A good assessment of the Israeli/Pal situation by Barry Rubin, from the Jerusalem Post:
THE REGION: Getting real
By Barry Rubin
(February 27) It is fashionable now to say that there is no solution to the current crisis. There are actually several ways out - at least in terms of Israeli decision-making. But people have to be willing to pay the price for making those decisions. Moreover, Israel can do and control only so much. The ultimate outcome rests in Palestinian hands.
Any starting point must also be based on the reality that, despite the anti-Israel propaganda, Israel's response to the Palestinians' violence has thus far been remarkably mild and limited: Up until now, when a terrorist attack or assault has occurred, Israel has made a retaliatory attack or two, killed one or two key terrorists or sent forces into a Palestinian town for several hours.
There have been good reasons for this restraint. It has been based on a desire to avoid escalation, a preference to reduce international hostility or a confrontation with Arab states, and the hope that this level of conflict will be sufficient to push Arafat into a real cease-fire.
So far this has not worked. If we look at the situation honestly - and not from some ideological preconception of either the Left or the Right - it is hard to avoid the following conclusions:
First, we are in this situation because the Palestinian leadership was not ready to make peace on a negotiated basis. Anyone who still believes that the solution is for Israel to keep making unilateral concessions until Yasser Arafat is satisfied has not been paying attention.
Second, it's hard to believe that violence has continued and escalated because Israel's response has been too tough. What seems apparent is that the Palestinian side is continuing its warfare because it is able to do so, because the cost of fighting is not very high in immediate terms, and because it believes that Israel is weakening and that the Palestinians will win.
In short, the mantra that violence solves nothing is certainly not Palestinian doctrine, and it should not be Israeli doctrine. Violence is made necessary in self-defense, and in the absence of a viable diplomatic alternative.
If there were a real cycle of violence, or if Israel was at fault, a cessation of any Israeli offensive or retaliatory operations would bring complete quiet. The argument would be that the only reason the Palestinians are attacking Israel is because Israel is attacking them. Anyone who believes that is a sucker of the first magnitude. This is not a matter of leftist or rightist inclination, but a question of fact.
There is only one way to stop the violence: If Yasser Arafat decides to do so. And nothing Israel does - even Arafat's removal - is going to automatically have that result.
THE Palestinian leadership is continuing this low-level war to at least force an unconditional Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders and, at most, as a stage in the destruction of Israel. In this context, let us consider four potential "solutions" to the current situation.
1. Make a deal on the Palestinians' terms: It is understandably attractive to say that the way out is to negotiate a solution which would end the violence, end the occupation and provide Israel with peace and security.
Unfortunately, this does not seem a realistic possibility. In fact, this is precisely why there is a crisis and so much bloodshed now.
Here is what such a deal would look like: Israel recognizes an independent Palestinian state and accepts the 1967 boundaries in principle, with mutually agreed modifications. Perhaps Israel would withdraw from all or most of the territories. The future of Jerusalem, exact boundaries, end of conflict, and refugees would be left to the future.
The problem with this idea is that once Palestine was a sovereign state it would achieve full recognition, UN membership, etc., and be recognized as the rightful owner of all east Jerusalem, all the West Bank and all Gaza. There would be no restrictions on its behavior. What would stop this state from making a military alliance with Iran or any other Arab state, or from importing any weapons it wanted?
Given the issues left open, the Islamist groups could continue attacks on Israel. Perhaps nationalist groups would also do so. The continuation of any Israeli
presence or settlement on any part of the West Bank, no matter how small, would furnish an excuse for terrorist attacks. In addition, the conflict would be left open so a new round could begin at any point in the future.
There would be no official end of the conflict and no Arab state would be obligated to make peace with Israel.
Claims for the return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel would still be open.
And even after all those concessions, Israel would still be in precisely the same situation as it is today: dependent on Arafat's willingness to stop attacks.
If a Palestinian band crossed the border and attacked Israel, any Israeli retaliation would be considered international aggression and the Arab world, perhaps the world in general, could come to Palestine's defense against this "wicked, unprovoked" Israeli attack.
Worst of all, given the precedent of the south Lebanon withdrawal, in Arab eyes Israel would be perceived as weak and cowardly. The level of violence and incitement would actually increase. Any remaining settlements would face even more attacks and more international criticism.
2. A proper defense: Here is the true missing link in Israel's strategy. The excuses for not building a genuine defensive line are becoming increasingly foolish.
This is the real reason why attacks and casualties are increasing.
There should be a serious system of fortifications and troop deployments in place. No one should be allowed to cross into Israel except under the most limited conditions. As long as the government and army don't establish a proper system in this regard, why should anyone be surprised at the ability of gunmen and suicide bombers to strike in so bloody a fashion?
The refusal to implement already existing plans is completely idiotic. Sharon is now hinting at this approach. Why doesn't he adopt it enthusiastically at a moment when a country demanding action is most likely to accept this strategy?
3. Escalation: While no one should expect escalation to "solve" the problem in a simple or immediate way, a higher degree of retaliatory force is more likely to reduce than increase the level of attacks on Israel. Only by raising the cost of continuing the war can the Palestinians be persuaded to end it.
They certainly are not going to be convinced by a mild policy, whatever its purported ethical virtues. Almost every Palestinian statement makes this fact very clear.
Every Israeli peace demonstration, refusal to do military service, and leftist criticism of the government is taken as evidence that killing more Jews is the way to success.
As for the argument that the world will criticize Israel, well it does that anyway, so what practical difference would that make?
4. Destruction of the PA: It is Yasser Arafat and not Ariel Sharon who is pushing this alternative onto the agenda. With each attack and escalation from the Palestinian side, this outcome becomes more "thinkable." |
