The Future of Israel

 A gloomy Present

In spite of its spectacular economic and technological success, the situation of the State of Israel continues to be precarious. Its legitimacy is still being questioned not only by Judeophobic Muslims who hate it down to their bones and are continually plotting to destroy it. Remember Haj Amin al Husseini’s inflammatory statement: ” Slaughter the Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah."., This call of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler’s accomplice during the Holocaust, is being repeated every Friday in hundreds of mosques. However, also atheist “liberals” in Europe and in the US have repeatedly stated that the “establishment” of Israel by the UN in 1947 was a “historical mistake” that calls for prompt reversal, i.e., the Jewish state must be dismantled. 

These “liberal” anti-religious Marxists, who include certain leading European leftist politicians (such as former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard, who is now a candidate for the presidency of the EU)) as well as some “enlightened” tenured Jewish professors in top American universities, join Yasser Arafat and his Arab sponsors in denying Jewish history before 1947! Zionism, they claim, is a vicious colonialist, religion-based political movement that uses obsolete texts (the Bible) as its ideological justification; according to them, any religion-associated political movement or policy must be denounced, except if it is Islamic. Bible based Zionist ideology, focused on the sanctity of Jerusalem, which has been shared by Jews and Christians for two millennia, as well as Jewish nationalism, rooted in Jewish history, must, they say, be shunned and abolished. The mistake of 1947 must be corrected, they say. 

Historically and legally speaking, the State of Israel was not established by the UN in 1947; it was established by the League of Nations following Balfour declaration of 1917, a declaration endorsed by the US Congress. Also the UK did not establish it in 1948, as the UK was just a trustee appointed by the League of Nations to help reestablish an internationally recognized national home for the Jewish nation in its historical ancient homeland. 

These “liberals” justify Muslim terrorism against Israeli non-combatants as an anti-colonialist revolt. They join the militant Muslims in denouncing Israel’s attempts to defend its citizens by targeting terrorists, as crimes against humanity. Indiscriminate murder of non-combatant Jews seems to be OK according to these adversaries of the Jewish people. Moreover, Jews should accept these outrages as due to their own fault and not try to punish the perpetrators. As outlandish as this political stance might sound, it has become the routine policy of the UN and of ministerial offices in several European capitals, supported by the “liberal” press. Let us remember that also the 9/11 atrocities were considered by many Europeans and even by some Americans as punishment for American affluence and arrogance, or for its support of Israel. Luckily the US did not have at that critical moment a “progressive,” “liberal” political leadership that would have cowed to Islamic aggression by trying to “understand” the Islamic “rage,” sacrificing Israel in the interim. 

Since the 9/11 Islamic atrocities, the US has been sharing Israeli 85 years of experience (since the 1920’s) of indiscriminate terrorist attacks. Moreover, the Muslims have lately revealed their hatred of the entire Western Civilization of which the Land of Israel, the homeland of the nation that gave us the Bible, is an essential element.  The American public can now better understand the meaning of the relentless Arab hatred of Jews. This violent hatred is part of a religion-motivated campaign of Muslims against all non-believers. This campaign aims first to “liberate” the Holy Land and then cleanse the Middle East from Jews and Christians (the cleansing of Christian by threats and intimidation has been going on in Turkey since the 1920’s, in Iraq since the 60’s and in Lebanon and in territories under PLO rule since the 70’s; it has been leading lately to abandonment of Saudi Arabia by tens of thousands of non-Muslim professionals and technicians). At a later stage the Muslims intend to Islamize or subjugate all of humanity.

 We live in a period of a major religion-driven assault on the non-Islamic world. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, among other religions, are presently under a violent attack. The Land of Israel is a prime target of Islamic militant supremacy primarily because of it is sacred to non-Muslims. Like the Buddha statutes of Bamiyan, Israel is earmarked for destruction, and ultimately all non-Muslims in Muslim counties are bound to elimination or expulsion.  Otherwise, why should the 54 Islamic nations with some 1,200 million people gang up on a miniscule country with less than 6 million Jews, trying to live peacefully in their ancient homeland, in a territory that constitutes less than 0.02% of the combined territory of the Islamic countries? 

 In fact, attempts to eradicate the Israelis (rather than “just” intimidate them) have begun in 1948 when there were less than 700,000 Israelis in their homeland. How else can one explain the massive military attack on the fledgling state?

At the same time we witnessed the expulsion of some 900,000 Jews from all Arab Middle Eastern and North African countries and the mass exodus of Christians from Lebanon, Syria and other Islamic countries. Most of those millions of victims of religious persecution were not compensated for their abandoned properties and many had to flee for their lives penniless. Even the US has been affected by this flagrant Islamic religious intolerance when it was forced to abandon its military bases in Arabia with no meaningful compensation.

Land for Peace?

The slogan “land for peace” in the Arab-Israeli conflict is grossly misleading. The official doctrines of the PLO and Hamas, which have been endorsed by Muslims worldwide, state that there will be no true peace in the Middle East as long as there will be an independent Jewish state in that region. From the Islamic standpoint, peace in the Middle East means elimination of the Jewish state and subsequently eradication of all the Jews in the region, just as they and other non-Muslims have been recently expelled and banned from Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

Al Queda, the notorious militant Islamic organization that perpetrated the 9/11 atrocity, declared an all out war on Jews (not just on “Zionists” in the “Zionist entity”, namely Israel), Americans, and “Crusaders” (namely, all Christians), in that order. First come Israelis, then all other Jews, then the Americans, and finally all other Christians. We should not take these declarations lightly, just as we should not have taken lightly Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”  Totalitarian ideologues must openly declare their agenda in order to recruit adherers, and we, potential victims of their grandiose plans of aggression, must pay attention and listen carefully to these signals, like to the drumbeat of the Apache, to preempt their deadly assaults.

Strangely, up to date there are many Americans and even certain Israelis who ignore all these signs of mortal danger; they live under the illusion that making certain territorial concessions to the Arabs will give Israel lasting peace. They seem to ignore the obligatory role of the Qur’an in Muslim’s life and the fact that this sacred Islamic book explicitly prohibits friendship or making binding treaties with any non-believers, not to speak of Jews; moreover it mandates killing of  “infidels,” while possibly sparing of subjugated Jews and Christians who must then pay ransom for Islamic “mercy” (these were the conditions of survival of Jew in Islamic counties before being massacred or expelled). They also fail to realize the basic religious meaning for Muslims of relentless uncompromising assaults on the Jewish state, assaults that have little to do with specific territorial claims.

If leftists ever gained sufficient political clout in the Jewish state, the mismatch between the ideals of the Israeli Left and the cruel reality of militant Islam might lead to the demise of Israel and its Jewish citizens. For those who claim that the PLO is not religion-driven, and therefore amenable to making peace with the Israelis, here is a Qur’an-inspired statement made by Yassir Arafat lately, on May 15, 2004, on Palestinian national TV: “Find what strength you have to terrorize your enemy and the enemy of God.”

 Islamic Ethics – an Obstacle to Coexistence

 One must also realize that the Koran permits (encouraging by example!) to deceive infidels, Christians and Jews included, by signing of agreements and treaties that are not binding on Muslims. Consequently, the violation of the Oslo accords was expected Muslim behavior, and so were the violations of Iraq’s commitments by Saddam Hussein.  The same duplicity has been manifested in the conduct of the Egyptian Government that has signed a peace treaty with Israel while spearheading the vitriolic anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish propaganda to the whole Islamic world, and being the major conduit for arms and terrorists intent on destroying the Jewish state. The late military activities on the Israeli-Egyptian international border at Rafah we aimed at intercepting the flow of terrorist assistance from its “friendly,” “peace loving” neighbor.

There is an immense disparity between Muslim supremacist behavior, based on the Koran, which denies non-believers equal rights under Islamic law, and Western ethics that are derived from the Torah (“The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien…”(Numbers 15:15). This disparity implies different treatments of Christians and Jews in Muslim countries versus Muslims in Western countries where Muslims enjoy equal civil rights.  Also, Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries, including the US, are obligated to attempt to subjugate their non-Muslim hosts to Islam and the establishment of Islamic religious law as the Law of the Land. Thus a religious obligation of practicing Muslims implies subversion, in Western terms. In Israel, possibly even more than in most other Western countries, this is a source of major concern regarding the threat from Muslim minorities. This is a major factor in the apprehension of many Israelis of an impending “demographic bomb” and their reluctance to annex all of Judea and Samaria.

Other significant problems and consequences associated with the chasm between Jewish and Islamic ethics are discussed in Anbar’s essay “It’s All about Ethics” (Essay #21 in “Israel and its Future,” M. Anbar, iUniverse, Lincoln, NE 2004)

The “Roadmap to Peace”

 The well-known “Roadmap to Peace” in Israel was initiated by the EU (European Union) and endorsed by Colin Powel, the US Secretary of State, to get UN, the EU and Russia to support dismantling of Saddam’s regime in Iraq.  Powell’s prime incentive had little to do with the welfare of Israel. That political maneuver of the US State Department failed disgracefully, as the three non-American partners of Powel’s “Quartet” rebuffed America’s request regarding Iraq at the UN. However, these “friends” of America have been holding on to their agreement with the US on concessions that Israel must make “on the road to peace” (remember that Israel itself was never consulted in designing this plan, even its 14 substantive reservations to this plan, submitted to the US, have been ignored this far! This is a classical example of colonial policy, where the big powers decide the fate of their colonies. “Liberal” politicians who denounce colonialism, including the US State Department, applaud the “Roadmap” – Jews must learn to live with anti-Jewish “double standard” and even accept it under duress.).

Today we know that the three non-American partners of the Quartet were receiving bribes from Saddam Hussein to support his defiance of the UN and defend him from international sanctions, including military action mandated by his defiance. We should not be surprised if those bribes did affect also the anti-Israeli stance of the same “partners” who conceived and promoted the Roadmap to the detriment of Israel.

We also know that at least one highly vocal pro-Arab American ex-ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Syria is currently supported by an Arab significant stipend in one of the prestigious think tanks in Washington. In view of this known case, it will not be surprising if it will be found out that other consultants and even officials in the US State Department, known for its traditional pro-Arab stance, are under undue influence of some of America’s ideological enemies.  If not corruption, there might be certainly conflicts of interest. Arab-biased officials in Europe and even in the US may therefore undermine the future of Israel, a critical outpost of Western civilization in its war with militant Islam.

The concessions implied in the “Roadmap” comprise giving up Jewish sovereignty over major parts of Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the ancient Jewish homeland, including vital historical parts of Jerusalem, the ancient Jewish capital. Moreover, it is implied that the new Arab state will ban Jewish residence from its territory, following the model of Jordan (which originally has been part of the British Mandate to enable the establishment of a Jewish homeland).  Such an absolute exclusion of the residence of Jews in parts of their own homeland was not imposed since the days of Hadrian, following the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 135. That draconic exclusion was lifted about one hundred years later.

President Bush, who must have been aware of these far-reaching implications of the “Roadmap”, and of the potentially devious schemes of the non-American “partners” of the quartet, has tried to counter this anti-Israeli ploy by imposing strict explicit conditions on that ill-conceived “Roadmap”. These include establishing a genuine democratic regime in the “Palestinian Authority” (PA) territory, and dismantling of the “Palestinian” terrorist organizations, some of which were established by the PA itself. These terrorist organizations are being funded by the Iranians and the Saudis, and some of them operate under control of their political and military headquarters in Damascus, Syria. Since the situation is controlled by the leadership of the militant PLO and by countries unfriendly to the US, it is extremely unlikely that President Bush’s conditions will ever be met. 

A major change in the US Administration may be accompanied by relaxation of President Bush’s conditions that are presently not legally binding. It is conceiveable a Democrat president, who would want to improve US ties with the EU, might and sacrifice Israel in the process. All he will have to do is to remove President Bush’s restrictive conditions on the “peace process” and allow the Quartet (where the US is in the minority) to dictate the eventual demise of Israel under the guise of “peace.” The Arabs are currently doing their best to get rid of President Bush by intensifying their terrorism in Iraq, knowing that they will be able to extract far-reaching concession from his Democrat opponent.

A New Palestinian State West of the River Jordan

Even if the Arabs complied with President Bush’s conditions, the establishment of a “Palestinian” state west of the River Jordan would be highly problematic. The entwined geography of the proposed new Arab state alongside Israel, as the anti-Israeli 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 dependent on the State of Israel for many decades to come, not to mention having to give up, at least formally, the Arab dream of eradicating the Jewish state.

The implementation of the Roadmap would, therefore, continue to stir up Arab dissatisfaction, which undoubtedly would be exploited by extramural Arabs to continue undermining the existence of the Jewish state by incessant terrorism. Such terrorism would continue even if the PLO dismantled the main terrorist organizations, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and its own Tanzim and “al-Aqsa Brigades,” as required by the "Roadmap."  We have seen similar behavior of continued violence in Northern Ireland perpetrated by splinter groups of the IRA, in spite of a highly publicized political settlement of “peace”.  Moreover, unlike the Irish example there will remain a number of Islamic counties, including Iran and Syria who are openly hostile to the US and Israel, in addition to Egypt, Arabia and obviously al-Queida and its satellites, that will continue to support terrorism against Jews.

Furthermore, that new Arab state, “Palestine”, will very likely be used as a bridgehead in the forthcoming Arab military offensive, spearheaded by Egypt, on a tactically poorly defensible Israel. This attack, which is likely to take place within the next 10 years (before the weaponry supplied by the US becomes obsolete), may result either in the demise of the State of Israel in a bloody war or in another Israeli victory. If Israel prevails militarily, which is likely because it will fight for its very survival as it did in 1948, 1967 and 1973, it will overrun and reoccupy the new Arab state. This time Israel will again have the option of reshaping the map of the Middle East in order to put an end to Palestinian Arab aggression. At that time we would be, however, back to square one of 1967, but after additional many thousands of Israelis will have lost their lives.

In brief, the “Roadmap to Peace,” which has not met even its expedient political goal after the 9/11 atrocities, is a dangerous political idea that must be aborted to prevent bloodshed of many Jews and Arabs in the foreseeable future. Currently, it is being kept formally alive by the US and by Israel to avoid embarrassment to the Bush administration before the elections of November 2004.

The Disengagement Plan

Sharon’s disengagement plan is not less faulty than the Roadmap. While on the surface it rewards Arab terrorism by conceding the Gaza strip unconditionally to the Arabs, it also means complete isolation of the rest of the Palestinian Arabs in hermetic confinement. Following this plan Israel would end up with a terrible political and humanitarian liability for putting the majority of the Palestinians in a pressure cooker.  Israel might then lose many of the few sympathizers it has today, including many middle of the road Americans. On the other hand, the extramural Arabs, including many Muslim 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 declared goal of improving the security of Israeli citizens; it might even expedite an extramural Arab military offensive against the Jewish state.

If the “disengagement plan” is just a maneuver aimed at pressuring the Palestinian leadership to reach a settlement of the conflict on equitable terms, or to cause an upheaval in the Palestinian territories that will topple the current leadership, it is gamble with a low probability of success. If the PLO leadership concludes that it is strong enough to stand up to Israeli pressure and avoid being toppled by Arab extremists or by secular moderates (who are usually too timid to challenge the despotic leadership), it will withstand Israeli pressure and will not put an end to its terrorist based policy.

The recent proposal to use European or UN troops to protect Israel from Arab terrorists after the disengagement, is totally asinine. It reminds one of the behavior of the Russian police during the pogroms in the Ukraine or of the collaboration of UN troops with the Hezbollah in the abduction and murder of Israeli soldiers in Lebanon.  It is regrettable that some myopic Jewish leaders have not learned from centuries of betrayal by non-Jewish police “protection” that only self protection has a chance to prevent disasters. For an analysis of the unrealistic assumptions associated with the disengagements plan see Anbar’s “Political Myopia” (http://www.buffalo-israel-link.org/essay45.htm).

Israel and the United States – Two Targets of Islamic Aggression

Unlike many Americans, the Bush administration is well aware that America, with all its optimism and drive, is now at war with the fatalistic faith Islam. America, the new leader of Western Civilization (since Italy, Spain, Germany, Great Britain and France are passé by now), is confronted by a deadly enemy that wishes all Jews and Americans dead or enslaved by the supremacist worshippers of Allah.

It is not a coincidence that both America and Israel are the prime targets of militant Islam: Both these countries are surprisingly successful scientifically, technologically and economically, rousing the envy of all other nations; furthermore, both have a larger percentage of believers in God and country than any other Western nation; both have also higher ethics and morality for the same reason; and both have an internal strife with their native socialistic atheists who resent faith and morality, not realizing that these are the reason for their country’s unprecedented success.

Like the Nazis and Communists before them, militant Muslims realize that if they defeat Israel, the symbol of Western faith and morality, and then America, the symbol of ingenuity, productivity and religious tolerance, nothing can stop their world domination. Already today Muslims control the political will of Spain, Germany and France, as well as those of Norway and the Netherlands, and they exhibit a significant influence also on British and Italian (including the Vatican) policies. All those countries will fall in the hands of the Muslims like ripe apples once Israel and the US, the “little and big devils” are defeated.

The recent retreats of the American forces in Iraq under the threat of Arab terrorists are quite bothersome, as they may indicate to the Arabs and the rest of the world admission of defeat of the US in its war with Islam. These were not retreats because of Arab military superiority but because of anti-American political pressures abroad and at home. A decisive American political defeat in Iraq would mean an unprecedented triumph of Islam over Christianity, emboldening the Muslims to continue their offensive. This bodes very bad news for Israel. If America will not be able to defend its own interests in Iraq, it is less likely to stand firmly in the Arab’s way to abolish the State of Israel, which would be a prime triumph for Islam.  President Bush’s promises to Ariel Sharon would thus become worthless.  All this indicates the vital importance of continuation of the Bush Administration after 2004.

Dangers from Within

What might weaken the resolve and endanger the long-term progress or even the very existence of both Israel and the US, are their internal atheistic, anti-national socialistic and Islamic minorities. The danger to both these democratic societies is that their myopic public might be mislead to elect a government that will give in to some of the Muslim demands, e.g., in case Israel it might be the imposition the “Roadmap to Peace” and unilateral dismantling of Jewish communities in the heartland of Israel without Arab implementation of President Bush’s preconditions. Any “small” concessions might pave the way to an ultimate unconditional surrender.    xxx 

It may look presumptuous to put little Israel and the great United States of America into the same bag, but Israel has been the cradle of American culture and, therefore, both these countries share attributes more than they share with any other country on earth.  People often point to the fact that both countries are democracies, but there are many other democracies around, if not in the Middle East. The truly uniquely common attribute of these two countries is optimism, faith and ingenuity. This mandates their political partnership in addition to having a common mortal enemy.

Israel on the Global Frontier

Unfortunately, many American see American support of Israel as a liability rather than a historical imperative. These Americans do not realize that Israel is a military and spiritual outpost in the global war with Islam. If this outpost is over-run by its Muslim and European enemies for lack of American support and insufficient national resolve, the only superpower, which depends on a delicate balance between American nationalism and multicultural tolerance, and between faith and secularism, might collapse under the demoralizing pressure of Islamic supremacist hatred and relentless bloody terrorism. 

Israel, which has been accustomed to repel Islamic aggression for almost a century, is in many ways a tougher obstacle to an offensive of Islamic supremacy than is the “softer” and less coherent USA. It is, therefore, in the best interest of America to maintain rather than abandon “Fort Israel” on the global frontier with militant Islamofascism. 

The future of Western civilization is now in the hands of American Christianity that is the next target of the Islamic assault. American atheistic socialists, who were advocating US unilateral disarming to minimize confrontation with Communist USSR, will not stand up to the much more evasive but not less lethal threat of the Muslims. The Soviets had at least a crucial part of Western values – unlike the Muslims they valued life not less than Americans do. Also, the Communist threat involved material losses that could be recovered, whereas the supremacist Muslim religious zealots threaten us with a spiritual, irreparable catastrophe. 

Israel is now in the eye of this global Islamic hurricane. If Israel falls, so might also Christianity. American Christians must therefore defend Israel not only as the spiritual cradle of Christianity but also for their own spiritual preservation. Pro-Israeli Christians are not defending an ancient Jewish ideology, or trying to fulfill some ancient Judeo-Christian prophecies and beliefs; they are defending Christianity against anti-Christian barbarism.

President Bush articulated this notion beautifully in his May 18^th speech. He seems to have assessed the global situation more realistically than most American politicians and than many American citizens. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, we are in a global religious war in which the survival of our faith and culture are at peril.  In this war we are fighting a bizarre coalition between zealous religious Muslims and equally zealous secular atheists both of whom wish to destroy Judeo-Christian Western civilization, which is anchored in the Land of Israel and led by the United States. To cite President Bush “By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America. Our nation is stronger and safer because we have a true and dependable ally in Israel…Our nation, and the nation of Israel, have much in common. We're both relatively young nations, born of struggle and sacrifice. We're both founded by immigrants escaping religious persecution in other lands. We have both built vibrant democracies, built on the rule of law and market economies. And we're both countries founded on certain basic beliefs: that God watches over the affairs of men, and values every life.“  

The enemies of Israel and America hate our culture and beliefs. These are based on Biblical faith and ethics. Out ethics teach tolerance of and respect for aliens and the sanctity of human life. In contrast, the secular enemies of our culture treat with contempt anything spiritual, even if they follow many of our social ethics. Our Islamic enemies glorify violence and death of Muslims when they fulfill their obligation to impose Islam on all non-believers, denigrate their religious conviction, desecrate their sanctuaries, and murder those who defy the supremacy of Islam.

Pessimism versus Optimism

Fatalistic, pessimistic, submissive Islam (literally, “Islam” means “submission”) is diametrically different from Israeli freedom of thought and constructive optimism that characterize Jewish culture and have resulted in Israel’s prosperity.  Muslims are envious of this success and are trying to destroy Israeli material, social, spiritual and moral assets by indiscriminate violence.  While in the past they managed to do that to certain cultures, it is unlikely that the Muslims will succeed in their current assault of Israeli and American cultures, provided we manage to contain their nihilistic allies who live within our own societies. 

More than any war before it, the current global war between civilizations is a psychological war. The enemies of Western culture are trying to demoralize our society by terrorism and by a prolonged guerilla war of attrition in Afghanistan and Iraq. These enemies rely on the apparent “softness,” i.e., lack of resolve of the majority of Israeli and American societies, including their public media, and on the power-hungry, morally corrupt atheistic leftists who are ready to sacrifice the long-term survival of their nations for a short term reign, until their homelands will be vanquished by aggressive Islam. This was the fate of Parthia, Persia, Hellenistic Egypt, Byzantium and India.

The virtual alliance between secular nihilism and Islam is not as surprising as it might sound – both ideologies share pessimism.  Both dream of a bright utopic future that will encompass all of humanity, but are gloomy and unenthusiastic about the present. That pessimism results in Islamic Wahabic asceticism on one hand and on the other in atheistic nihilistic hedonism.  Typically the atheists “liberals” see disaster coming wherever they look – a climatic environmental disaster, a health care catastrophe, famine and epidemics in the Third World, etc., etc. Likewise, the Muslims complain about poverty, drugs, lack of housing and sanitation, deprivation, etc.

However, neither the “liberals” nor the Muslim do much to alleviate the problems they complain about. Their goals are negative – destruction of Israel and of America, killing of Jews and Christians, and death in a holy war. The nihilistic “liberals” want to eliminate capitalism, the church and the synagogue, patriotism, national history and national pride, among other attributes of modern Western society.

As long as it may take, Muslim and European pessimism are likely to be triumphed eventually by the optimistic mainstream populations of Israel and America. Israel and the USA would not have flourished as they do without their intrinsic optimism. Economic and technological successes require optimism and faith.  This attribute of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is the reason for them being hated by the morose secular left as well as by the Fatalistic Muslims.

Resolve versus Defeatism

In any war the loser is the side that underestimated its adversary and miscalculates its response. That response is a function of resolve. We saw this in WWII when Hitler was certain that his Blitzkrieg would intimidate the British people and make them surrender. He miscalculated again the resolve of the Russians, while the Japanese miscalculated the resolve of the Americans. In 1948, 1967 and 1973 the Arabs underestimated the resolve of the Israelis. The Arabs will have again underestimated the resolve of the Israelis when they launched the ongoing terrorist campaign. They were encouraged by the Oslo unilateral Israeli concessions – these were effectively unilateral because the Arabs never met their obligations under the Oslo accords.  They were emboldened by the defeatist, shameful unilateral retreat from Southern Lebanon.

Lately, Arabs are encouraged by the unilateral “disengagement plan” to maintain the terrorist assaults on the State of Israel. However, the Israeli instincts of survival are going to prevail over Israeli defeatism and the Arabs may eventually realize that like in the past they have underestimated the resolve of the Jewish people. Also the current deadly assault will end in another Arab defeat.  The opposition to the unilateral “disengagement plan” was not just a function of the protest of members of the town and villages bound to be conceded to the Arabs. Sharon’s suggested arbitrary unilateral concessions were rejected by the members of his own party because this policy seems to be based on a pessimistic outlook; on a notion that Israel is in a hopeless bind with no better alternative.  It predicts a gloomy future of perpetual retreats under Arab assaults.  The historical enemies of the Jewish people welcomed this apparent downfall of Jewish spirit. The “disengagement plan” that herald Israeli eventual demise has been obviously embraced by the EU, Russia and UN that want to see Israel vanquished. It has been supported also by the nihilistic Israeli left that abhors classical Judaism, including its Zionist ideology.

But is the long run, after Arab terrorism will intensify quantitatively and qualitatively, encouraged by Israel’s retreat, in order to survive Israel will have to wake up from the dream of idealistic peace, reoccupy the abandoned territories and write off the tremendous losses in life and property as losses due to political myopia. Jewish traditional optimism must win as it did for 3000 years. The unavoidable failure of the disengagement plan will strengthen the resolve of the Israelis to avoid such blunders in the future. Consequently, the future of Israel is bright in spite of the gloomy present.

  THIS ESSAY IS STILL INCOMPLETE

(to continue)