What Good Is A Roadmap If They Change The Terrain?

I've quoted this before, and I'm quoting it again--Amir Taheri's basic but apparently unachievable point:

For a war to be won, it is not enough for one side to claim victory. It is also necessary for one side to admit defeat. Yet in the Arab-Israeli wars, the side that had won every time was not allowed to claim victory, while the side that had lost was prevented from admitting defeat. Why? Because each time the United Nations had intervened to put the victor and the vanquished on an equal basis and lock them into a problematic situation in the name of a mythical quest for an impossible peace.

It may be unachievable, but the logic is surely not so hard to grasp.

Or is it?

In Bush's Oslo Syndrome, I wrote that Israel just does not talk about a definitive military victory against the Palestinian Arabs. But don't just take my word for it. Daniel Pipes, in an article for the NY Sun entitled Israel Shuns Victory, notes that not one of the leading parties in the March 28 election offered the option of winning the war against the Palestinian Arabs. He also gives a historical context to Taheri's point, where there have been countries that were beaten up, but not beaten:

Wars are won, the historical record shows, when one side feels compelled to give up on its goals. This is only logical, for so long as both sides hope to achieve their war ambitions, fighting either continues or potentially can resume. For example, although defeated in World War I, the Germans did not give up their goal of dominating Europe and soon again turned to Hitler to try again. The Korean War ended more than a half century ago, but neither North nor South having given up its aspirations means fighting could flare up at any time. Similarly, through the many rounds of the Arab-Israeli conflict (wars in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982) both sides retained their goals.

The problem seems to be that Israel has totally bought into the idea of giving up on the idea of a real victory, and instead looking elsewhere for ways to 'manage' the conflict:

o Unilateralism (building a wall, partial withdrawals): the current policy, as espoused by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and the Kadima Party.

o Lease for 99 years the land under Israeli towns on the West Bank: the Labor Party of Amir Peretz

o Palestinian Arab economic development: Shimon Peres.

o Territorial compromise: The premise of Oslo diplomacy, as initiated by Yitzhak Rabin.

o Outside funding for the Palestinian Arabs (on the Marshall Plan model): U.S. Representative Henry Hyde.

o Retreat to the 1967 borders: Israel's far left.

o Push the Palestinian Arabs to develop good government: Natan Sharansky (and President Bush).

o Insist that Jordan is Palestine: Israel's right.

o Transfer the Palestinian Arabs out of the West Bank: Israel's far right.

Pipes of course rejects these approaches as being valid. However, he does not address what approach Israel should be taking. After all, it is all well and good to say that Israel should be aiming for a decisive victory over the Palestinian Arabs--but considering the pressure from the West in general and the US in particular, let alone the left-wing in Israel itself, it is not as if Israel go declare war and bring the whole issue to an end.

Pipes does address the issue in a follow-up article in the New York Sun, entitle How Israel Can Win, laying down some basic guidelines and advice:

o Israel hardly enjoys freedom of action to pursue victory; in particular, it is hemmed in by the wishes of its primary ally, the American government. That is why I, an American analyst, address this issue with the intention of influencing policy in the United States and other Western countries.

o Israel should be urged to convince the Palestinian Arabs that they have lost, to influence their psychology.

o An aggressive step like "transferring" Palestinian Arabs out of the West Bank would be counterproductive for Israel, prompting greater outrage, increasing the number of enemies, and perpetuating the conflict.

o Contrarily, perceptions of Israel's weakness lessen the possibility of Palestinian Arab defeat; thus did Israeli missteps during the Oslo years (1993-2000) and the Gaza withdrawal inspire Palestinian Arab exhilaration and more war.

o Israel needs only to defeat the Palestinian Arabs, not the whole Arab or Muslim populations, who eventually will follow the Palestinian Arab lead.

I agree with Pipes on the first four of his points, but on his last point, I think the rules have changed. I think that at this point there are elements in the Arab world that have gone beyond merely using the Palestinian Arabs to keep tensions going and distract the populace from making waves. To just let them be defeated by Israel would allow for the possibility for the Arab world to seriously note how well off those Palestinians are in comparison. Also, groups like Al Qaeda are just getting started in Gaza and are not going to go quietly. And then there is Hamas.

In U.S. Policy at a Crossroads: The Relevance of the Roadmap in the Aftermath of the Hamas Victory, Yechiel M. Leiter, Benjamin Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff at the Ministry of Finance:

A Palestinian state is not the goal of Hamas, the goal is Islam. Nowhere in the Hamas Charter is there mention of a Palestinian state. This point is crucial. The new Hamas foreign minister, Dr. Mahmud al-Zahar, has explicitly stated in this regard: "The Islamists' view, which Hamas adheres to, is that a great Muslim state must be established, with Palestine being a part of it." Thus, any attempt to satisfy Palestinian nationalist hunger through sovereignty in "Palestine," or part of it, is pure folly to Hamas. Statehood as offered by the Roadmap is irrelevant.

One practical difference between having the goal of a Palestinian State on the one hand and establishing one big Moslem state with 'Palestine' as a part of it, on the other is that--while the Arab world at large does not really care about the former not coming to pass, it will come together to defend against the possibilty of the latter being defeated.

If Leiter is right, then the Arabs are on the verge of once again redefining the terms and the battleground, just as it did in creating the concept of Palestine, Palestinians, the Palestinians refugee problem, and the occupation.

Besides, the Arab world has always seen the Palestinian Arabs as a means to an end. When have they followed the Palestinians' lead in anything?

The Sunken Synagogue also discusses Pipes' analysis, and will be coming out with even more.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tags: Israel and Road Map and Hamas and Terrorism and Islam.