 |
Reuven Koret is the publisher of Israel Insider and the CEO of Koret Communications.
|
|
|
|
By Reuven Koret
November 26, 2006
The idea of a "ceasefire" -- the latest came into being last night with a call from a Palestinian lame-duck to an Israeli lame-duck -- has become a lame joke in recent years. This one was first violated within two hours of its start-time, the first of many such violations to follow. Since this one is not even written down but rather the result of late-night pillow-talk between these disabled ducks, we can expect it to have a limited life-span which will end in days or weeks with bodies exploding.
Just like the ceasefire that took effect in summer in Lebanon, this quack prescription for "a little peace and quiet" will change nothing except give the terrorists a chance to restock and rebuild in peace for the next offensive, and give the incompetent politicians the chance to claim, however unconvincingly, that they achieved something, even if for a few days of relative quiet. Meanwhile, the residents of the south are, like residents of the north were last summer, sitting ducks.
The reality is that a "ceasefire", accompanied by IDF withdrawals and cessation of hostilities with terrorists, is precisely the wrong prescription for what ails Israel. It should be just the opposite, where bad actions are punished, not rewarded with a respite to rearm.
During the three years when Benjamin Netanyahu was prime minister, the watchword was "reciprocity." The idea was that if the Palestinian were to carry out terror attacks, they would get tough Israeli military actions and no concessions. The approach worked surprisingly well: the suicide bombings that plagued Yitzhak Rabin and then Shimon Peres came almost to a complete halt during Netanyahu's term. Correctly or not, he rewarded the Palestinian's relative quiet by concessions in the Wye River Accords.
Netanyahu's predecessors were wholly opposed to the concept of reciprocity: Rabin and Peres gave away land and, for all the pretty ceremonies and signed papers, got only terror in return. Barak was willing to give away 95% of Judea and Samaria in Camp David, and withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon: that brought on the second Intifada and a lethal wave of bombings. Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert then led the charge to further unilateral concessions, the rotten fruits of which we have been reaping.
As rockets launch from Gaza (including and especially from areas where Sharon and Olmert destroyed Jewish communities and expelled their inhabitants), Hezbollah races to restock improved rockets and launchers for the next round of aerial assaults on Israel, and Hamas promises now to launch rockets from the Judea and Samaria ("The West Bank") onto the populated coastal plain around Tel Aviv -- the time has come to consider a different kind of reciprocity, adjusted to the aerial threat.
Contrary to Rabin and especially Peres, who argued that land was of no strategic importance in the age of rockets and missiles, it is now painfully obvious that precisely because of the aerial threat, the value of permanently controlling land -- and access to it from land and sea -- has never been more important. Rocket range is a critical factor: we saw it in the north last summer and we are seeing it now around Gaza.
Current technology enables the Arabs of Gaza to hit a radius around the Strip and threaten the Israeli cities of Sderot and Ashkelon (including its power plant and other strategic facilities) with portable Qassam rockets, which in the latest models (Qassam 2 and 3) have a range of up to 10 kilometers (6 miles) and an explosive payload of up to 10 kilos (22 pounds).
The concessionists claim that territory doesn't matter in a missile age, but that thesis is disproved when dealing with the paralyzing terror of rockets raining on homes. If Israel could drive back the Kassam launchers so they could not reach Sderot or Ashkelon -- that would make a huge difference for the residents. Shooting those cheap and portable rockets is impractical. High tech defense measures would hardly be cost-effective.
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the only alternative is to push the rocket launchers out of range of Israeli cities, and to gain a strategic buffer to distance our cities from all but the longest-range missiles. Thus, some Israeli military strategists have proposed a major operation to "retake the Gaza strip." Some have called for a "Defensive Shield II" operation, a reprise of the 2002 operation that hit terror strongholds in West Bank cities.
Unfortunately, those proposing such an operation see it only as a short-term palliative. The army would go in, search and destroy, then pull out. So what good does that do? It wastes money and endangers lives, with limited, reversible benefit. As we all saw in Lebanon last summer, and since, the terrorists and their armaments merely return to their positions as soon as the IDF pulls out. No multi-national force can or will stop them.
Equally ineffective will be the "proportionate" means of dealing with the problem proposed Friday by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen who, Haaretz reported, said the state should authorize the formation of Jewish youth militias that would be free to fire back at Palestinian Authority-controlled Gaza every time a terrorist missile hit southern Israel.
Rozen said that with all the world's censuring of Israel's cautious military operations, the only logical thing to do is "respond to terror with counter-terror, an eye for an eye, explaining that the government will then "be able to argue that the State of Israel has become fully integrated into the Middle East and is [like its Arab neighbors] incapable of controlling its militant ... youth." It's not clear that Rozen was serious, rather than rhetorical, but as the saying goes -- "an eye for an eye and the whole world will go blind." But "eyeless in Gaza" is, as we know, a historical expression with strong resonance for its recurrent relevance.
A new and more constructive strategy -- a "reverse reciprocity" -- is urgently required: territory for terror. If rockets will be fired into Israel, the IDF will, at once or soon after, seize land. If more rockets will be fired, more land will be seized. This will be done in a clear and deliberate manner. The policy, the announcement will make clear, will be to make permanent land acquisitions, not temporary holding actions. The land acquired will be used to strengthen the defense of Israel and to deter assailants, whether by rocket fire or cross-border infiltrations.
Such a policy, if it is executed systematically, would have an electrifying effect on our enemies. Their attacks, rather than cause Israel to turn tail and run, would cause them to lose ground and lead to the replanting of Jewish roots throughout the land of Israel.
Reverse reciprocity could be started in Gaza, but it could just as well be applied to Judea and Samaria. The policy would work even if attacks came from Lebanon, or even abroad. The terrorists who attack Israel in the name of "redeeming Palestine" -- even if they attack from elsewhere -- would learn that their action would leave less Palestine to be redeemed.
The hard reality is that there is no Arab party with whom to negotiate. Israel fled from Lebanon, and terror followed us across the northern frontier. Israel "disengaged" from Gaza, and the terrorist engaged us within our 1948 borders. The same happened in the West Bank. The ubiquitous objection, despite diplomatic niceties to the contrary, is not Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria but Israel's presence, period.
The current approaches, based on "land for peace" must be discarded. They have proven not to work. They endanger us, and we have no extra land to give. Israel has never needed a territorial buffer more than it does today, as the result of Arab terror. A security fence doesn't stop aerial attacks, but more land reduce the short-range threat and buys warning time.
The simple formula is: use terror, lose territory. That is a message that the Arabs and Iranians will understand. That is a policy that will restore Israel's tattered deterrence.
In terms of its diplomatic impact, it is a policy that would put the onus on the Arabs for continuing attacks on Israel. If the Palestinians lose land, it's their problem. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Sinai, Lebanon, and Gaza, and much of Judea and Samaria, and see where it brought us: more threats, weaker defenses, a battered deterrent position.
Israel's enemies must be made to learn again the lessons of 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1982: that there is something to lose by committing acts of aggression, especially the terrorism against civilians that the Palestinians introduced in the modern age. The more they stand to lose, the less likely it is that they will attack. Alas, since 1982, Israel has been in a state of constant retreat and shrinkage.
If Israel is attacked, she'll have something to gain, permanently, by fighting back, including restoration of the Jewish communities which were so foolishly destroyed in 2005. If attacks continue, from the north, south or east, Israel's policy should be "territory for terror." Which territory, and how much, should be up to the new Israeli leadership to decide. What to do with people residing in those territories to be lost as the result of Palestinian terror?
The world must be told that it's up to the Palestinians and their Islamic allies: use terror, lose territory; no terror used, no territory lost. Simple, right? Any sensible people would abandon terror so they can hold on to the territory. But then, we know and they know, and history confirms: they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Israel may now lack the leadership, and the guts, to execute this kind of bold and clear approach. But as failure follows failure, the demand for an alternative government, and a bold alternative strategy, will grow. Only "reverse reciprocity" -- with its clear choice -- has a chance to succeed. It's worth a try.
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
