(Cont'd)
Iranâs daily declarative and substantive provocations of the international community in general and of Israel in particular have been met by international bluster backed by policy paralysis. Today there is no agreement -- nor the beginning of an agreement -- on the need to enact even the mildest of sanctions against Iran despite its resumption of its uranium enrichment activities. Indeed, on Tuesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair remarked, âThere would be a terrible misunderstanding, indeed a terrible miscalculation being made both by the Syrian and Iranian regimes if they thought that we were interested in destabilizing those two countries.â In light of statements like Blairâs, it is perfectly rational for Assad and Ahmadinejad to believe that they have no reason to change their behavior.
In a panel discussion at the Herzliya Conference Sunday morning on the issue of Iranâs nuclear program, Britainâs former undersecretary of defense Sir Michael Quinlan asserted that short of a total invasion and occupation of Iran there is no way to destroy Iranâs nuclear weapons program. As a result of this assumption, Quinlan explained that when world leaders refer to Iranâs program as âunacceptableâ it doesnât follow that they intend to take any steps to prevent the âunacceptableâ from becoming reality. Indeed, Quinlan offered the view that Iranâs acquisition of nuclear capabilities is inevitable and that at the end of the day, only Israeli concessions â land giveaways to the Palestinians and unilateral Israeli nuclear disarmament â can serve to change Iranâs behavior.
The Israeli panelists at Herzliya had a suitable answer for Quinlan. Retired generals Yitzhak Ben Yisrael and David Ivry explained that a military strike against Iranâs nuclear installations would not be geared towards destroying Iranâs nuclear program, but to setting the program back a few years. That is, the Israelis argued that the goal should be to use force in order to neutralize the immediate threat while buying time to enable internal Iranian processes that could lead to the overthrow of the regime to unfold. They further argued that in the meantime, no concessions should be made to Tehran.
Last Thursdayâs suicide bombing in Tel Aviv occurred the same day that Ahmadinejad met in Damascus with the heads of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP and Ahmed Jibrilâs PFLP-GC. This fact was yet one more signal to the Israeli government that the policy it is advocating towards Iran should be similarly adopted in the Palestinian arena given the obvious links and the complimentary nature of the two conflicts. But the signal went unheeded.
In her address before the Herzliya Conference on Monday, Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni claimed that Israelâs international legitimacy as a Jewish state is dependent on the establishment of a Palestinian state. Livni further argued that in the event that Israel has no Palestinian partner for peace, it must remove itself from Judea and Samaria and so work to establish that Palestinian state at all costs.
In his remarks the next evening, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made similar remarks when he stated that while Israel will fight terrorism, in the event that the possibility of reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians is blocked, Israel will determine its borders for itself. That is, like Livni, Olmert pledged that Israel will remove itself from Judea and Samaria.
What Olmert and Livniâs messages served to communicate to Hamas was that its decision to replace Fatah as the Palestinian political leadership was a wise one. Under the leadership of Kadima, Israel acts towards the Palestinians as the Europeans act towards the Syrians and Iranians. That is, Israelâs strategy towards the Palestinians today is to speak harshly while surrendering. Hamas clearly understands the game that Israel is now playing. Looking forward, if Kadima wins the March elections, and continues on its current course, Israel will be severely weakened both internationally -- as the legitimacy of the most extreme elements of Palestinian society is widened, and militarily -- as Israel transfers control of more territory to forces that actively collaborate with Arab states and Iran towards the destruction of Israel.
All this naturally raises the question of whether Olmert and Livniâs strategy is the only possible strategy that Israel can adopt. The answer of course is no.
In their remarks at the Herzliya conference both Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu and former IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaâalon outlined the general contours of an alternative strategy. Interestingly, their strategy is similar to the one that Israel now claims to be advancing towards Iran.
Both Netanyahu and Yaâalon explained that given the current situation, where terrorist forces and ideology reign supreme in Palestinian society, Israel must make no concessions â either diplomatic or territorial â towards the Palestinians. Israelâs influence on its enemies, both explained, stems from its ability to deter them from attacking. That deterrence was weakened by Israelâs retreat from Gaza and northern Samaria. Israel must now work to regain its deterrent credibility.
Israelâs deterrent powers can only be rehabilitated by a stubborn, uncompromising campaign against Palestinian terror infrastructures and chains of command. Such a continuous campaign, both men argued is the only way to make the Palestinians realize that they have nothing to gain by continuing their war against Israel. The Palestiniansâ internalization of the understanding that pursuing their war against Israel will bring them no advantage is the necessary precondition for any future peace.
All of this leads to a clear conclusion. The failure of Israelâs leadership is one of the most significant causes of Hamasâs ascension to political power. Just as the persistence of radical regimes in Damascus and Tehran is the result of the inability of the international community to rise to the challenge they manifest to international security, so too, the empowerment of Hamas is the result of the adoption of a strategy by Israel that is based on how we wish the world to be rather than on the way the world actually is.
By the same token, Israelâs ability to fashion suitable responses to Hamasâs electoral victory is dependent on its citizensâ willingness to choose leaders capable of accepting the realities we face and acting accordingly.
that if there's one Qassam out of Gaza after the "disengagement" - they will make a parking lot out of it. Qassams have been DAILY since then - where's the parking lot?