 |
Dr. Aaron Lerner is co-founder of , Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
|
|
|
|
By Dr. Aaron Lerner
April 18, 2008
 Bookmark to del.icio.us
As the food crisis striking Egypt and many other areas makes headlines around the world I am reminded of a conversation I had back in the summer of
1998 with Shimon Peres.
Peres was making his standard "New Middle East" presentation that night, arguing that if Israel does whatever it takes -- gives whatever it has to give - in order to get all its neighbors to sign pieces of paper, that the ensuing economic prosperity would drive out the threat of Islamic fundamentalism from the region.
I spoke with Peres as he was making his way out of the hall.
Mr. Peres, I asked, I understand your hypothesis which relates peace to economic prosperity which, in turn, keeps the fundamentalists at bay. But what happens if, after Israel gives up strategic positions which it would certainly need if it faced fundamentalist neighbors, through no fault of Israel -- there is some external economic shock and there is a recession in the region? By your theory, the recession could very well bring the fundamentalists to power.
Peres replied with a smile: "I don't give answers to questions which I don't have answers for."
And that's still the problem today.
Israeli policymakers continue to develop (frequently ideologically driven) programs that a priori decline to address the scenarios that lay bare their critical weaknesses.
That's why there are otherwise reasonably intelligent people suggesting that the Egyptian army be deployed in the Gaza Strip and the Jordanians deployed next to Kfar Saba.
That's why some people with a rich background in military intelligence can propose Israel has no genuine security risk trading the Golan for a piece of paper since Syria would have no reason to attack the Jewish State if it had the Golan back.
And the list goes on.
Here's the odd thing:
The left end of the political spectrum usually has a greater tendency to question the motives of national leaders marching their countries off to war.
Yet when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict these same people take a blind leap of faith and are willing to risk the very fate of the nation on what the Arabs promise in English in their prepared statements.
Israel has nothing to do with the price of bread in Cairo. But that doesn't mean the day won't come that an Egyptian leader decides that his regime's survival requires him to find an external target for the angry mobs.
Policy making based on best case assumptions is isn't just lazy thinking.
It is downright dangerous.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
