates the elimination or subjugation of Jews, irrespective of Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel. This has been the reason for mass emigration of Jews from all Arab countries.
It cannot be overemphasized that the potential liquidation of the Jewish state would be disastrous not only for the Jewish people but just as ominous to all of Western civilization, which is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values (See “Fort Israel on the Global Frontier”). It would bolster the Muslim belief in the supremacy of Islam over Judaism and Christianity, and embolden them to proceed with violent conquest and destruction of the political structure and culture of all “infidels.” It must be realized that Islamists consider democracy a Western religion, the practitioners of which must be eliminated as pagans.
Because Islam, a supremacist violent “culture of death,” is politically unified, while the West is politically fragmented by “progressive”, pacifistic elements in its society, a military victory of Islam is conceivable, in spite of the technological superiority of the West. An Islamic “new world order” may also be helped by the legal and illegal infiltration of millions of Muslim into Europe and America, gaining political power (See Bat Ye’or “Eurabia The road to Munich” National Review, October 9, 2002. See also, Oriana Fallaci, “The Rage and the Pride” Rizzoli International Publ., New York, 2002). Like a virus in a live organism, the Muslims are trying to use the democratic institutions of West in order to destroy it from within. Already today French foreign policy is dictated by this new reality, thanks to De Gaulle’s political myopia. (See “Sharon is the PM of Israel, not of the Palestinians.”) De Gaulle’s concessions to the Algerian Muslim rebels produced Fatah (“conquest” in Arabic) under the leadership of Yasser Arafat and encouraged him to try to dislodge the Jews from Israel, just as the French colonialists were from Algeria.
In brief, the idea endorsed by some that the liquidation of the State of Israel will bring peace to the world, is grossly naïve. Such a possibility will lead to the eventual destruction of Western civilization, as we know it. Therefore, in spite of the rhetoric of some Jew-hating liberals, it behooves the West to prevent the destruction of Israel, if for nothing else then for self-preservation. One should not forget the Arab saying “After the people of Saturday come the people of Sunday,” meaning that after the Jews are eliminated, Islam will do the same to Christians.
2. A retreat to the 1949 armistice line and creation of a new independent Arab state
This scenario would mean surrender to the Arab demands and unconditionally retreat to the 1949 armistice line plus creating a new independent Arab state west of the River Jordan. Advocated by a vocal minority of Israelis and by the Arab-manipulated European Union, this scenario would give the Muslims an interim political victory with three unfavorable consequences:
1. The Muslims will use this incredible Israeli concession as proof that terrorism can be a productive political tactic, leading to a desirable outcome. Such an outcome would embolden the Islamists to proceed with their global plans to conquer the West using demoralizing terrorism tactically. And the thousands of terrorists trained and brainwashed in the PA to hate and kill all non-Muslims, would be used in the Islamic assault on the West, especially on the US.
2. A complete retreat to the 1949 armistice line implies evacuation of all the Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria as well as major suburbs of Jerusalem. This would not only result in the forceful uprooting of some 250,000 Jews by the IDF (risking a civil war in Israel), but it also will legitimize the Arab Islamistic rule that no infidel can live on sovereign Arab land. The new state of Palestine will be the second Arab country, after Saudi Arabia to follow the Wahabist doctrine of ultimate religious intolerance. This doctrine brought forth Bin Laden’s anti-Western terrorism. It is bizarre that the US Department of State is insisting that the incipient Palestinian political entity be Judenrein (free of Jews), while the West is trying to encourage Muslim society to become tolerant of other religions and cultures.
There is little doubt that the recent incipient Israeli plan to evacuate Jewish communities from the Gaza strip, including villages such as Kfar Darom that were Jewish before 1948 and were overrun by the Egyptian invading army, has been formulated under hardly explicable, tacit extremely intense US political pressure on Sharon’s government. The last thing the US is expected to do while under attack by Ba’atist terrorism in Iraq is to yield to terrorism in a nearby arena and pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions to the PLO.
3. This new Arab state, Palestine, will very likely be used as bridgehead in the forthcoming Arab military offensive, spearheaded by Egypt, on a tactically indefensible Israel. This may result either in the demise of the State of Israel in a bloody war or in another Israeli victory. If Israel prevails militarily, because it will fight an existential war like in 1948, 1967 and 1973, it will overrun the new Arab state. This time Israel will again have the option of reshaping the map of the Middle East and put an end to Palestinian Arab aggression. Following such a victory, Israel will, however, be ill advised to expel the whole Arab population of the conquered new Palestinian state, as some suggest, as this would perpetuate the current political crisis.
However, there is little point to wait for another Arab military assault, as Israel can reoccupy today all the disputed territories at a much lower cost and follow option #6 (see below).
In brief, Israeli retreat to the 1949 armistice line is a poor option from the standpoints of both the Jewish people and the Western world.
3. Maintaining the current state of affairs indefinitely.
Although the statistics are not disastrous, Arab terrorism has a devastating demoralizing effect on the Israelis, who will elect any government that promises to stop terrorism for good. Sharon’s government was expected to do just that, but failed. The Israelis may then elect a government that will try to capitulate to Arab terrorism, paradoxically encouraging more of it. The Arabs will not be satisfied until they remove the last vestige of Jewish sovereignty form the Middle East. Such a possible change in government is an inherent weakness of Israel’s democracy. While the current state of affairs hurts the Palestinian population economically much more than it affects the Israelis, the despotic regime in the PA territories precludes any significant change in its leadership or policy. This is especially true when Arafat and his ilk realize that terrorism might pay off. Continued Arab terrorism may possibly stampede the Israelis into a suicidal political trap. We saw indication of this trend in the formulation of the “Geneva accords.” (See “Separate and Sustainable Existence.”)
Delusionary pacifists worldwide, including President Carter, have praised these “accords”, tacitly endorsed by Arafat, which do not guarantee an end of terrorism or to the Arab intent to convert all the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean into an Islamic state. Those naïve proponents fail to see the dire implications of the “Geneva accords.”
The restraint manifested by Sharon’s government under US and European political and economic pressure, and under the influence of liberal partners in Sharon’s coalition, result in inconsistent reactions to Arab terrorist attacks. This resulted in a loss of Israel’s military deterrence, which is being replaced by far less effective defensive measures, i.e., the costly, highly publicized defensive fence. (See “An Open Letter to Dr. Bard” and “Who is Hiding Behind the Fence”)
It is noteworthy that many liberals object even to the construction of this purely defensive measure, which will reduce the friction with most of the Palestinian Muslims and reduce civilian casualties on both sides of the fence. This objection, which echoes the objection of the PLO to the fence (the fence will make it harder for Fatah and other terrorists to cross over and cause havoc in Israeli cities), demonstrates how liberals often parrot Arab positions without giving them much thought.
It must be realized, however, that short of regime change in the disputed territories, deterrence has a limited effect in this conflict. The Egyptians, for one, are ready to fight the Israelis to the last Palestinian Arab, and Arafat is happy to sacrifice as many of his Arabs as needed to achieve his personal political goals. Actually, Arafat, who does not care about his subjects like most brutal dictators, is happy to maximize Arab civilian casualties because this gives him a valuable political weapon in the battle on Western public opinion (See “Israel’s Western Front” and “Who is Hiding Behind the Fence”).
This may explain Sharon’s defensive policy, but unfortunately, he fails to explain it to the confused Israeli public.
In Brief, the status quo cannot be maintained indefinitely without the severe risk that it might lead to a collapse of the defensive posture of democratic Israel long before bringing down the aggressive despotic PLO regime.
4. Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan.
Conceptually, this scenario is a derivative of the Israeli defensive posture discussed above (scenario #3.), like the latter option it does not offer a long-term solution. Although intuitively plausible, it is non-realistic just like Colin Powell’s Roadmap to Peace. To be practical both plans require a complete change of regime in the Palestinian entity, which is extremely unlikely to happen without an all out confrontation with the PLO. (See “The Roadmap to Peace,” “There Must be More to It,” and “The Aqaba Implosion”
Sharon’s unilateral plan is just as non-realistic as the Roadmap plan. Powell’s plan cannot be implemented without complete voluntary elimination of the terrorist organizations in the PA territories. Nobody in his right mind in the West will accept a Palestinian state that will be a base for international terrorism. Once a Palestinian state was created any terrorism it generates outside of its borders is international terrorism, even if it tries to targets mainly Israelis and other Jews worldwide. It is inevitable that Palestinian trained professional terrorists would be hired by different international terrorist organizations. They may be used in Iraq already today.
Moreover, the Roadmap also requires a voluntary replacement of the despotic PLO rule by a democratic regime. This will never happen.
Sharon’s unilateral plan is just as non-realistic because it leaves the Palestinian militant political structure intact, even if isolated. With the very best border security arrangements along hundreds of miles, Arab terrorism cannot be completely prevented, especially since it is international and can reach Israel from many directions other than the security fence. We have seen Arab terrorists coming to Israel from the UK and even from Japan, using Marxist and anarchist accomplices. Islamic international terrorism is not being confined by the fenced Palestinian entity. Therefore, since the security fence or unilateral separation does not offer a political solution to the conflict, anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish terrorism abroad will continue. Moreover, by vacating Jewish settlements in the process of unilateral separation, Sharon would offer the Arabs territorial and political victories that will only embolden them to enhance intramural and extramural terrorism, targeting Jews and Americans worldwide.
If Sharon’s unilateral disengagement were utterly successful, which means complete isolation of the Palestinian Arabs in hermetic confinement, Israel would end up with a terrible political and humanitarian liability for putting the Palestinians in a pressure cooker. Israel might then lose the last few sympathizers it has today, including many Americans. On the other hand, the extramural Arabs, including many Israeli Arabs, will feel morally obligated to help the confined Palestinians, not by economic aid but by arms. The unilateral separation plan may, therefore, not achieve even its goal of improving the security of Israeli citizens. It might even expedite an Arab military offensive against the Jewish state.
The idea that the confined Palestinians will then join the Jordanian Palestinians in toppling the Jordanian monarchy and create a single Palestinian state, with which Israel would be able to reach a modus vivandi, is also non-realistic, as we will see analyzing the next scenario (Scenario #5).
In brief, both the American “Roadmap” and Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan, as they stand, are badly flawed and will never fly. The author is worried, however, that in spite the fatal shortcomings of the disengagement plan, Sharon may go ahead with it (See however “There must be more to it”) Sharon has made lately inexplicable decisions, including the recent prisoner exchange with Hezbollah in which 430 Arab prisoners were released in exchange for the corpses of three Israeli kidnapped soldiers and one Israeli civilian with a dubious reputation, who is resisting debriefing by Israeli intelligence. Sharon has also started planning the evacuation of 17 established settlements in the Gaza strip, ostensibly in preparation for the unilateral disengagement plan. Hopefully he has in mind the “Gaza alone” scenario (see “Rationale of an Alternative”).
On the other hand, even if Israel with political American help removed the PLO from power and eradicated its satellite terrorist organizations, there would be little point to establish a new Arab state. That state must remain only partially independent, due to Israel’s security concerns, and therefore it will be receptive to incitement and support of anti-Israeli terrorism by the neighboring Arab countries. This would then be a new version of the post-Oslo situation, possibly with a regime that is somewhat friendlier to Israel but regarded as traitorous by the Arab world.
One must conclude that the establishment of a semi-independent Palestinian state is not practical unless Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran and the Sudan undergo regime-changes, form pro-Western democracies, ban Islamism for good, and unconditionally recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. Since this is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, there is little point to talk about a new Arab state west of the River Jordan. It is surprising that the US administration and part of the Israeli public do not realize these simple facts.
5. Virtual annexation of the “disputed territories” to Jordan.
This is essentially Benny Elon‘s “The Right Road to Peace” plan (FrontPage Magazine, June 9, 2003). Elon, Israel’s Minister of Tourism, postulates a two state solution namely Jordan and Israel with the Arabs residing on the West Bank becoming citizens of Jordan. As part of this plan, Israel would destroy the PA terrorist infrastructure and expel the terrorists. This plan is evidently more ethical than the notorious “transfer” plan, which called for the physical expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs, but it is just as non-realistic for other reasons.
Elon’s plan is non-realistic because it would be suicidal for the Jordanian ruling Bedouin clan, which barely controls its current Palestinian citizenry. The Palestinians, who will not have given up the desire to eradicate the Jewish state, would then rule Jordan. This would evidently lead to a breakdown of the Jordanian-Israeli peace. Then Israel would have some three million enemy citizens residing in Israeli territory. A militant Islamic Palestinian state in Jordan, supported by Egypt, Syria, Arabia and Iran with a proclaimed fifth column in Israel would be by far more dangerous to the existence of the Jewish state than the current uneasy situation.
Would it be possible to make the Arab Muslims, the Palestinian Muslims in particular, recognize the historical right of the Jews to their ancient homeland and stop hating non-Muslims, there would be no reason for a virtual annexation of the West Bank territory to Jordan.
6. The binational scenario
The establishment of a “binational state” in the Land of Israel has been a political bogyman for Jews in Israel even before 1948. It was a slogan in the manifesto of Israeli Marxists, a small Jewish minority whose ideology rejected Jewish religion and Jewish nationality, yet accepted Jewish culture and the Hebrew language. Consequently, most other Israelis considered the term “binational state” a dirty word. However, the State of Israel included some 20% non-Jews from its very beginnings, and this percentage has remained virtually constant since then. The Arab citizens of Israel have enjoyed political freedom from day one, and many of them elect Arab representatives to the Knesset. The standard of living of Arab Israelis is substantially higher that that of Arabs masses in any Islamic country and therefore they prefer to live in Israel (See “A Danger that is not Real”). In fact, Israel is already today a binational state very much like Canada or Belgium. Arabic is an official language and the Israeli government supports separate Arab schools and Islamic religious institutions. Israel also respects Islamic religious laws in marital and family affairs.
Ironically, the Muslims in Um El-Fahem, the largest all Arab community inside the 1949 temporary boundary, who violently protested Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount (September 28, 2000), touting Arafat’s new uprising against Israel, demonstrated the other day against the suggestion of being annexed to the PA. They seems to prefer to remain citizens of the Jewish “oppressive” “Apartheid state” than become subjects of an Islamic theocratic tyranny.
Yasser Arafat’s initial strategy to conquer the Jewish state and covert it into an Arab “republic” a la Egypt or Syria, was to advocate the creation of a binational state between the River Jordan and the sea. In his duplicity, Arafat, a follower of the Egyptian “Islamic brotherhood,” which assassinated Anwar Sadat for signing a peace agreement with Israel, built up an image of a progressive secular Arab to blind the Israeli socialists who started to regard him as a legitimate friend and ally. Shimon Peres even initiated his acceptance as a senior member of the International Socialist Union. This is the same person, however, whom we see so often on the PA official TV screen praising Allah in practically every sentence and screaming “Jihad, Jihad, Jihad”. It is the same new senior member of the International Socialist Union who set up a whole educational system, starting in nursery school, to produce a new generation of Shahadists (Islamistic suicidal assassins) programmed to indiscriminately murder Jews and other “infidels”.
When the Israeli majority did not fall for this deception, Arafat revealed his true colors as an uncompromising Islamistic terrorist. Arafat’s behavior should not be surprising, because Muslims are permitted to deceive their enemies to meet their “noble” objectives. Also in the 9/11 atrocities, we saw devout Islamistic terrorists who were able to deceive Americans by masquerading as secular Arabs.
In any case, one must realize that the critical point is not the percentage of Muslims in the State of Israel, but in their recognition that Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. (See “Israel's right to exist”) If a prerequisite for Israeli citizenship was an oath of unambiguous recognition of this premise, and a pledge to defend it under all circumstances, Israel could absorb even more Muslim citizens (See “One Wall, One Man, One Vote” – not necessarily”). As detailed in “Rationale of an Alternative” and “A Danger that is not Real”, Israeli citizenship must involve allegiance to the State’s constitution and duties. It must be remembered that not all non-Jewish citizens of Israel are militant Muslims. Many of them are Christians and Druz. Even today there are Muslim Bedouins who serve loyally in the IDF. On the other hand, Subversion, insurrection and collaborating with enemies of the state by Jews or Muslims, should be punishable by mandatory, irrevocable expulsion after due process.
It is not too late to establish a constitution for the State of Israel that would resolve many political ambiguities, as pointed out earlier (“A Danger that is not Real”). Let me quote:
“Israel’s constitution must state that:
1. The Land of Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people (not just a Jewish state);
2. Hebrew is its official language;
3. The Zionist flag is its national flag; and
4. The 119 years old Zionist anthem is Israel’s national anthem.
5. …because the State of Israel is the only sovereign state of the Jewish nation, any member of this nation … who wishes to immigrate to Israel is potentially a refugee from ethnic and/or religious persecution and has therefore the right to be admitted as an immigrant …”
The fifth premise might be construed as discriminatory against Arabs. However, there are at least 22 Arab states and more than 30 additional Muslim states where persecuted Muslim Arabs could find refuge. For Jewish refugees of persecution, Israel is the only state that would be ready to admit them unconditionally.
One might question the ethical justification of imposing on all citizens of Israel, Jews, Christians and Muslims, recognition and adherence to certain ideological criteria of political Zionism. This requirement is not different, however, from the requirement that every American citizen recognizes and adheres to the principles of the American Constitution, the most sophisticated legal document in Western civilization, as well as to a few other symbols that characterize the US. That adherence has not prevented American ethnic, religious and cultural minorities from following their individual traditions and beliefs. The validity of American Constitution has not been negated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens are not British New-Englanders; these were no more a majority already fifty years after American independence.
Every country must have historical reasons for its existence, reasons that must be recognized by all its citizens, irrespective of their ethnic or cultural background. Israel has a 3300 yearlong history to justify its existence and recognition by the rest of the world. Every country must also have symbols that characterize it and make it distinguishable from other countries. Otherwise the world would become a single political entity with no rights to individual beliefs or behavior. The symbols of political Zionism, based on the Bible and subsequent history of an independent Jewish nation, express the unique characteristics of the Land of Israel and the modern State of Israel.
In this context it would be worthwhile to remind ourselves of the profound difference between Zionism and Islamism. Zionism is an ideology relevant to a small nation, the Jewish nation, connecting all Jews to their ancient historical homeland. Zionism would exist even if there were no persecution of Jews anywhere. In fact, by the turn of the 20th Century the ideology of “spiritual Zionism” advocated that the small minority of Jews living in the Land of Israel should constitute the spiritual center of the Jewish nation, while the overwhelming majority of world-Jewry would remain in the Diaspora. However, cruel reality created an urgent need for a physical refuge for oppressed and persecuted Jews. This favored the ideology of political over spiritual Zionism.
Islamism would have never accepted even such a benign but non-subjugated form of Zionism in the Land of Israel. Muslims consider this land as “Arab land,” or “Dar el Islam” i.e., land conquered by Muslims, which must therefore belong to Muslims for perpetuity, just as they do not accept the presence of Christians in Spain on “Arab land”.
Unlike Zionism, Islamism is not an inward-looking, intrinsically non-aggressive ideology, confined to a minute nation (0.2% of the world’s population) with strong ties to a miniscule piece of land (less than 0.02% of land on Planet Earth; smaller than the state of New Jersey). Islamism is an Ideology shared by at least 120 million Muslims (10% of all Muslims) with a proclaimed goal to subjugate all of humanity, by subterfuge and intimidation if possible, or by the sword if necessary.
It is noteworthy that Islamists project many of the negative attributes of their culture on the Jews. According to the Judeophobic Muslims it is the Jews who are trying to rule world, the Jews are greedy cheaters, the Jews are intolerant of people of other faiths, the Jews are thieves, invaders and occupiers, the Jews want to destroy Islam, and the list goes on. Similar Islamist propaganda is recently directed also against Americans. Unlike pathological liars who believe in their lies, Muslims typically avoid debating these accusations of Jews or Americans, because they know that these lies will be exposed. However, leftist “liberals” shamelessly parrot these lies and when challenged they respond irrationally with digressionary personal insults.
It is noteworthy that Islamists project many of the negative attributes of their culture on the Jews. According to the Judeophobic Muslims it is the Jews who are trying to rule world, the Jews are greedy cheaters, the Jews are intolerant of people of other faiths, the Jews are thieves, invaders and occupiers, the Jews want to destroy Islam, and the list goes on. Similar Islamist propaganda is recently directed also against Americans. Unlike pathological liars who believe in their lies, Muslims typically avoid debating these accusations of Jews or Americans, because they know that these lies will be exposed. However, leftist “liberals” shamelessly parrot these lies and when challenged they respond irrationally with digressionary personal insults.
While the Muslims have a significant political weight in the Israeli electorate, this is a far cry from a “demographic bomb”. It is noteworthy that the elections of Peres’ and of Barak’s Labor governments were made possible by Muslim voters, who were instigated by Arafat to vote for the political party that will more likely make concessions to the PLO. This explains Netanyahu’s recent open apprehension of Israeli Arab voters as threat to Israeli democracy. However, democracy should be maintainable in spite of ethnic differences. On the other hand, democracy must not permit meddling in its affair by aliens, be it Arabs, Americans or Europeans. In any case, in the absence of the strong influence of Egypt through the PLO, its surrogate, on Israeli Muslims, they will probably join political blocks based on social and economic considerations, like most Jewish voters, rather than political parties based on Arab nationalistic or Islamistic ideologies.
The current politically motivated unfounded demographic threat has been aggravated, however, by an absurd Arab demand of “the right of return” for descendants of 1948 Arab refugees. Such mass immigration would abolish the Jewish majority in the country and convert it into an Islamic republic (see “This precondition is Justified”).
There is no historical precedent or International law, predating 1948, that descendents of refugees have any legal right of return to the country of their original residence, although they can individually claim compensation for confiscated property of their immediate family. Consequently, since 1948 the State of Israel, unlike Russia, Poland and most Arab countries, has carefully kept ownership records of real estate owned by absentee refugees, Arabs in the case of Israel, occupied or used by Israeli citizens. In other words, the property of 1948 Arab refugees was not confiscated, as claimed by the Arabs, and the owners would be compensated for their lost property when a political settlement is reached. On the other hand, property of Jews in Arab countries was confiscated! It must still be returned to the original owners.
The Arab “right of return” will never materialize short of destruction of the State of Israel in a devastating war. Also, there is no chance for the Israeli Arab citizens, as many as there may be, to change the basic historical premise that Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people and that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are religions of equal standing.
As pointed out in “One Wall, One Man, One Vote” – not necessarily”, if there will ever be a choice between national survival of the Jewish people and formal democracy of “one man one vote”, the former will take precedence. Democracy has different meanings to different advocates of democracy. For instance, President Jimmy Carter, a past Democrat president, asserts that the PA is a legitimate democracy with Arafat being the legitimately elected president of the Palestinians. Arafat had the privilege of appointing his only opponent in the elections, an unknown Arab woman, who was not been heard from since. Arafat, like Saddam Hussein, or Stalin, before him, was elected by 99+% of the votes. President Carter, who volunteered to monitor those elections, declared that the 99+% of the votes Arafat got were legitimate. This reminds us of Carter’s declaration that the indiscriminate intentional murder of Jewish women and children by Arab suicide bombers is morally equivalent to living on Jewish land in the “disputed territories.” (USA Today, June 30, 2002). In the same essay Carter ascertains again that Arafat is the legitimately elected president of the PA.
The limitations of democratic formality of “one man one vote” are demonstrated in the UN, where Djibouti, Oman or Qatar plus the other 20 Arab states, each have an equivalent voting power as the US or China. No wonder that Israel is “democratically” continuously castigated and discriminated against in the UN by the voting power of the block of more than 50 Islamic member countries.
Ironically, the Israeli socialist leaders Burg, Beilin et al. who have been threatening the Israeli public with a “demographic danger” to Israel’s democracy less Israel concedes to Arab territorial demands, were those who did not hesitate to undermine the same democracy by unauthorized negotiations with the Arabs and by doing the anti-Israeli bidding for the EU after accepting millions of Dollars from the Europeans.
As pointed out in "A Danger that is not Real", the demographic problem (save the non-realistic Arab “right of return”) has been grossly exaggerated. Moreover, by extending absentee voting rights to Israeli citizens residing abroad, and possibly also to potential Jewish immigrants eligible according to the Israeli 1950 “law of return”, the “demographic catastrophe” of Israel losing its Jewish character can be avoided for good, even if Israel annexed all of the “disputed territories” with all of their resident Arabs. In addition, if Israel adopts a national constitution, Arabs who refuse to vow allegiance to the Jewish State might maintain their Jordanian citizenship and live in Israel as alien residents. It would then be up to Jordan to grant them Jordanian absentee ballots, which is quite unlikely.
This scenario of a binational state and the following one, have the advantage over the five previous ones in integrating the Arabs residing now in all or in part of the “disputed territories” into the democratic State of Israel as citizens with equal rights. They would be expected, however, to recognize and honor the historical and religious meaning the country has to its Jewish citizens, and not undermine the integrity and political structure of the host country. As a typical multicultural Western democracy, like the US or Canada, Israel should earn respect in the court of Western public opinion, which is critical for its international standing.
7. The establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Gaza
The suggestion to establish totally independent Palestinian city-state, like Singapore, in an expanded Gaza strip has been discussed at length in “Rationale of an Alternative.” This scenario involves the simultaneous annexation of the other “disputed territories” to Israel. The main advantages of this plan over the preceding scenario (#6) are:
1. It is a “two states for two people” solution, as envisioned by the US Administration and the EU. It would meet their commitment of creating an independent Palestinian state.
2. It gives the Palestinians international recognition as an independent nation, meeting a major demand of the Arabs.
3. It provides an outlet to the recent rapidly developing Palestinian self-identity.
4. It provides a formally recognized nationality for Muslim Palestinian Arabs who wish to reside in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan or elsewhere as alien residents.
5. It significantly diminishes the political demographic threat to Jewish sovereignty in Israel even if the Israelis chose to postpone implementing a national constitution, which might not be avoidable in the long run.
6. Because this new Palestinian state will not pose a major strategic security threat to Israel, it does not necessitate recognition of Israel by Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Syria or even Egypt that may prefer to maintain the animosity to Israel for internal political reasons. It does not even require recognition of Israel by the Palestinian government in Gaza. That government may prefer to maintain a state of belligerence with Israel, which should be of little concern to Israel, because, according to Islamic law, Arabs can arbitrarily abrogate any “peace treaty” between Arabs and Jews at any time.
7. On the other hand, it offers an opportunity for productive unrestricted economic cooperation between Israel and an independent Arab state, which can be a model for improved relationship between Israel and other Arab countries, especially Lebanon.
8. Mitigating the Arab-Israeli conflict, which now feeds the Islamistic anti-Western hatred, will give Israel necessary time to outlive the violent global conflict between Islamism and Western civilization, which may take a decade or two to resolve.
9. It requires the reeducation of a substantially smaller number of Muslim Arabs who have been programmed for decades to hate Jews, Israel and America. The success of the dePLOization (cf. deNazification) process will determine the political stability of the binational state. This process will be much easier if it involved a smaller number of Palestinian Muslims. Moreover, the more there will be Israeli exPalestinian Muslims who prefer to live in harmony with Jews, the sooner will also the Arabs in the Gaza state learn to coexist with and benefit from their proximity to Israel while maintaining their new national identity.
10. If the Arab government in Gaza behaved irrationally and posed a significant threat to the state of Israel either by becoming a base for anti-Israeli terrorism or by housing a threatening contingency of foreign Arab troop (most probably Egyptians). Israel will retain the right of self-defense and overrun this tiny land and at that time either expel the hostile Arab population into the Sinai territory or rule it indefinitely by an Israel appointed administration. It must be made clear to the Arabs in the Gaza strip and to the international community that these will remain the only options of Israel, and that these will be implemented if the Gaza government will exhibit unbearable hostility.
The Author is aware of the role Gaza had in Jewish history and of the sentiments of those who object giving up the sovereignty on that strip of land. However, Israel must be ready to make certain territorial concessions for significant political gains. If Israel completely divested itself of the Gaza strip and the new independent Palestinian state became a base for international terrorism, endangering the security of Israel, then Israel may have to follow the US policy in Afghanistan, topple the Islamistic regime and install a democratic government in Gaza. There is no reason to do this before the Palestinians were given the opportunity to establish non-belligerent relations with the State of Israel.
On the other hand, the author considers the idea of vacating the Jewish towns and villages in the Gaza strip before eliminating the PLO and its satellite terrorist organizations, a political folly that would only embolden these organizations to enhance their terrorist assaults on Israelis. Even after the PLO is removed and after the decision is made to divest the Gaza strip, the evacuation of the Jewish towns and villages there should be the last and not the first step. If Hammas takes control of that territory, it will not be wise to main any Israeli presence there. However, if the citizens of Gaza will decide that after Arafat and the PLO are gone that enough is enough and resort to a modality of coexistence, one could negotiate a presence of Israelis in that territory, especially as the economic situation there depends on Israeli good will. In any case, the existence of Israeli properties in that territory should not be an impediment for implementing the proposed unilateral divestment.
In ”Its All About Ethics” (Anbar, Israel Insider, march 14, 2003) a case was made that Jews and Muslims will not be able to live in harmony in a binational state because of the enormous differences between the value systems of their respective cultures. This would be certainly true if the two cultural groups are geographically separated, as has been shown in several examples in that article. The classical Jewish Ghetto is another example. On the other hand, it has been shown in “A Danger that is not Real” that high cultural diversity can coexist in a country if all citizens agree on a few common tenets. While Muslim Israeli citizens are maintaining their religion in Israel without restrictions, unlike Jews residing in Muslim countries, there can be no tolerance of Islamism. Chances are that within less than 20 years there will be no tolerance of Islamism in any Western country as well as in China and India. Militant Islamism will follow the fate of Nazism unless the world returns to barbarism.
After removal of the current despotic radical and terrorist leadership, and a period of intensive reeducation of the hatred-poisoned young generation, the absorption of part of the Palestinian Muslims as loyal citizens of Israel is not an illusion. The thousands of Muslim students in Israeli universities show that in spite of the current vicious cultural, religion-driven, incitement-loaded political conflict, given the right environment, most Muslims are ready to accept Western ethical values and learn to accept and respect the feelings and aspirations of non-Muslims. A tame dog will become vicious when chained and confined to a doghouse, whereas a vicious dog can become tame when fed well and given the run of the house. It all depends on the master – the political leaders in our case.
In Brief, although the Gaza plan has much in common with the “binational state” scenario, it has significant advantages over it. Therefore it warrants serious consideration.
8. Concluding remarks
The following remarks may be dated shortly because of the rapid changes of the political scene. Let us hope that many of the scenarios discussed here will never materialize and that no unforeseen scenarios with less favorable outcomes than the ones considered here will emerge. For instance, there is an unthinkable scenario of European or even American troops intervening in the conflict, imposing by force a retreat of Israel to indefensible borders, followed eventually by an Arab death blow to the Jewish state.
1. Unless it is a political ploy to persuade the Palestinians to change course, Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan makes little sense indeed. It is futile in the long run, if not detrimental to the future of Israel. The separation fence cannot protect Israel from deadly Arab attacks, even if it lowered the number of suicide bombers infiltrating from the “West Bank.” The Gaza fence seems to be effective today because it is easier for the Arabs to send terrorists from Samaria and Judea. The fence will certainly not stop infiltration of terrorists disguised as tourists with non-Arab passports, or the use of rockets against Israeli urban centers. Even if the range of Palestinian rockets is presently limited and their precision is poor, these quantitative shortcomings will be gone in another year or two at the latest. Consequently, unless a dramatic change takes place in the leadership and policies of the PA, Israel will be forced eventually to reoccupy the PA territories. However, this time it will have to eliminate the PLO before any further political steps will be possible.
On the hand, if the Palestinian leadership was replaced and the new leadership would be ready to recognize and honor the historical rights of the Jewish people and be ready for a genuine peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state, there would be no need for a unilateral disengagement plan.
Captain Orde Wingate, a non-Jewish Bible-inspired British officer defied the policies of the British Colonial Office and those of the British military command in Mandatory Palestine, and trained the Israelis to fight Arab terrorism during the “Arab Revolt” (1935-1939). Wingate helped to create the Palmakh, the Jewish Hagana underground “special operations” force, which in 1948 became the kernel of the fledgling IDF. Without the help of this rebellious British officer, whose moral convictions outweighed his duties as a British army office, the outcome of Israel’s Independence War might have been very different. This defiance allowed the State of Israel to be established and defend itself in 1948. Israel was born by defiance of discriminatory laws.
Today we have the UN and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) flagrantly biased against Israel. Israel must be ready to defy both. The cost of defiance will be lower than the cost of being a vanquished nation. Therefore, the outcome of the case against the defense fence in the ICJ should be inconsequential, notwithstanding the shrieks of the anti-Israeli media. The same should be true in the future, when other Arab-controlled legal institutions will challenge the legality of Israel and of its political or military actions.
History tells us that unlike pro-Israeli Republican Administrations (Nixon, Reagan), US Democrat Administrations have often followed anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli policies: President Roosevelt refused to interfere with the Nazi Holocaust. President Truman imposed an arms embargo on Israel in 1948, when the country was desperately fighting for its survival; Israel would not have survived if not for Russian help. President Carter managed to pressure Menahem Begin, Israel’s PM, to sign a peace agreement and return the Sinai to Egypt without the latter giving up the Arab claims to Jerusalem, i.e., the Arab intent to “liberate” Palestine. Notwithstanding that peace treaty, for which Carter received the Nobel Prize for Peace, Egypt has remained the main conduit of arms and personnel to the PLO helping the “liberation of Palestine.” In spite of the Carter-mediated “peace” with Israel, Egypt also spearheads the anti-Semitic propaganda in the Muslim world. President Clinton made Arafat a welcome houseguest in the White House while flagrantly snubbing off Netanyahu, Israel’s PM. Then Clinton used all his influence, including his personal PR team, to topple Netanyahu, whom Arafat disliked. Clinton got Barak elected and then persuaded him to make unbelievable concessions to the Arabs, only to be rebuffed by the duplicitous Arafat. President George W. Bush has been supportive of Israel, up to date, in spite of substantial Arab and European political pressure. Rightfully, Bush considers Israel an important ally in the global confrontation of the US with militant Islamism.
Arafat may unintentionally help Sharon politically by instigating more terrorist attacks, which he did again this morning, by not implementing meaningful reforms in the PA and by refusing to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist organizations, especially those affiliated with Fatah. For his own personal survival, Arafat must continue to play the Saddam Hussein game while other regional leaders like Ghadaffi and Assad and even the Iranian Mullahs are trying to maneuver out of a futile direct confrontation with the West. Arafat has boxed himself into an impasse like Saddam and he will have to be eliminated together with his whole clique.
It would be foolhardy to negotiate with any PLO leader who takes Arafat’s place. The American’s have realized this regarding the totalitarian Ba’ath party before invading Iraq. Israel must make a similar strategic decision before it takes over control of Ramallah. The US has shown so far that, except for the right decision to remove the Ba’athists from power, it does not have an effective political plan for the future of Iraq. The Americans can afford such a setback because it is not the future of the US that is at stake. Israel cannot. Israel must have a well thought out plan. This essay presents such potential alternative plans, discussing their pros and cons.
Over the ages the Jewish people have shown amazing resilience and ingenuity, especially when challenged. As a culture, Judaism has been distinctively nationalistic long before European nationalism ever emerged. The concept of a nation has existed in the Middle East long before it emerged in Europe after the Renaissance. The nation of Israel, “Am Yisrael,” or “Ami Yisrael” (my people, Israel), i.e., the nation of the God of Israel, is Biblical in origin. This concept inspired the Muslims to create the concept of the Umma, the parochial domineering Islamic nation, which now threatens all of Western civilization. Judaism, which has initiated socialism as well as the belief in a universal deity, recognizes and respects all other nations and their faiths for what they are. This ideology, which has been adopted by Western civilization, is radically different from that of the supremacist Islamic Umma that considers any non-Islamic people as a fair game for conquest, subjugation and eventual irrevocable conversion to Islam.
Jewish faith has always been associated with the Land of Israel, and that association must be maintained for Judaism to survive. Unfortunately, there are some Jews who have lost their survival instincts while advocating socialistic universalism, which amounts to national suicide. However, the majority of Israeli Jewry has realized the chasm between socialist internationalism and Judaism, and is also aware of the abyss between Judaism and Islamism. So they have made the right choices so far in not yielding to the current Islamic assault. Using their healthy instincts of survival, they will make the right choices on the way to a bright future when the people of Israel, living in their ancient homeland, will continue to be a “light onto the nations”.
February 22, 2004