For There To Be Peace In The Middle East, Israel Has To Be Allowed To Win

On January 2006, Amir Taheri wrote that what stood in the way of peace in the Middle East was not victory--but defeat:

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.


...With the UN artificially keeping the war as a stalemate with no real victor, there has never been an opportunity for real peace. 

This novel situation saw bizarre new concepts invented to prevent the normal mechanisms of war and peace from functioning. These include such concepts as "land for peace" and "peace with justice." Yet there is no instance in history in which the winner of a war has given the loser any land in exchange for peace. Nor is there a single instance in which justice and peace went together as Siamese twins. In every case, the winner wins the land and gives the loser peace. In every case, the peace that is imposed is unjust to the loser and just to the winner.

Thus for more than 50 years Israel and the Arabs were asked to achieve what no others had ever achieved in history.

According to Taheri, Sharon struggled with this phenomenon:

Sharon understood that if such a formula remained in force, there would never be peace. It was necessary for the victor to claim victory, regardless of what anyone else said. It was also necessary for the victor to take unilateral action, imposing the peace it could live with.

But the world has been stubborn: it is not politically correct to have a 'loser'--if Israel is to be the winner.

Even before Taheri, Caroline Glick wrote in 2002 that including during George W. Bush's presidency, the US in particular has a history of turning Israel's military victories into political defeats:

...the Bush administration is quite simply following in the footsteps of all US administrations since Dwight Eisenhower’s – allowing Israel to beat Arab aggression militarily, but forcing it to lose the war politically.

So it was in 1956, when Eisenhower forced David Ben-Gurion to beat a speedy retreat from the Sinai and Gaza at the end of the Suez campaign. The president justified the uncompromising demand by promising Israel that if the Egyptians were again to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, the US would send its navy to reopen the waterway by force. In 1967, when Gamal Abdel Nasser closed the straits, president Lyndon Johnson begged off, forcing Israel to stand alone.

After the Six Day War, which should have led to a complete political reshuffling of the region, the US again protected Israel’s neighbors.

Adopting UN Security Council Resolution 242, the US again dragged Israel along by extolling the resolution’s balance – conquered land would be returned to the aggressors, but not all of it, for Israel would be allowed to retain all territory necessary to ensure it had “defensible” borders. Promises aside, since the Carter administration, the US has accepted the Arab misinterpretation of 242 – that Israel is required to return all the lands it conquered.

In 1973, the US administration was again on hand, wresting the Egyptians from the jowls of defeat. Henry Kissinger prevented Israel from destroying Egypt’s Third Army, allowed the Egyptians to escape with honor and thus enabled the creation of the current Egyptian myth – that Israel lost that war.

The Ford and Carter administrations strongly pressured Israel to sign away the Sinai in exchange for peaceful ties with Egypt, which after 23 years have yet to materialize, although Egypt, rearmed with American assistance, now poses a military threat unimaginable in the past.

In Lebanon in 1982, the Reagan administration stepped in to save a routed Arafat. The Americans paved the way for his escape with his troops from Beirut to Tunis, free to fight another day. In the meantime, the US forced Israel to withdraw from much of Lebanon and allowed the Syrian army to remain.

And in the Gulf war, the first Bush administration not only prevented Israel from achieving political advantage, it prohibited Israel even from defending itself against unprovoked Iraqi ballistic missile attacks. After isolating Israel from the coalition, the administration proceeded to force its democratic ally to the negotiating table to discuss the transfer territory to the Arabs. When the negotiations failed to bear fruit, the administration meddled in the 1992 elections to assist in the victory of the more forthcoming Labor Party.

Although the Clinton administration served in a decade unscathed by large-scale war, but marked by an increase in rogue states’ audacity and terrorist attacks on US targets, Clinton consistently urged Israel to accept Palestinian terrorism and insisted on turning a blind eye to blatant PA breaches of its commitments to Israel. The Clinton administration’s addiction to pressuring Israel to accept Arab aggression under the guise of peacemaking led to unprecedented meddling in Israel’s internal politics. The end result could be seen in the twin pictures of Clinton impertinently announcing his peace plan after his successor had already been elected, and Madeleine Albright chasing after Arafat outside the US Embassy in Paris in a vain attempt to get him to return to the negotiating table he had just overturned.[emphasis added]

All of this has not escaped the Arab world, which has built up its non-conventional weapons--the most notable being Iran.

One could argue that Israel is not the only one to feel the effects of that lack of consequences.

Now comes Israel Harel, who writes that no Israeli campaign ever ends with the enemy's surrender, which is one of the reasons why Israel is eternally at war--but Harel blames Israel's empty threats for the Arab lack of fear of Israel:

Barak and his ilk, the serial threateners, have taught them that threats like "It's not worth it for them" are idle threats.

During the first intifada, that of the stones and firebombs, our leaders threatened that if the Palestinians used live weapons, the rule would be "in war, as in war." But during the second intifada, when they shot at us and blew us up, killing and maiming hundreds, it took a full 18 months of "restraint is power" before Operation Defensive Shield was launched.

Then came the next stage of threats: If they dare to fire rockets at our civilian population, their cities, residents and all, would be toast. Among those saying this were the greats of Hebrew literature and the top left-wing politicians.

So they said it. So what? Our enemies know very well that threats of "It's not worth it for them to even think of using chemical weapons" are empty threats, and always will be.

Israeli guns are indeed loaded with lethal bullets, but Israel - certainly while Barak is defense minister- will never pull the trigger. Not until Doomsday, which we pray will never occur, but not before. The Jews, even if their citizens survive a chemical attack, will never respond in kind. So if rockets continue to rain down on the residents of the south, even if they have a chemical component, the response will be no more than another Operation Cast Lead, and once again will be concluded too soon.

No Israeli campaign ever ends with the enemy's surrender, which is one of the reasons why we are eternally at war. If we aren't prepared to defeat our enemies, once and for all, with conventional weapons, what's the point of making hollow threats of any other type of retaliation? [emphasis added]

Taheri blames the UN.
Glick blames the US.
Harel blames Israel.

Let's hope Harel is the one who is right.
There is no reason to expect the attitude of the UN or the US to ever change.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.