|
For
the past three days I have had a unique opportunity to participate
in Kenes Herzliya – this is an annual event (this was
the second meeting) of a gathering of the entire Israeli military,
security, and military industrial establishment. The subject of
the conference was "The Balance of Israel's Strength and
National Security." Kenes Herzliya is organized by
Dr. Uzi Arad, the former Political-Security advisor to Prime Minister
Netanyahu and the former head of Research at the Mossad.
There were hundreds of participants from all spheres of
the Israeli security elites and establishments. Speakers at Kenes
Herzliya included Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, Former Head of GSS
Ami Ayalon, Former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu,
Minister of Defense Binyamin Ben Eliezer, Director of the Mossad
Ephraim Halevy, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Former CIA Director
Jim Woolsey and more.
On
a personal note, this was the most right-wing gathering that I
have ever participated in and for me it was a fascinating learning
experience. The organizers will produce a book of summaries and
recommendations from the conference that will be made public on
Israel's Independence Day next year.
I would like to share with you my impressions from the presentations made
at the conference by former Prime Ministers Barak and Netanyahu.
These two presentations, in my view, give a pretty good
picture of the mainstream thinking in Israel today. While
it is understood that neither of these gentleman are in a position
of power today, their thinking greatly represents the mainstream
of Israeli public thinking and they both help to design and lead
public thinking in Israel today. I
think that it is important to take a good look at these positions.
POSITIONS
SHARED BY BARAK AND NETANYAHU
- September
11th marks a change in international relations that
the State of Israel has already benefited from and will continue
to benefit from. The United States and the Western world today
have a clear understanding of the dangers of terrorism and are
now leading a world war aimed at wiping terrorism off the face
of the planet. The United States has now adopted and supports
Israel's position on terrorism.
- The
United States will be successful in its war against terrorism.
The success of the victory in Afghanistan will serve as deterrence
for other states that support terrorism and/or give refuge to
terrorists.
- The
World War against terrorism will continue after Afghanistan
to places such as Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and Syria.
Iraq and Iran are also on the "radar scopes"
of the Americans and they will also be dealt with in various
ways.
- It
is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein will be left in place when
the World War against terrorism is completed.
- Thanks
to the position of the United States, it is now understood by
the entire world that there is no "good terrorism and bad
terrorism." All
terrorism is bad and no state should make compromises to terrorism.
Terrorism must be destroyed.
- There
is no effective deterrence against suicide terrorists. Therefore,
deterrence can be created by attacking those states and regimes
that support terrorism and encourage terrorism. Those regimes
that cannot be made to understand that they must stop supporting
terrorism and that they must destroy the terrorist infrastructure
will pay the price of no longer existing.
This is the policy of the US and the actions against
the Taliban should help to provide real deterrence for other
regimes, including the Palestinian Authority.
- The
Palestinians made a strategic error when they interpreted the
Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon as an act of Israeli weakness.
- The
Palestinians had two main strategic aims for the intifada –
(1) internationalization of the conflict; and (2) creating rifts
and cleavages in Israeli society. The Palestinians have failed
to achieve these aims – Israeli society is stronger and
more unified than ever before, and rather than putting pressure
on Israel, the international community has put pressure on Arafat
and on the Palestinian Authority.
- Israel
cannot allow Arafat or the Palestinian Authority to achieve
their strategic goals, at all costs this must be avoided.
- Israel
cannot allow Arafat or the Palestinian Authority to achieve
any political gains as a result of violence and terrorism; this
would be the surest way to guarantee that the violence will
only increase.
- Israel
must face the real probability that reaching peace agreements
with the Palestinians at this time and at any time in the foreseeable
future is not at all likely.
- Arafat
is not a partner. Arafat is not willing to accept the existence
of the State of Israel as Israel defines itself – as a
Jewish state. Arafat's
demand for the right of return means that what he wants is a
Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and a bi-national state
inside of Israel. For
Israel this is a nonstarter.Until there are Palestinian leaders
who are really willing to accept Israel as a Jewish state and
explicitly give up the right of return there can be no "end
of conflict agreements."
- Understanding
that there can be no peace agreement that will put an end to
the conflict requires Israel to take direct responsibility for
its own security and its own future.
Beyond
these many points of agreement, the following outlines the points
of differences between Barak and Netanyahu and the more specific
details of how each of them views the future.
BARAK'S
PLAN
- While
actively fighting against terrorism, Israel should implement
a unilateral policy of separation – "us here and them
there." This plan should be implemented over the course
of four years. The plan
must be detailed and announced to the world.
If the Palestinians agree, they can cooperate and work
out ways of benefiting from it, if they do not agree, Israel
should go ahead with the plan according to its design.
- The
plan is based on creating 5 settlements blocks that would include
about 12-13% of the West Bank, the Jordan Valley would stay
in Israel's hands accounting for about 12% of the West Bank.
All isolated settlements would be vacated, but not while
the violence continues. The goal should be to relocate all settlers
from settlements removed over a four-year period.
The four years are necessary both for building new housing
and for creating a period of calm and quiet before Israel removes
a single settlement. The five settlement blocks already account
for 80% of the settlers. The removal of the isolated settlements accounts for the remaining
20%. Israel will construct whatever fences, blockades, walls,
and formal crossing points that are necessary to protect its
security and the security of the Israeli people. It is conceivable
to imagine that some Palestinian labor will continue inside
of Israel after the separation plan is in effect.
- The
plan for separation is for Israel's security and defense needs
but equally important for protecting a significant Jewish majority
in the State of Israel. If
Israel does not implement this plan for separation it will either
become a BI-national state or it will become an apartheid state.
In either of these two cases, it is the end of Zionism
and the Zionist dream.
- There
can and should be fences and blockades in and around Jerusalem
as well. There can be fences on the outer borders of Jerusalem
as well as fences and checkpoints inside of Jerusalem that will
work according to the security situation on the ground and as
needed.
- Israel
must be concerned with the welfare of the innocent Palestinian
civilian population and should work with the international community
in supporting the economic and welfare needs of the Palestinian
people.
- The
Palestinians can declare statehood over the territories beyond
the fence. Israel will retain the right to take care of its
own security needs through the security perimeter that will
exist around the Palestinian entity. Israel will control the
international borders of the Palestinian state.
- Israel
must always leave a very wide window open for negotiations for
such a time when the Palestinian leadership is able to accept
the challenge of coming back to the negotiating table.
This can only be after the Palestinians have successfully
put an end to terrorism against Israel.
NETANYAHU'S
PLAN
- The
collapse of the Palestinian regime must be brought about. Arafat
must understand that there is a price for breaching agreements,
and the only price that Arafat and those with him understand
is the loss of their regime.
No regime that would rise after Arafat would be worse
than Arafat. The security situation cannot be worse than it
is now. If Hamas takes power, a possibility that Netanyahu doubts,
Israel's room for maneuvering would be broadened in the context
of international opinion.
- Israel
should express its sincere desire to reenter into negotiations
with the Palestinians. The
first subject on the agenda should be the refugee issue.
If the Palestinians are unwilling to declare explicitly
that they accept that there will not be a right of return for
Palestinian refugees, then the negotiations on other issues
will not begin.
- If
Israel builds a fence, it should be a one-way fence – the Palestinians
cannot enter Israel but Israel retains the right to enter into
the Palestinian areas if the Palestinians do not effectively
fight against terrorism. A fence is a means and not an alternative
to a political or a diplomatic solution. This is a means that
should be considered but the most important question is where
to put the fence. Under no circumstances should the fence be
placed along the 1967 lines that would bring the Palestinians
closer to Israel.
- Until
there is a trustworthy Palestinian regime the question of Palestinian
statehood is not to be considered at all. Palestinian statehood
and sovereignty would require that Israel agree to Palestinian
control over their own air space, the water rights, external
borders, etc. All of these issues pose a real strategic and
existential threat to the State of Israel. When a different,
more "realistic" and more responsible Palestinian
leadership emerges, Israel will be ready to enter into negotiations
with that leadership. Until that time, Israel's main task is
to protect its citizens and the interests of Israel.
Gershon
Baskin, Ph.D., is Co-Director of the Israel/Palestine
Center for Research and Information (IPCRI).
|
