The following was edited by Howard Laitin from an article by Martin Sherman that appeared in the Jerusalem Post. Thus, although these thoughts originated with Martin Sherman, is not responsible for this presentation.
I appreciate that Dr. Solomon Golomb originally sent this article to me for my attention with a notation that Sherman's specific presentation might not play- well with an American audience.
I am sending this article to several prominent individuals who advocate some form of the 2 state solution and to some individuals opposed for their explicit comments. THIS ARTICLE AND THE COMMENTS SHOULD FORM A WORTHY BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPECTFUL, DISCUSSION .
WISDOM REGARDING THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT
The edifice of conventional wisdom regarding the Arab-Israel conflict is collapsing. The bedrock upon which the traditional approaches to a resolution of Middle East hostilities are based is crumbling, the fabric of accepted thinking unraveling.
The folly of what a deal on the Golan with the Assad regime would have resulted in; the absurdity of an agreement with the unelected Fatah regime …their likely loss of power …their alliance with Hamas…their increasing demands ;the myopia of reliance on the durability of the peace with Egypt are all becoming increasingly obvious.
Refusal to recognize realities
Yet to judge from the public discourse on developments in the Middle East it seems that nothing has changed.
I
As if living in an alternative universe,some still preach about the importance of the preservation the peace agreement with Egypt – which, at best, was no more than a non-belligerence accord – apparently oblivious to the fact that it has become little more than a nostalgic figment of the past, totally discordant with the prevailing mood across the land of the Nile.
As this week’s rocket attacks indicate, Sinai will either become a hotbed of jihadist terror, which even the sturdiest of hi-tech fences with not impede for long, or it will be remilitarized. It might become both. For recent calls from Israel for Egypt to “exercise its sovereignty” to thwart such attacks constitute an invitation for the deployment of additional Egyptian troops in the demilitarized peninsula. Without such deployment Cairo can always claim it is incapable of combatting renegades forces that have taken control of much of the area.
However, given the less than amicable sentiments in Cairo toward Israel, it is in no way improbable that these reinforcements will have neither the resolve nor the inclination to reign in the activities of the anti- Israeli gangs. Or that they will be less than meticulous in preventing their own arms and equipment from falling into jihadist hands – whether via theft or mutually profitable trade.
The failure to control the terrorists will in all likelihood be followed by demands to increase Egyptian military capabilities in Sinai even more. Given the paramount importance ascribed to the dead-letter peace accord, these will probably be agreed to by Israel.
Clearly this process will lead to increasing erosion of the demilitarization of Sinai – the principal, arguably the only, benefit Israel derived from the 1979 peace treaty.
No Sinai, no peace, no demilitarization
Accordingly, it is far from implausible that soon Israel will face an openly hostile regime ensconced in Cairo, a significant and potentially belligerent military force deployed in Sinai, and active radical terrorist groups operating against its southern front – from Gaza to Eilat – either aided or unhindered by Egyptian regulars.
It would therefore be no more than self-evident prudence for Israeli strategic planners to adopt as their working assumption that the reality Israel will soon have to confront will be one of Three No’s: No Peace, No Sinai, No Demilitarization. Yet there seems little evidence that such realism is driving the agenda of the strategic discourse.
If anything, quite the opposite is true. It appears that the seismic shifts in the region have barely impacted the discussion concerning Israel’s policy options and imperatives.
Apparently impervious to the strategic significance of the tectonic changes that have swept through the region, figures who shape the debate seem welded to the past, clinging to the hopelessly unrealistic notions such as a two-state resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, acceptance of Israel by the Arab world and the reconstitution of the Turco-Israeli alignment.
Stupid or subversive?
Dennis Ross’s latest “contribution” at this week’s Presidential Conference in Jerusalem – prescribed that Israel should not only undermine its security, but its economy as well, “to restore belief in a two-state solution.”
Predictably, Ross studiously disregarded the fact, once so compellingly conveyed by his host Shimon Peres, that “if a Palestinian state is established, it will be armed to the teeth. Within it there will be bases of the most extreme terrorist forces, who will be equipped with anti-tank and anti-aircraft shoulder-launched rockets, which will endanger not only random passersby, but also every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the Coastal Plain.”
Ross suggested that the first step Israel should take to demonstrate that it is serious about a Palestinian state in the “West Bank” is to publicly announce that the government will provide financial compensation to settlers who are prepared to leave their homes and to move to “Israel proper.”
Ross, who today serves as a counselor for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and was a senior director in Barack Obama’s National Security Council, offered no assurances that what is sweeping through the Arab world would not sweep through “Palestine” or what occurred in Gaza would not occur in Ramallah. Nevertheless, he suggested that the government go ahead and plan not only to bring millions more Israelis within the range of weapons being used today from territory Israel ceded to the Palestinians, but it should take measures that would increase both the demand (and hence the price) of housing in country, and the unemployment.
Dummy or dhimmi?
Ross’s counsel on Turkey is outrageous.
Ross said that it was in Jerusalem’s long-term strategic interest to try to patch up the relationship, even at the cost of issuing an apology over the Mavi Marmara incident, as Ankara has demanded.
Ross states: “Turkey and Israel have an enormous common stake in Syria. Is it difficult to make an apology? Yes, I don’t dismiss that. But how does that weigh against wider strategic interests you have in Syria and a region undergoing tremendous upheaval?” He goes on to claim that restoration of the relationship would have an impact on the whole region, and suggests imagining what a sobering affect this type of rapprochement would have on ascendant players such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Is Ross unaware that Turkey has undergone a fundamental transformation, that it is no longer a Western-oriented secular state but a Islamic-oriented theocratic one, that its relations with Israel are a far more a function of what it has become, than of what Israel does – or doesn’t do.
One might wonder: If there are so many strategic interests in common between Turkey and Israel, why doesn’t Ross suggest that Ankara forgo its demand for an apology? Is that his “soft racism” of low expectations showing?
The Presidential Conference
On the Presidential Conference, Martin Sherman (jerusalem Post) writes:
Can presidents be perfidious? For it would seem that there are elements of this conference that severely undermine the foreign policy of the elected government of Israel.
For whatever the motivations behind the invitation of individuals such Peter Beinart who publicly advocate BDS measures (albeit partial) against the products of the nation, it cannot but be interpreted internationally as presidential endorsement of the proposal.
Why otherwise extend the invitation to someone who not only undermines important elements of Israeli diplomacy but whose proposals have also been repudiated by left organizations – including J Street itself.
But this is not the only troubling element on the invitation list.
Among the invited speakers was also Saeb Erekat who openly advocates the “right of return” which in effect would end the existence of Israel as the Jewish nation-state and obviate the essence of the Zionist endeavor.
In December 2010, Erekat the wrote the following in the British Guardian: “Today, Palestinian refugees constitute more than 7 million people worldwide – 70% of the entire Palestinian population. Disregarding their legitimate legal rights enshrined in international law to return to their homeland, would certainly make any peace deal signed with Israel completely untenable.”
So one invitee advocates BDS; another the “right of return.” Who can we expect next?
No comments:
Post a Comment