Slowly, almost stealthily, the voices are beginning to break through. 

 

For years people have been trying to brainwash us with the slogan “two states for two peoples.”  Anyone who dared to deny this falsehood was mocked.  Anyone who continued to argue that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would be a strategic threat to Israel was branded a stubborn mule, someone who denied what the whole world believes.  An infinite number of conferences held and attended by collaborators with murder organizations metamorphosed into discussions in the corridors of power, and when even the leaders of Israel, whether by naivete or stupidity, were duped by these hallucinations, then even the president of the United States began seeing false and evil visions, which in turn received the blessing of the corrupt Israeli leaders, and suddenly - from what was called a dangerous strategic threat to Israel at a time when Rabin said “a Palestinian state will rise only on the ruins of Israel,” the danger became a desire, and from a disaster it turned into an Israeli interest.  Only the Arabs saved us from this death wish and stupidity. 

Every thinking person forms an opinion on questions of justice and injustice, good and evil, peace and war, faith or denial. The positions we adopt are based on the education we have received, on our life experience and on the world view we would like to bequeath to our children. We are prepared to listen to “the other side,” just as we are ready to defend our beliefs and our views.

 

We do not, however, argue with facts. Facts, therefore, constitute a powerful weapon.

People today generally do not view Zionism as a revolutionary effort. But to describe Zionism as anything less than a complete revolution is to entirely miss the full significance of modern times. In fact, the Zionist Revolution is larger in scope than any other in history and eclipses all upheavals since Israel’s liberation from Egypt.

 

While the American, French, Russian, Chinese and Iranian revolutions certainly had great impacts on the course of human history, these were upheavals made by people living within their own borders. It was their own local landscapes that they unearthed and plowed over in order to reform their class structures, economic patterns or systems of government.

 

There are many commandments and laws in the Torah of Israel. Tradition recognizes that some people commit dastardly deeds within the letter of Torah law; such a deed is called a nevala berushut hatorah (an immoral act within the bounds of Torah). And there are many laws in the State of Israel, which are interpreted - and sometimes created - by the Supreme Court.  The recent events in Hebron where Jews living in Beit Shalom (the “House of Peace,” though the Israeli media insists on calling it the “House of Contention”), a building they had purchased, were expelled by Israeli security forces prove that a person can sometimes obey the law and yet be a scoundrel.

Regarding the Oslo accords and Israel's vulnerability to war, Israeli security has become increasingly dependent upon nuclear weapons and strategy.  Faced with a codified and substantial loss of territories generated by Oslo, the Jewish State will soon have to decide on how to compensate for its diminished strategic depth.  While this shrinkage does not necessarily increase Israel's existential vulnerability to unconventional missile attack, it surely does increase that state's susceptibility to attacking ground forces and to subsequent enemy occupation.  Any loss of strategic depth will almost certainly be interpreted by enemy states as a significant weakening of Israel's overall defense posture, an interpretation that could actually lead to substantial enemy incentives to strike first.

Common wisdom enunciates that without US support, active or passive, Israel cannot affect a raid that will cripple the Iranian nuclear facilities. It is incumbent upon the planners of the forthcoming raid to think of the day after, when the Straits of Hormuz will be shut down to maritime traffic, bringing the oil exports from the Persian Gulf to a halt. This will drive the price of oil up, up and away, crippling the US economy. Thus, for purely economic reasons, the US will accept a nuclear Iran, though this means the demise of Israel. So goes conventional wisdom.

From the beginning, Israel has had to search for order amid chaos. Now, a so-called “Road Map to Peace in the Middle East” still promises correct directions to general safety and regional stability. But no matter how carefully an American president (either the incumbent, or President-elect Obama) might fashion prescriptions for peace, every audible promise will ultimately depend upon a far more suitable arrangement for managing power.

If, for any reason, the always-fragile dynamics of rationality and deterrence in world politics should be turned upside-down, all previously credible promises would be suspended. One probable precipitant of such radical instability could be nuclear and/or biological war. Another could be a significant act of unconventional terrorism.

Introduction

 

In the second half of 2002 a plan known as the Road Map began to take form in Europe and in the United States.  The parties to this plan were: The European Union, Russia, the Secretary General of the United Nations and the President of the United States (The Quartet).  The support of George Bush for this plan was reserved at first, but it increased with his need to pay a political price to Britain – his principal and most consistent partner in the war in Iraq.  The plan sets out stages for an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the preliminary stage calling for governmental reform of the Palestinian Authority and its fight against terror, in consideration for an unequivocal Israeli declaration of its commitment to the establishment of a viable, independent Palestinian State; the further stages of the Road Map include the establishment of an international body to supervise the implementation of the Plan, the removal of  Jewish settlers outposts which were established  In Judea and Samaria since March 2001 and the freezing of settlements (including natural growth), in the first phase.  The second stage of the Plan deals with the removal of the Jewish presence in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District (Yesha), with the object of creating maximum territorial continuity of the Palestinian State.  Concurrently with Palestinian progress in stopping terror, the Israel Army is to withdraw from the areas which it seized since October 2000, and to enable the reopening of Palestinian institutions in East-Jerusalem.  The solution of the problems of the refugees and of Jerusalem, and the conclusion of the dispute are to be discussed in the third stage, within the framework of an international conference.

In all world politics – but especially in the Middle East - appearances can deceive. Although power is powerful and weakness is weak, power can weaken itself. Sometimes, weakness can even become a source of power.  Nowhere is this paradox more apparent than in Israel’s endlessly self-deceiving relationship with the Palestinians.

 

From the start, the Palestinians, understanding the importance of language, have transformed their widely presumed weakness into a genuine source of power.  Repeatedly, the "weak" Palestinians have outmaneuvered the "powerful" Israelis. For example, a few years ago the UN's International Court of Justice chose to condemn not the persistent criminality of Palestinian terrorism, but rather the fence erected by Israel to safeguard its citizens from suicide-bombers. Similarly, even while the terrorists rocket Israeli civilians from Gaza, world public opinion generally blames the Israelis for defending themselves.