By Bruce S. Ticker
October 7, 2006
"No army in the world will be able to make us drop the weapons from our hands." - Hezbollah commander Hassan Nasrallah, September 22, 2006
"We have accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and the return of refugees, and the condition will be a truce, not the recognition of Israel." - Hamas boss Ismail Haniyeh, same day.
Yasser Arafat and the rest of the Arab world invested decades to redefine the crux of their conflict with Israel from survival to occupation. Hamas and Hezbollah shattered this illusion by redefining the conflict once again, back to that of Israel's survival. This leaves Israel with maneuvering room to rethink the so-called "peace process" and the status of [Judea and Samaria,] the "West Bank."
The settlements drew opposition from people like myself simply because they were not worth the trouble. Israel painted itself into a diplomatic corner because the world perceived Israel as oppressing the poor Palestinians, and there was some truth in that. Militarily, the more isolated settlements are much more difficult to protect than Israel proper. Israel also faces a demographic threat, since Arabs throughout Israel and its territories could one day outnumber the Jewish population. The Arabs managed to rally the world against the settlements as a land theft and imposition, thanks to many dumb and cruel actions undertaken by past Israeli administrations that were mostly run by the Likud party.
However, the Arab arguments against "occupation" are now null and void. Even centrists or liberals like myself recognize that. Hamas and Hizbullah stripped the case against "occupation" of all meaning when they attacked Israeli troops, first on June 25 from post-"occupation" Gaza and again on July 12 from post-"occupation" Lebanon.
They raided Israeli positions nearly a year after Israel cleared out all its settlements from Gaza and was planning to eliminate many settlements in the West Bank. Not to mention that Israel withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon six years ago, and that Hezbollah built a sophisticated military stronghold right under the noses of United Nations peacekeepers.
Nasrallah and Haniyeh firmed up their mission to destroy Israel with their September 22 pronouncements, as quoted in The New York Times in separate stories. Pursuant to a United Nations resolution, the Lebanese Army or United Nations forces were expected to disarm Hezbollah, but they refused to do so. In Israel's territories, Hamas officials know full well that they must recognize Israel in order to form a national unity government, which in turn can receive revenues to operate their administration and pay employees.
Even after the events of the last few months, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan still insists that "occupation" remains a principal issue. In the New York Jewish Week he was quoted as saying, "People are outraged by the disproportionate use of force against Palestinians and by Israel's continued occupation and confiscation of Arab land."
How can anyone assume that it is "Arab land" being occupied? My resistance to the settlements was rooted in practical concerns, but I believe that Gaza and the West Bank belong to Israel. Israeli troops seized Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem in June 1967, after neighboring Arab countries effectively initiated a war against it. At the same time, I do not believe that these are Jewish lands because of Biblical pronouncements.
Twenty-two Arab countries comprise five million square miles populated by 323 million people, and Israel, Gaza and the West Bank together occupy 10,000 square miles. How much land do the Arabs need? The Arab world has a responsibility to aid and relocate the Arabs who have been victimized and displaced by wars started by the same Arab nations.
Together, Hamas and Hezbollah boxed in the Arab world politically. They did more than any ardent Zionist ever could to reset the agenda to the survival of Israel. Whether or not the Palestinians have legitimate concerns, they are no longer the focus of the conflict. True, Israel suffered a black eye in public relations but its bombardment of Lebanon was nonetheless the result of an unprovoked act of war -- not occupation. And the world recognizes that much.
In so many words, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah admitted defeat when, on Sunday, August 27, he told a Lebanese television station: "We did not think, even 1%, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not."
The Guardian of London also quoted Nasrallah as saying he does not expect "a second round." He could not even take a 34-day skirmish. So much for dedication to his spiritual mission.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wisely announced a delay in plans to withdraw from West Bank settlements in order to focus on rebuilding communities in northern Israel that were ravaged by Hezbollah rocket fire. That made perfect sense, but the Israeli government will need to return to the question of the West Bank. They should do with it what makes sense for Israel's future. They must take a close look at Israel's needs in the West Bank. Whatever they do, a military presence should be maintained to ensure that Arab militants do not attack Israel proper. What to do with the settlements depends on what is manageable.
To paraphrase Hillel, the rest -- use of the West Bank -- is commentary. The principle is simple: the West Bank's function is no longer its status as "occupied" land, but how it can be employed to ensure Israel's survival.
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.
|
|
| |
|
