Hang Tough
by Ted Belman
Mar 22, '04
Arutz Sheva
Ha'aretz published an article by Aluf Benn entitled "Landau disappointed by Netanyahu's stance on PM's pullout". Evidently, "During Sunday's meeting, Sharon invited his ministers to offer their own, alternative proposals for ways to improve Israel's diplomatic and security situation."
With diminishing respect, that's the problem in a nutshell. Those issues should be secondary. The primary issue is what is the best policy Israel can follow to ensure we keep a large part of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, if not all of it.
Israel is doing a great job now in thwarting terror. True some attacks succeed, but the situation is improving and will continue to improve. Operation Continuing Story to destroy Hamas is going forward with American approval. The United States has decided that there is no chance for anyone to take over Gaza until Hamas is destroyed. Even the European Union is not seriously condemning Israel on this operation. The Palestinian Authority is falling apart and Yasser Arafat won't last forever. Internecine fighting has begun. Now is not the time for Israel to cave.
The US also takes seriously the new treaty between Iran, Syria and Lebanon, which is dedicated to drive the US out of Iraq, among other things. Coupled with the announced intention of Iran to acquire the bomb, the US has no choice but to deal with the threat, irrespective of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
Furthermore, when the Western coalition against terror is struggling to hold itself together after Spain announced it would leave Iraq, and more attacks against supporters in the EU are expected, now is not the time for Israel to turn tail. Bush is in no mood for the further weakening of the coalition. My guess is that for this reason alone the US will not agree to the Gaza disengagement.
From a security point of view, Israel should continue what it is doing and perhaps do more, rather than to take the risk of losing control by retreating. Oslo proved the more Israel retreats, the more there is terrorism. While the retreat from Lebanon reduced the number of casualties Israel was suffering, it gave way to establishing Hezbollah as a major force, with Iran and Syria backing it.
According to Israel National News, Binyamin Netanyahu is willing to support the disengagement subject to three conditions:
The first is that Israel must control all entrances and exits to the Gaza Strip, including the Philadelphi route separating Egypt and Gaza.
Secondly, the counter-terrorism partition fence around Judea and Samaria must be completed - including around as-yet undefined "settlement blocs" and Route 443 (the Modi'in-Jerusalem Highway) - before he would agree to the retreat.
Thirdly, Netanyahu said, the Americans must issue public declarations in support of settlement blocs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and against the so-called "Right of Return" for Arabs who left Israel in 1948.
Netanyahu also said that we must not retreat under fire, but must rather ensure that Gaza-based terrorism is neutralized before a withdrawal.
If he holds firm on his demands, then I, too, would favor the retreat, but the American declaration that he requires must be iron-clad. As we have seen in the past, the US can weasel out of most anything. Their assurances regarding Egypt in the Camp David Accords, and their agreement to give "serious consideration" to Israel's fourteen conditions to accepting the Roadmap are two cases in point.
Nothing short of agreed borders, to Israel's satisfaction, should be the quid pro quo for the retreat, with its attendant risks. Since Israel's position is that the fence is not the final border, it matters little if the US agrees to its location. The US must agree that it will also be the border.
To suggest, as Tzipi Livni and Silvan Shalom have done, that if the US rejects the "Right of Return", then that is reason enough to retreat, is frightening. To suggest that such a retreat is well worth it to get such support suggests that Israel is indeed weak and is vulnerable to having the "Right" imposed on it. I would like to believe that Israel can just say "no" to the "Right of Return" and need not give anything to prevent it.
This weakness is further reflected in the following extract: "Government sources in Jerusalem said that in individual conversations with the ministers ahead of Sunday's meeting, it has become clear that none of them think that Israel's current situation is particularly good. 'The argument is over the way to escape this situation,' said one."
I, for one, fail to understand why Israel's position is so weak. Sure, the World, including the State Department, supports a Palestinian State with '67 borders providing there is an end to terror, but what can they do if Israel says "no" and if the Arab terror continues? What, pray tell, are these ministers worried about? Without Israel's consent, the World can do nothing. And don't forget, the American people support Israel's fight against terror and its claim to the land.
The problem in Israel is that the Left doesn't value retaining the settlements and considers them bargaining chips to get peace and diplomatic approval. It is even prepared to forgo the bargaining value and to just withdraw. The Right, on the other hand, embraces the settlements as Israel's and will not concede them for a peace agreement. This is the central debate in Israel. Is Israel fighting for security or for its rights and its land? As to whether or not giving up the settlements will achieve peace and strengthen Israel or instead will weaken Israel is part of this debate.
What makes Israel weak is not that the World is against it, but that it is divided. The Left wants to give up what they don't value, land, for a mess of pottage, namely illusory peace and good will. The Right will have none of it and rightly so.
How is Israel to keep the settlements? Hang tough, rout the terrorists, reject the freeze, build the fence to suit its interests - not only in security, but also in keeping the land - and keep putting facts on the ground.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=3474Sure, the World, including the State Department, supports a Palestinian State with '67 borders providing there is an end to terror, but what can they do if Israel says "no" and if the Arab terror continues? What is this "end to terror" fairy tale?
What does "the World" or "the State Department" have to do with Israel's security?
Bush said "We will not require a permission slip to defend America."
So should it be with Israel.
The "Road Map" is just more denial: the Pallies still live to kill Jews and destroy Israel.
As for the current regime in Iran: it is now (and perhaps has always been) the headquarters for world terrorism.
It hosted the annual terrorists' jamboree, and has been responsible for the 1983 Beirut Embassy bombing and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing.
It is in Iraq conducting attacks and is behind Hezbollah as it assumes control of Hamas.
There will be no security and freedom in the region for anyone until the Ayatollah gets the Complete Ceaucescu.
Arafat's head in a jar will be an object d'arte but not an essential.