Between Unilateral Withdrawal and a Hard Place

I have been feeling more and more empathy for the flip-flopping US Democrats of late. For on the disengagement I find myself in a similar predicament. I supported unilateral withdrawal before I opposed it. Faulty information too is my best defence. Had I known the consequences of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, I certainly would have opposed it in Gaza.

Truthfully however, more than bad intel led me to be duped by disengagement. It was not so much that I didn’t know about Hezbollah’s thousands of rockets, but that I believed that unilateral withdrawal had somehow magically resulted in a free and prosperous Lebanon at peace with Israel (and would so in Gaza). As much as I can try to deny it, I bought hook line and sinker the propaganda that the ‘occupation’ is the root cause of the conflict in the region. Given the opportunity, I assumed that Israel’s neighbours would choose their own development over Israel’s destruction. I was sadly wrong. Disengagement has proved to be far more disastrous than Oslo ever was.

But now is not the time for recrimination. We, the Jewish people, need to deal with the difficult political conundrums we face. Remaining in the Territories threatens the Jewish nature of the state (from a demographic and moral perspective) but withdrawing endangers the lives of Israel’s citizens. We have no viable peace partner in Lebanon or the Palestinian Authority. Seeing that feeble man that masquerades as the Prime Minister of the sovereign state of Lebanon weeping on international television as his country was collapsing all around him was not touching but pathetic. If he snivels in the face of Sheik Nasrallah we can’t possibly expect him to stand up to the Ayatollahs. Abbas, although showing more of a stiff upper lip in public, is unfortunately not much tougher.

At the present time, the only possible solution is a strong international presence in the Territories and southern Lebanon. Regular readers may remember that I have called for this before (in Judea and Samaria). The ceasefire in Lebanon could have provided an ideal test case for this option. But alas, I just don’t believe a reinforced UNIFIL will cut it. If history is anything to go by, the French and Italian forces’ (the largest component of the bigger and buffer UNIFIL) record against Nazism doesn’t give one much confidence in their ability to defeat radical Islam. In fact disarming Hezbollah is not even in their mandate.

According to the United Nations fact sheet on UNIFIL not one Arab or Muslim country has contributed troops. This is a tremendous shame. Bringing moderate Arab regimes like Jordan and Egypt and Islamic democracies like Turkey on board would have given the force much more legitimacy. Its current composition (mainly Christian Europeans) allows Islamist propagandists to assert that the Zionist occupation of southern Lebanon has merely been replaced by a crusader one. So in addition to being toothless, it actually provides a rallying cry for Jihadists everywhere like Afghanistan in the 80’s.

An international mandate is no longer a theoretical option for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. This reality is taking shape on the ground as I write. It is crucial that we mould this reality so that it is most likely to succeed in bringing security and prosperity to the region. Israel could afford to lose the PR and military war in Lebanon but it cannot afford to lose the peace. This really is its last chance. It requires a diplomatic fight on a par with that which resulted in the creation of the state. I just don’t know if Ehud Olmert and his government are up to it.

Comments

[Steve]

Mike, great post.

Lots of points for discussion. But before I get to that I disagree with your statement

Israel could afford to lose the PR and military war in Lebanon but it cannot afford to lose the peace.

We can't ever afford to lose a military war. Whilst the Arabs can afford to launch many wars and lose them, for us as you know, losing just one military war would mean complete destruction.

To me our failure to destroy Hizballah was a non victory. But was it a military defeat?

But that's merely a side issue and a point of semantics.

The main issues you raised are:

- the death of unilateral withdrawals
- trusting an internationally mandated force

I think that there needs to be a revised type of unilateral withdrawal.

- We still have no negotiation partners so we can't negotiate our withdrawal.
- The same demographic issues that existed before the withdrawal continue to be a threat

So the new disengagement would be
- unilateral decisions regarding the scope, lines and dates of withdrawal.
- civilian and not full military withdrawal
- continued presence of the IDF in parts of the territories for an interim period to be replaced at a later stage by this International mandated force.

I used to say that withdrawal will decrease the friction between Palestinians and Israelis allowing for a long cooldown period before any talks could begin.

Now it seems we need a long cooldown period before any plans for withdrawal can begin.

But, am i missing the point completely? Is the entire notion of leaving territory - in whatever form we can come up with - a signal of resignation?

As things stand I don't know where I hold on this issue.

[mike]

Steve, I don’t think Hezbollah in its current form presents an existential threat to Israel. This last war in Lebanon was one of choice not necessity. Israel in theory could survive with hundreds of rockets fired at its northern cities daily. This is very different to say the Yom Kippur war where not responding would have meant the entire country was over run by Arab soldiers. I think by not eradicating Hezbollah and its rockets Israel lost. But it can live (not comfortably) with that situation. Hence it could afford to lose the war.

I don’t believe a civilian withdrawal solves the problem. Having the army in the territories presents the same threat to the Jewish character of the state (moral and demographic). We need strong and democratic neighbours who will adhere to international law. Abbas and Siniora may be democrats, but they are not strong enough to implement their visions. An international force must be used to bolster them. NATO’s current role in Afghanistan is what I envision for an international force the Territories and southern Lebanon.

Negotiation, recognition, trade and all other bilateral agreements are the last stage of the process. They come after there is a democratic Palestine and Lebanon.

[Harry]

Hi Guys, first off, great work you are doing! You still dont get it though! The only peace that has ever been achieved was done through strength. The only reason that Egypt and Jordan made peace was that they were sick and tired of being in the front line of every war, and being hammered to pieces.

If you think there will every be viable democracies in the ME, you are certainly smoking some good stuff!

I think that the Olmert government will be history in the very near future. The Israeli electorate now know more than ever that strength is the only option, and I think you will see them move Right in a big way. They will eventually come to terms with the fact that Transfer is the only option.

[Anti-UN]

Reading Yossi Alpher and the bloggers have touched on what he has said regarding Hamas' discussion about collapsing the PA.

"Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh suggested a few weeks ago that parliament members begin considering dismantling the Palestinian Authority.

Under renewed Israeli rule, it is argued by advocates of this course, the entire world would understand the true nature of Israeli occupation, which has merely been camouflaged in the past decade or so by the Oslo process. Palestinian resistance to Israel would be more effective both at the international level and locally, where, presumably, another intifada would erupt. Eventually, Israel might be forced to come up with a more generous peace offer. More likely, it would be forced into a situation that would generate a bi-national state as a precursor to a demographically Palestinian state stretching from the river to the sea. Meanwhile, it would be much easier to brand Israel and Israelis with the apartheid label."

Scares me.

[Brian]

You know I am against transfer. But after reading all about how Hamas and the others want a single state siolution i think that transfer should be put back on the table.

If the Palestinians are tendingtowards their radical winner takes all approach then why cant we tend towards our radical winner takes all approach.

and then we say that we will put it off the table when they put their winner takes all approach off the table.

But if they going to be radical then so should we. Oit with Olmert in with Lieberman!!

Let the Arabs learn that we can also play the "we want it all" game and let the world see just how destructive this will be.

[mike]

I oppose transfer. I find it morally reprehensible to expel people from their homes. But as both Harry and Brian point out it may soon be on the table. When I said that an international force in Lebanon was the last chance, I meant to finding a moral solution to the conflict. If this fails, the advocates of transfer may get their wave.

[Steve]

I agree with Mike but think that Brian has made an excellent point. The general public has helped marginalise those that favour transfer yet the same hasnt been done to those who seek a single state solution. It reeks from the same odour.

Why can Allister Sparks call for a single state solution and be lauded for it yet people who call for transfer are condemned?

I am against transfer but and think that the single state solution should be treated with the same abhorrence.

And if this is not the case then those lauding the single state solution are actually paving the roads that will be used for transfer. These people should realise the racism that they inadvertently (or maybe not so inadvertently) end up supporting.