The Dilemmas of Victory
By Dr. Emmanuel Navon.
As Israeli tanks and soldiers completed their withdrawal from a Guernica-looking Gaza Strip hours before the swearing of Barack Obama and less then three weeks ahead of a general election in Israel, one lesson emerged from this latest round of the unending Arab-Israeli conflict.
The critics of Israel’s military intervention claim that it was cruel and disproportionate. But, mostly, so they say, it was unnecessary. For the solution to rocket firing is not retaliation but a “political horizon.” According to that theory, the Palestinians fire rockets from Gaza because of their frustration, and Israel (together with the international community) can alleviate this frustration by putting an end to the Gaza blockade and by establishing a Palestinian state more or less along the Clinton parameters. This theory ignores what the Palestinians themselves say. Hamas does not accept the idea of a “two-state solution.” Its ultimate goal is the demise of Israel, with Iran’s support. As for Fatah’s alleged “moderation,” the bottom line is that as long as Fatah insists on the “right of return” and fills its media and schoolbooks with anti-Jewish hatred, its adherence to the “two-state solution” will continue to be was its has always been since the Oslo accords: a sham.
It is not that Israel has been ignoring the need to find what pundits call a “political solution.” Without getting into the blame game, the fact is that negotiations have been conducted, unsuccessfully, for the past fifteen years.
If the conflict cannot be solved, it has to be managed. But how? The rationale of the disengagement strategy was that, since the conflict is unsolvable and since the status quo is untenable, Israel should at least get the Palestinians off its back. If only. We left Gaza, but Gaza did not leave us. If the price for preventing rocket firing is the yearly reenactment of a “Cast Lead” kind of military operation, one question must be asked. There was not a single rocket fired at us from the south when Israel controlled the Gaza Strip. Yes, the price for this quiet status quo was a military occupation for which both Israeli society and world opinion had no more patience. But how exactly was that occupation less moral then the death and destruction that we had to inflict in order for Hamas to stop firing rockets? Since relinquishing control over Gaza means destroying it every so often in order to protect our citizens, it is not only that Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza generated a more challenging military and strategic threat. It also weakened our moral standing.
Israel, of course, is not going to reoccupy Gaza, and the likely scenario for the coming years is a long term war of attrition with this cursed enclave. This is more bearable and manageable than the similar type of warfare we had with Egypt after the Six Day War, unless the United States is unable to deter and neutralize Iran’s regional troublemaking.
One thing is clear, though. Reenacting the “brilliant idea” of the Gaza withdrawal in Judea and Samaria would be suicidal at this point. Israel put an end to massive suicide bombings and shooting attacks by taking control of what was transferred to the PA under the Oslo accords. This is an undisputable fact. The present situation in Judea and Samaria is far from being ideal. It raises the same moral questions that paved the way to Oslo in the first place. But is it more moral to let our citizens be slaughtered by suicide bombers? Since we are in a Catch 22 type of situation anyways, we might as well prevent the ugly and relentless terrorism that prevailed between the Camp David Summit and Operation Defensive Shield.
While we should continue to strive for a political solution, we have to understand that the more the Palestinians feel that we cannot do without such a solution, the less likely they will be to compromise. Managing the conflict, at this point, means making the status quo both bearable and changeable.
Our neighbors need to be convinced that Israel is here to stay in order to consider making peace with us. The “Iron Wall” strategy worked with Egypt. The fact that it does not seem to impress Hamas and Iran (at least until Operation “Cast Lead”) is mostly Israel’s fault. Unbelievably, The Economist wrote last week that “A new obstacle to peace is the apparent crumbling of Jabotinsky’s iron wall” (”The Hundred Years War,” January 10th, 2009).
What The Economist is implying is that chances of reaching a “cold peace” type of agreement with the Palestinians depend on the restoration of Israel’s deterrence. Coming from a relentless critic, this is a welcome recommendation indeed.
Israel has less than three weeks to choose a leadership that can be trusted to restore its deterrence and thus improve the chances of preventing future wars. Those who cut-and-ran from southern Lebanon and from Gaza cannot be reasonably trusted to fulfill this vital task.
Dr. Emmanuel Navon
Is a Founding Partner at The Navon-Levy Group Ltd.
January 24th, 2009 at 8:06
Dear Dr. Navon,
It is always easier for me to speak from the relative safety of the United States and I must acknowledge that. However, I believe the price of deterrence of the kind you present is to continue portraying the Palestinian “other,” as beyond the scope of negotiation. Hamas was not always a terrorist organization. There was a time that it was supported by the state of Israel and if Israel with the help of the EU, US and Russia can sign a treaty with the Syrians it is possible if not likely that Hamas can begin to become a tangible and responsible political party. But to do that it needs to be met on the other side with an international presence in Gaza that works to make the economy function and offers real incentives to stop shooting and sign and work to maintain a long term truce. As for Fatah, I met Salam Fayyad last year and he wants real economic development in the West Bank as a means to focus Palestinians on work and not war. It is possible and steps have been taken with the support of former Secretary of State Condi Rice and the US Chamber of Commerce. The possibilities of economic cooperation and growth provides a brighter future than the necessity of holding onto the power through deterrence which will eventually run out as the rockets reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Shalom,
Larry Snider
March 3rd, 2009 at 20:47
I have a couple of points to make also from my safety in the United States. I have followed the Israeli and Palestinian conflict for 40 years. I see Israel making all the concessions, with nothing in return. I have also done quite a bit of research on the history of the area and come up with some different views than have been expressed here. They may be controversial, but they are a potential solution worth some discussion.
1. Conclude that the experiment to withdraw from Gaza was a mistake, Hamas wants Israel destroyed and will not rest until it happens. Declare war on Gaza, go in one last time and destroy Hamas and make it part of Israel forevermore. Remove all of Israels enemies from Gaza and transport them to the West Bank.
2. Stop listening to the US, they would not tolerate Mexico sending rockets into California for one minute.
Cede no more territory to anybody, unilateraly define the west bank border, take it or leave it
3. Since there is so much concern for the Palestinians, let Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, give up portions of their territory to form a State for them…
April 29th, 2009 at 9:02
now in my rss reader)))
————————
signature: http://ponon.ru/apm419e
May 28th, 2009 at 18:14
I’m Eric Wagenaar
I live in the Netherlands
I see the Gaza/Palestinian conflict is a very complicated situation. I don’t think it is solvable just with military force. I think it’s sad what happened at the last Lebanon war. I don’t say Israel should do nothing, but I say Israel used excessive force. Because Israel did not achieve it’s goals the return of the captured soldiers and resulting in the doubling of Hezbollah. Similar for the Gaza war, what surprised me was that Hamas lost popularity and most of the population gets tired of the war. They want to live a normal live without a blockade. I think this is something to play in to, maybe even an opportunity. I think it is up to all of us to show that the claims of Hezbolla, Hamas and other organizations do not have any potential for a stable future for them. We need to convince them that Israel is not a conspiracy aiming to destroy all Muslims. This should not only come through words but also through actions.
May 31st, 2009 at 7:05
Dear BiBi… http://www.drclarkbooks.com
Please read the books at this page.
Good luck with your discussions with the British Crown. Remind them about Diana and the ‘broken arm and the cut on the leg’ after the car accident and then I think you can have anything you want in Britain… lots of land available in the Cotswolds and Shakespearean Capital…