Territory for Terror

The State of Israel is in an incredibly tenuous position. The debate surrounding Israel’s interests has shifted more in the last decade than perhaps at any other time in its history, with horrific consequences. A breakdown in Israeli leadership has gone hand in hand with a mismanagement of the military and a compromise on Israeli rights to the “Disputed Territories.” In order for Israel to achieve a new epoch of stability, it must discard the approaches of the past. In adopting what Israeli CEO and publisher Reuven Koret has dubbed “Territory for Terror,” Israel would achieve its objectives and secure its interests through gradualism. If the Palestinians continue to flaunt their obligations and launch attacks from areas under their control, Israel will respond with immediate military action resulting in permanent territorial annexations.

The present crisis originated with Labor’s sweep of the 1992 Knesset elections. Likud had failed to quash the First Intifada and increasing unemployment worried Israeli voters. The governing coalition, led by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, was preparing a series of radical diplomatic moves. There were several motivations that drove these men and their supporters to Oslo, where the Peace Process with the Palestinians was born. Rabin was convinced that the fall of the Soviet Union and the cutoff of military support to Israel’s Arab neighbors would leave them no choice but to negotiate and relinquish hopes of obliterating the Jewish state. The Palestine Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat, formed in 1964 to free Palestine from Israeli occupation (three years before the Six Day War and Israeli takeover of the West Bank and Gaza), was seen as most threatened by the geopolitical shift. Rabin and Peres had also made backdoor deals with the Israeli Arab List, which some argue was important for Labor’s victory and influenced the change in Israeli policy. Regardless, most concur that Rabin was genuine about his desire for reconciliation and truly believed the new global reality would mean a new Arab mindset; this would prove to be a terrible mistake.

Oslo marked the end of an era. One had to accept that the Arabs really wanted peace, almost overnight, because of the drop in rubles from Moscow. One had to understand that the Jews who lived at or near the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, the 2nd holiest site in Judaism, were illegal occupiers. One could no longer stress the right of the Jewish people to the land, but focus on the security concerns forcing continued Israeli presence. As part of a final status agreement, the Palestinians demanded Israel hand over East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, since the occupier must completely turnover that which he stole. That same cry did not exist when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem between 1950 and 1967, but Jewish rights are out of the question. Acceptance of a two-state solution, the great miscarriage of the Oslo Process, was now the 11th commandment for most policymakers and Jewish leaders, independent of whether the other side used the same colored glasses.

The Israeli government and the international community, by embracing Oslo and the agreements that followed it, decided to shelve decades of tragic history. The Hebron massacre of 1929 was pushed aside, where an Arab mob killed 67 Jews and ended any sizeable Jewish presence in the holy city. The Great Arab Uprising of 1936-39 was also forgotten, where 500 Jews were killed. The Arab rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan, where an Arab state in 77% of the land (all of Gaza, the West Bank, and border areas) would be juxtaposed with a Jewish state made up predominantly of the Negev Desert, was no longer relevant. One percent of Israel’s population perished in a war caused by the initial Arab rejection of a two-state solution and thousands more died in four successive conflicts. The Arabs desire for Israel’s destruction was not rooted in percentages, but in the existence of a Jewish state per se. Oslo seemed to guarantee the exact opposite assumption.

Skipping to 2005, Israel has pulled out of Gaza and lost a war in Lebanon. Official Israeli rhetoric has leeched on to the US War on Terror, seeming to imply that the war the US is fighting is identical to the one Israel faces, which is greatly exaggerated. Whereas the US faces an ideological conflict and no direct territorial threat to its legitimacy or existence, Israel continues to fight for its life and faces a distinctly territorial struggle. Fatah, now controlled by Mahmoud Abbas, and the Hamas organization only differ in tactics, not purpose. Whereas Abbas, a Holocaust denier and Arafat’s right hand for decades, seeks Israel’s destruction through diplomacy, Hamas opts for direct military action.

The government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is an utter disgrace. Prior to last summer’s war in Lebanon, Olmert had frequently denied reports of a massive Hezbollah buildup. As soon as the war broke out, with the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers and the shelling of Israeli towns at a 20 mile radius from the border, the Israeli General Staff presented Olmert with a detailed plan for quick and decisive victory. The plan, had it been implemented, was slated to end the war in 10-14 days. Beginning with an “air onslaught” on southern Beirut to decapitate Hezbollah’s leadership, a series of massive naval and paratroop operations would have landed several divisions along the Litani River and outflanked Hezbollah’s southern defenses. Forced to vacate their bunkers to avoid starvation and humiliating defeat, Hezbollah fighters would have had to face the IDF out in the open and be most certainly annihilated. Olmert rejected an initial strike on Beirut, giving the Hezbollah leadership time to escape and reorganize. By waiting a full twenty days to send only 8,000 troops across the border, leaving Syria untouched, and not crippling Hamas in Gaza, Olmert guaranteed disaster. One hundred sixteen Israeli troops paid with their lives for Olmert’s incompetence, as did the 1,000,000 Israelis locked in bomb shelters across the north as 3,700 rockets rained down on them.

Israel is in need of new leadership and a new strategy. The Peace Process must be put on the ash heap and the nonsense of a two-state solution abandoned. If the Palestinians continue ignoring cease-fires, killing Jews in Israel, and playing politics, they must face the response of a permanent loss of territory. The more terror is used, the more pieces Israel will officially and irrevocably annex. At best, seeing a completely new and sustained Israeli response to continued aggression will force the Palestinians to make serious changes. The alternative is a gradualist policy of permanently reclaiming the Territories of 1967, restoring Jewish rights to reside on the land, and strengthening Israel’s much weakened defense buffers. The city of Sderot lies just across the Israeli-Gaza border and has been bombarded with over 1,000 Qassam rockets since last summer. All IDF retaliatory operations have been incomplete and temporary, with Olmert demanding restraint and flirting with more concessions to the Palestinians. It is in Sderot that the new Territory for Terror strategy should have its first test run. If one more Qassam is fired from Gaza, the village from whence the rocket came must face devastating military retaliation and its Palestinian residents removed and transported to the nearest town. The village and its immediate vicinity would then be officially annexed to the State of Israel, with no compromises. This would be repeated across the Territories, until there is clear indication of a shift in Palestinian thinking.

Beginning with Labor’s parliamentary victory in 1992 and the start of the Oslo Process, Israel has faced one tragedy after another. Instead of decisively acting to deal with threats to its existence one and for all, successive Israeli policymakers have chosen an incomplete strategy of carrots and sticks. The current political leadership is intolerable, having both mismanaged the military and adopted restraint in the face of increasing Palestinian assault. In order for Israel to face down its enemies and restore its position, the Oslo formula of “Land for Peace” must be replaced with “Territory for Terror.” There is little time to wait.