Posted on 06/26/2002 12:37:38 AM PDT by Stultis
By: Avi Davis
In July 1949, Israel's first prime minister David Ben-Gurion, six months after the cessation of hostilities in Israel's War of Independence, wrote in his diary: "An armistice agreement is (now) sufficient for us. If we chase after peace the Arabs will demand a price: either territory or the return of refugees, or both. Its best to wait a few years." It is a symbol of Arab obduracy that ten years after renouncing that policy, the Israelis are back to where they started. No peace, no negotiation and little recognition.
Some may cavil with the nuances of such a statement, but the facts speak for themselves: The Palestinian population, now dangerously armed and strategically reinforced with trained terrorists, have taken to rioting and ambushes reminiscent of their grandparents' violence of the 1920s and 30s. Three countries- Lebanon, Syria and Iraq remain officially at war with the Jewish State and sponsor terrorism against it. Another country, Egypt, although officially at peace with Israel, is the source of the most venomous anti-semitism in the world and refuses to encourage normal relations as contemplated by the Camp David Accords. A fifth country, Iran, is threatening to possess a nuclear arsenal within three years and supports a terrorist insurgency on Israel's northern border. Even in moderate Jordan, journalist and lawyer associations condemn any contact with Israel, demonstrating once again that within the Arab intelligentsia the current of Jew hatred still sizzles at the point of explosion.
Fifty years after a convincing war finally established the State, not only are the Israelis still waiting, but the policy of land in exchange for peace, has exhausted itself. Yasser Arafat's performance at Camp David in July 2000 made clear that neither an exchange of territory nor a compromise on Jerusalem is sufficient. Nothing, it seems, will suffice save the return of 3 million Palestinians to Israel proper - a prescription for the Jewish state's self –liquidation. Knowing that no Israeli government is about to agree to national suicide, Arafat thought he had found the pretext for repudiating diplomacy and launching a war. In this his object was not to defeat Israel but to bring unprecedented international pressure to bear against her, forcing a multilateral mediation of the conflict. Such a decision has terminated the peace process by alienating Arafat's friends in Israel's peace camp who have no stomach for his treacheries. And it will end almost certainly in disaster for the Palestinians.
What then is the future? Ben-Gurion instinctively knew, as does Sharon, that true peace will not come to the region until either one of two things occur: the Arab states are in such straitened economic circumstances that they have no choice but to seek peaceful relations with the Jews; Or else democracy comes to the Arab nations, dislodging petty despots and dictators, and replacing them with governments who are genuinely committed to the service of their people. It is quite likely that one will follow from the other. But for the immediate future, Israeli governments can no longer operate on the premise that the Arab world is going to suddenly forswear their enmity and become good neighbors. Years, if not decades may pass before the confluence of economic circumstances and political reform produces Arab leaders willing to walk in the footsteps of Sadat. In the meantime, the most that can be hoped for, provided Israel's army remains dominant in the region, are treaties of non- belligerence.
And so Israelis must again wait. But they cannot wait as if the ten year exercise in peace-chasing have not taught them any lessons. As an Israeli academic friend sadly admitted to me a few days ago, Israelis are now all right wingers. If this is true, then it is also time to admit that the peace campaign of the last decade has wrought incalculable damage to the psyche of the Israelis - to their concept of peoplehood and to their sense of mission. Eroded by a decade of self-doubt, defeatism and spiritual drift, as Israelis questioned their own country's right to exist, Jewish pride cries out to be reinvigorated. Israel's great mission, once defined by David Ben-Gurion, as being "kibbutz galuyot", (the ingathering of the Jewish people) and "or lagoyim" (a fount of positive influence to the world community) needs to be reinstilled. Without idealism, the State of Israel will never regain the will to combat its enemies on the world stage nor will it find the rationale for its continued existence.
In Ariel Sharon, Israel has regained a nationalist leader, one who is not afraid to speak to the world as both a Zionist and a proud Jew. But it is clearly not enough to simply speak like a Zionist. He must also act like one. He should appoint as his spokesmen professors and think tank leaders who reject entirely defeatism and self- loathing as the basis of policy. He must talk to the world about the invaluable contributions the Jewish people have made to civilization and of the important role he sees for Israel in the world community. But more important than this, he must prove to his own people that a Jewish state is something worth living for, and even, in the direst circumstances, worth dying for.
There are no easy answers to Israel's intractable external problems. But there are answers to its internal ones. And while it waits for that long expected phone call, the country has plenty with which occupy its energies right at home.
(Avi Davis is a the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies in Los Angeles.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.