Israel Report

November 2002         

Truth for Peace

by Max Singer - November 14, 2002
The only hope for peace is to compel the Arab world to give up its illegitimate weapons: terrorism and the denial of resettlement to Palestinian refugees

The United States, American presidents often remind us, is Israel's greatest friend in the world. This is certainly true, and the contrast between American sympathy and European hostility has only become clearer during the current conflict. But if the US is serious about promoting peace in the wake of the expected war in Iraq, it has to start doing something simple: the US must tell some basic truths that it knows, but does not state out of deference to Arab opinion.

Until now, America has been giving Israel protection from international pressure without challenging the false premises on which that pressure is based. By doing this, the US encourages Israel's enemies to hope that someday the US will stop protecting Israel. They can believe that the US support for Israel results from the "Jewish lobby" or other political considerations and contradicts the requirements of justice and peace, or international security.

West Europeans, Arabs, and Meretz regularly call on the US to become more involved in reaching a "solution" to the Israel-Arab conflict. They assume that if the US is more involved it will force Israel to accept an agreement more favorable to the Palestinians than the offers Israel made at Camp David and Taba. Presumably they believe that such an agreement would satisfy the Palestinians' just demands and preserve Israel's security as a democratic Jewish sovereign and therefore solve the conflict.

It is natural to assume, based on the traditional diplomatic discussion, that a major US peace effort would involve pressure on Israel to go beyond its previous offers. But that standard discussion is far removed from reality and cannot lead to peace.

A major component of a new approach that the US requires is to speak the truth to Arab governments - instead of diplomatically avoiding the truth in order to avoid offending them. There are two reasons for the US to switch to a revolutionary truth-telling policy: It is the best way to pursue peace. And it meets the needs of the current US fight against militant Islam.

The truths that the US have not been willing to say clearly to Arab governments include:

THE CURRENT approach is to attempt to achieve peace without publicly establishing any of these truths, which American diplomats would privately not deny, as a basis for diplomacy. The current approach cannot work, because it is based on an attempt to satisfy the Arab world, without confronting the Arab belief that Israel's very existence is unjust and essentially illegal.

If the Arab world succeeds in fooling or pressuring the US and Europe to impose an agreement on Israel, there will not be peace, because they will believe that they can use the same measures to take the next step to destroying Israel. (Just as Hizbullah's success in inducing Israel to leave southern Lebanon convinced Yasser Arafat that similar measures would induce Israel to leave the West Bank and Gaza.)

The result of an imposed agreement will be more war, in more difficult circumstances for Israel, quite possibly requiring Israel to be less constrained than it is today.

The only hope of peace is to go in the opposite direction: to help the Arabs to recognize that Israel cannot be removed, and compel them to give up their main weapons, which are terrorism and the cruel denial of resettlement opportunity to Palestinian refugees, because both weapons are illegitimate and stand in the way of peace.

Fundamental peace obviously requires that the Arab states and the Palestinians accept Israel's presence as a Jewish state in the region. This suggests that a policy intended to achieve peace should be designed to induce the Arab states to change their current position. And a big step in this direction is for the US to state the facts that Israel's enemies refuse to recognize.

Instead, the US has been following the theory that either the Arab states really do accept Israel now, or that they would do so if Israel only retreated to the 1967 borders and made an accommodation on Arab refugees that would save face for the PLO and the Arab countries.

While perhaps there was some chance in 1992 that this policy might have worked - although even then there was much evidence that this was wishful thinking - it is now clear that playing along with the pretenses of Arafat and some Arab states set back the cause of peace. But this failed policy had the "advantage" of allowing the US to avoid challenges to the assumptions of the Arab states and their supporters, including much Western European diplomacy and opinion.

Now the "advantage" of avoiding the need to contradict Arab governments has become a disadvantage, because now the US needs to demonstrate its power over the Arab countries and the hopelessness of violent Muslim challenges to US power. To fight international terror, the US must show that it cannot be fooled or pressured into accepting false or illegitimate Arab positions. In particular, the US has to demonstrate that it is willing to confront Arab governments that use lies or special definitions to deny that they harbor or support terrorists.

Until Saddam Hussein is removed there is no way that the US can convince Arab governments that they have to pay attention to US unhappiness with their continuing support for terrorists. If Saddam can get away with what he does they can get away with diddling the US about terrorists.

When Saddam is removed there will be a new page in regional political calculations and the US will have a chance to show that it will do what must be done to protect itself and others from international terrorism.

The argument will be made - by the US State Department among others - that after its show of power in Iraq, the US should balance its strong demands on Arab countries to stop harboring terrorists by continuing to accommodate their views on Israel. Some may even argue that to make up for the insult of overthrowing Saddam, the US should avoid pushing too strongly against continued Arab protection of terrorist organizations.

These arguments should be rejected because they misunderstand Arab politics and society. Telling the Arabs the truth about their conflict with Israel will be a twofer. It is the beginning of a realistic pursuit of peace, and it shows that the US has the understanding and the will to eliminate governmental support for international terrorists.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies of Bar-Ilan University.

©2002 - Jerusalem Post

Send  To A FriendSend To A Friend       Return to Israel Report - November 2002       HOME
Jerusalem !
Recommended Links
  • C and M Law Corporation, the Los Angeles personal injury attorney firm, has been serving the city’s residents for over 45 years. People who think they do not need the services of an experienced personal injury attorney, invariably find out the hard way that they should have chosen that right lawyer in the very beginning. Regardless of the type of accident or injury, we have the experience to successfully represent you and your family. If you or someone you know has been injured through the negligence or recklessness of others, come see us. Voted in the top one percent of trial lawyers in the USA, our lawyers go the distance. We can help get you the compensation you and your loved ones deserve. The personal injury attorney Los Angeles firm of C and M Law Corporation has won an excess of 2 Billion Dollars in settlements!