Israel Shuns Victory-Have Israeli politicians given up on winning the war?

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | March 28, 2006 | Daniel Pipes

[SJackson]

As Israelis go to the polls, not one of the leading parties offers the option of winning the war against the Palestinians. It’s a striking and dangerous lacuna.

First, some background. Wars are won, the historical record shows, when one side feels compelled to give up on its goals. This is only logical, for so long as both sides hope to achieve their war ambitions, fighting either continues or potentially can resume. For example, although defeated in World War I, Germans did not give up their goal of dominating Europe and soon again turned to Hitler to try again. The Korean War ended over a half century ago but neither north or south having given up its aspirations means fighting could flare up at any time. Similarly, through the many rounds of the Arab-Israeli conflict – wars in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982 – both sides retained their goals.

Those goals are simple, static, and binary. The Arabs fight to eliminate Israel, Israel fights to win the acceptance of its neighbors. The first is offensive in intent, the second is defensive. The former is barbaric, and the latter civilized. For nearly sixty years, Arab rejectionists have sought to eliminate Israel via a range of strategies: undermining its legitimacy through propaganda, harming its economy through a trade boycott, demoralizing it through terrorism, and threatening its population via WMD.

While the Arab effort has been patient, intense, and purposeful, it has also failed. Israelis have built a modern, affluent, and strong country, but one still largely rejected by Arabs. This mixed record has spawned two political developments: a sense of confidence among politically moderate Israelis; and a sense of guilt and self-criticism among its leftists. Very few Israelis still worry about the unfinished business of getting the Arabs to accept the permanence of the Jewish state. Call it Israel’s invisible war goal.

Rather than seek victory, Israelis have developed a lengthy menu of approaches to manage the conflict. These include:

· Unilateralism (building a wall, partial withdrawals): The current policy, as espoused by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and the Kadima Party.

· Lease for 99 years the land under Israeli towns on the West Bank: The Labor Party of Amir Peretz.

· Palestinian economic development: Shimon Peres.

· Territorial compromise: The premise of Oslo diplomacy, as initiated by Yitzhak Rabin.

· Outside funding for the Palestinians (on the Marshall Plan model): U.S. Representative Henry Hyde.

· Retreat to the 1967 borders: Israel’s far left.

· Push the Palestinians to develop good government: Natan Sharansky (and President George W. Bush).

· Insist that Jordan is Palestine: Israel’s right.

· Transfer the Palestinians out of the West Bank: Israel’s far right.

These many approaches are very different in spirit and mutually exclusive. But they have a key element in common. All manage the conflict without resolving it. All ignore the need to defeat Palestinian rejectionism. All seek to finesse war rather than win it.

For an outside observer who hopes for Arab acceptance of Israel sooner rather than later, this avoidance of the one winning strategy prompts a certain frustration, one that’s the more profound on recalling how brilliantly the Israelis early on understood their war goals.

Fortunately, at least one prominent Israeli politician advocates Israeli victory over the Palestinians. Uzi Landau notes simply that “when you’re in a war you want to win the war.” He had hoped to lead the Likud in the current election but failed to win anything approaching a majority in his party and is ranked fourteenth on the election list this week, not even high enough to guarantee him a parliamentary seat. With Likud itself expected to get under 15 percent of the popular vote, it is clear how deeply unpopular Israelis presently find the idea of winning their war.

And so, they experiment with compromise, unilateralism, enriching their enemies, and other schemes. But as Douglas MacArthur observed, “In war, there is no substitute for victory.” The Oslo diplomacy ended in dismal failure and so will all the other schemes that avoid the hard work of winning. Israelis eventually must gird themselves to resuming the difficult, bitter, long, and expensive effort needed to convince the Palestinians and others that their dream of eliminating Israel is defunct.

Should Israelis fail to achieve this, then Israel itself will be defunct.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking the keyword or topic Israel.

---------------------------

Drawing the lines to defend doesn't necessarily equate with "not fighting" the war.

[backhoe]

There is no stronger supporter of Israel and the Israelis than I, yet I have often wondered if they have enough will to survive, or if they are so tired of fighting that they will give up.

Oslo may be proved to be a symptom, of a fatal disease.

[backhoe]

It worries me greatly.

When Oslo was first trotted out, my initial reaction was "Israel is expected to trade land- won by blood- for empty promises from a known murderer and terrorist ( and his cohorts )-- this is crazy!"

[MarkL]

I think that it's a combination of a few things...

First off, there's been a stalemate since 1973, when Israel was closer to being wiped off the map than most people (Israelis in particular) wish to believe. And it's been nearly a full generation since then. Many Israelis have grown "comfortable" with the current state of (not quite) war with Syria. And the IDF and "Shin Bet" have been remarkably successful in preventing terrorist attacks on the civilian population.

Secondly, the State of Israel was born as a "Social Democracy," meaning that at heart, it's a socialist country. And while the many of the original settlers and government officials were socialists, they were NOT the sort of "peaceniks" that leftists in America have become. They were (and many Sabras still are) willing to fight for their ideals of Israel. But the American left has been "infiltrating" the Israeli left, and has been sapping their will to fight. "Can't we all just get along?" Not when the goal of the other side isn't getting along (unless that would be getting along without you).

I think that between keeping terrorist attacks down to a "reasonable" level, the fact that many people have grown accustomed to not being in a "hot war" with Syria, Egypt, Jordan, or any other countries, the fact that many Israelis of voting age hadn't been born the last time that Israel was invaded, and the influx of American (leftist) Jews into Israel, as well as their influence over the Israeli political scene, have all contributed to this situation.

Mark

[Graymatter]

There comes a point where civilization jumps the shark and becomes the enabler of barbarism. We are there. If we don't turn away from our over-civilized, politically correct ways, we will lose to an enemy more in line with human nature.
What do I mean by 'more in line with human nature?' For example, the Muslims in Europe try to maintain their ethnic identity; so do the Mexicans who live here illegally and now scream in the streets that they are in Mexican territory within US borders. They have solidarity and nationality, whereas we have inclusiveness and tolerance and moral relativism. And their nationalism, their ethnic mentality, is natural and practical---ethics aside.
The natural virtue of humans, to stick together, will be the winning factor. They have it, we do not. They will have leaders unafraid to lead in the name of their cause; we do not. Our civilized attitudes will be our ruin.