|
|
By Ted Belman
February 6, 2006
Under no conditions should Israel talk to the PA, particularly now that Hamas is the party in power. It doesn't matter if Hamas or Fatah change their charters. It doesn't matter if they agree to forgo violence. It doesn't matter what else they might agree to. What matters is that they don't want peace but victory.
While the world carries on like there is a peace process, in reality there is only a war process.
To test this thesis, I suggest you look for any evidence that suggests we have moved closer to peace rather than to war since the Oslo Accords were signed. Conversely, compare the situation now with what existed prior to the accords.
What I see now is that the PA has always been dedicated to destroying Israel. More so now that Hamas is in power. It has been arming for war rather then disarming for peace as agreed to in Oslo and the Roadmap. This has accelerated since the Gaza disengagement and the Rafah agreement. Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades has announced that it now has a missile that can travel 16 kilometers - enough to reach any city in Israel from the West Bank. Al Qaeda is now operating in Lebanon, Sinai, Gaza and Jordan. Hamas is not only part of the Islamic Brotherhood; it has a strategic relationship with Syria and Iran who are also on record as intent on destroying Israel. Iran, not only finances Hamas, but also pulls its strings. Hamas has announced that if Israel attacks Iran, it will attack Israel. Rest assured that Hezbollah, with its 10,000 rockets will also join in. The dominant party in Iraq is also on record for not recognizing Israel; they too are influenced by Iran.
Syria and Iran continue to resist American pressure and show no signs of capitulating. Similarly, Hamas won't capitulate and will not break ranks with the rejectionist forces. Soon the US will be retreating from Iraq leaving in its wake a very unstable country. Iran is soon to open an embassy in Ramallah.
Israel should recognize the peace process for what it is and go on a war footing. Its goal should not be peace but victory.
It astounds me that the Labour party is still talking about a negotiated withdrawal and Kadima is talking about a unilateral withdrawal. How can this possibly make Israel safer? Both parties view the occupation as the problem rather then the solution.
Israel should maintain security control of the West Bank and should not allow contiguity with Gaza. The fence should be moved to encircle Area A as delineated by Oslo. This may require legislation to take the fence location out of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Israel. Then these lands should be annexed.
Such a move would result in an additional 300,000 Arabs being west of the fence. All terrorists and their families from among them should be expelled. This should be done as either a legal process or a military process. Before Arabs would be allowed to stay they would have to sign a stringent loyalty oath. Any violation of that oath in word or deed should result in expulsion. Citizenship should be made available to all newborn children. Adults should be entitled to citizenship after five to ten years providing they take educational courses and become fluent in Hebrew. Sixteen years of lies and incitement must be undone. Such requirements are in place in many countries now. The same would apply to Arabs in Jerusalem.
In my mind, Israel could absorb the additional Arabs; the trade off would be an enlarged Israel to allow for further growth, defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem. The later would be made more acceptable to the world because Israel would contain almost as many Arabs as Gaza and Area "A" combined -- certainly more then Area "A" alone. And don't forget that Gaza was Egyptian territory until '67.
Of course the Arabs would complain that Area "A" is a "prison", the west would complain that it would mean the end of the two-state solution and the leftists would complain that Israel is an apartheid state regardless that citizenship is offered. Pressure would then build for a bi-national state.
Area "A" should not become part of Israel but it should be offered autonomy -- a form of limited sovereignty.
Thus Israel would have dealt with the demographic threat, the occupation threat and the security threat. And then there is Iran.
Remember Israel is in imminent danger and entitled to pre-emptive action.
Other than that "affirmative action", Israel should learn how to just say "no".
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
