.
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy
Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a
discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle,
James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg,
David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for
a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has
dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled
economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include
pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace
process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the
legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the
previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the
evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of
national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of
national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in
the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to
negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to
a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from
engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While
there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to
make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based
on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores
strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every
possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be
economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the
immediate future, Israel can:
- Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and
roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break
from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of
strategy based on balance of power.
- Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including
upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all
Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip
on Palestinian society.
- Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing
self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual
concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be
done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents
economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked
TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has
an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary
explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the
passages.
A New Approach to Peace
Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is
imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and
many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the
position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military
retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions.
Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States,
includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance:
the balance of power.
A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:
TEXT:
We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle
East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is
not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes.
We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter
rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to
build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land
for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land
—to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and
noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we
concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional
acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their
territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for
the future.
Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not
replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for
human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live
free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects
continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can
now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those
ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police
states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards
of accountability.
Securing the Northern Border
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and
one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the
strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah,
Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon,
including by:
- striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in
Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
- paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that
Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by
Israeli proxy forces.
- striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature
of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated
numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United
States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement
in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling
regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that
terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing
Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of
thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in
1983 in Hama.
Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian
military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime
supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and
on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has
become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers.
The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not
production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well
done that it is impossible to detect.
Text:
Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require
cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good
faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime
murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors,
criminally involved with international drug traffickers and
counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist
organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and
moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to
contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction
program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.
Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power
Strategy
TEXT:
We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must
make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the
solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey
and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This
effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of
foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional
ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in
Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has
responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom,
including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran
might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and
humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.
But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is
too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to
permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the
'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the
other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the
Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of
the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial
integrity.
Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle
East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in
supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including
such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even
before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government;
supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security
measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging —
through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to
structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and
diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to
destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest
supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and
Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with
Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian
ruling elite.
King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem
under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has
been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than
Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence
over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah,
Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia
venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which —
and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.
Changing the Nature of Relations with the
Palestinians
Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the
Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets
may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable
practice with which Americans can sympathize.
A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed.
Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing
Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem.
Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint
Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the
PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility,
human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.
TEXT:
We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the
same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S.
foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A
regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own
people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its
neighbors.
Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not
fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal
standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper
interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to
cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on
this.
To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO
problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making
a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs.
Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them
are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as
Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may
also want to better integrate its own Arabs.
Forging A New U.S.-Israeli
Relationship
In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s
domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic
opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not
digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and
access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required
funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky,
expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the
United States in roles is should neither have nor want.
Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision
for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and
mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new
strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength —
reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is
self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend
it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such
self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a
significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming
visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself
free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at
least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the
moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will
not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined
in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a
bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy,
cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off
public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support
from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders,
including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to
counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu
can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States
on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which
even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such
cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to
Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among
many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel,
but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be
helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain
those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and
stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping
into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply
well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require
a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before
November, 1996.
Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli
Conflict
TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend
them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception
of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has
invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope
for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was
leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new
agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed
exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle
of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb
blows to the nation without response.
Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in
ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they
are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come
through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound
footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of
the nation.
Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli
conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel
the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is
free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage
the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi
opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize
its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the
most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel —
proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and
peaceful Middle East.
Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli
Strategy Toward 2000:"
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins
University/SAIS Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell
Associates Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for
Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Jonathan Torop, The
Washington Institute for Near East Policy David Wurmser,
Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Meyrav
Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
Join our
Daily News Headlines Email Digest
|
Information Clearing House
Daily News
Headlines Digest |
HOME
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
|