THE ALTERNATIVE TO WAR AND CAPITULATION

By Vadim Rotenberg

The leaders of the left-wing camp headed by Barak have evidently chosen intimidation of the population as their principal tactics on the eve of the elections, intimidation with a global war and severe sanctions on the part of the "civilized world." At first glance, the experience of international intervention into the confrontation between Christian Serbs and Albanian Muslims (sic!) in one of the provinces of sovereign Yugoslavia makes one take these threats seriously and may exert additional demoralizing influence on the Jewish population. The left-wingers want to make us agree to capitulation under the threat of war and international intervention: And there is no other name than capitulation to the compliance with all the claims made by Arafat's gang which now include the return to our towns and cities of Arab refugees' descendants who regularly reinforce the ranks of the terrorists; giving up not only the Temple Mount, but also the Wailing Wall; and the liquidation of Jewish settlements in places never before populated by Arabs. Barak rightly believes that only the Israelis' consent to capitulation can keep him and his colleagues in power.

This is why a thorough analysis of the situation in all its aspects is necessary, and I hope that this analysis will demonstrate with sufficient clarity that the policy carried out by the left-wing establishment is based on erroneous expectations and notions in the first place and, secondly, has a clear-cut alternative. The situation has numerous aspects and, to make this article as concise as possible, I will try to set forth my points in the form of theses, each of which can be expounded further in more detail and with more argumentation.

1. The left-wing establishment, in their majority, do not want to lose the country and hand the power in Israel over to Arafat. This is why all the "architects of Oslo" from Peres and Beilin to Sarid are categorically against the mass (!) return of Arab refugees. The left-wing establishment wants to retain power. Victor Fulmacht was absolutely right when he wrote in his article "Territories in return for power" (Vesti, 27 July 1999) that, in order to seize power, the left-wing top echelon agrees to give up the territories under our control (and necessary for our security) and destroy the settlers' movement because such developments will deal an irreparable blow against the right-wing camp's self-consciousness and will totally demoralize it. But it would be erroneous to assume that, once they become firmly established in power, the left-wingers of today will change the course and become patriots like their predecessors Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir. As a matter of fact, the present leaders are incomparable with the founders of the state as far as the scale of their personalities or the level of talents are concerned. More and more nonentities break their way to power and, therefore, they are interested in the demoralization of not only the right-wing camp, but of the entire population. Their own level and their scale as personalities do not make it possible for them to lead the nation on the basis of high personal dignity and high spiritual and ethical values. They experience an inferiority complex with respect to people who do possess such values. This is a psychological law. It is precisely their inferiority complex that is behind their hatred toward the settlers. This is the origin of their wish to devaluate and discredit the entire history of the Zionist movement expounded by the "new historians" and "new intellectuals" and supported by the left-wing establishment. Total demoralization of the population, the formation of petty-minded, egoistic psychology, the reduction of the entire population to the level of the left-wing leadership: Such is the only condition under which these leaders may feel quiet and confident of themselves at the top of the power structure. Capitulation to Arafat's demands represents the easiest and fastest way to achieve such mass demoralization of the people.

However, as it has been mentioned above, the destruction of the country was not part of the left-wing leadership's plans. They simply believed that their own goals and those of Arafat's Mafia coincided. Arafat was to get what he coveted most, from the point of view of the establishment: Power and unlimited control over the financial resources in the Palestinian state, while the left-wing establishment would retain similar power over the demoralized Israeli population which repudiated the ideals of Zionism. The left-wing leaders -- as it often happens among Mafia members -- have a good flair for their like, and they feel it instinctively that Arafat's comrades-in-arms are indeed close to them, both by the nature of interests, the level of cynicism, and the scale of their personalities. The left-wingers did not even need to act against their conscience: they offered Arafat a deal profitable in every respect, one that they would have readily accepted in his place. But they failed to take into account the difference in national psychology, and this was their major mistake. It is precisely what Jabotinsky used to warn about: In contrast to the left-wing establishment, the Arabs have ideals, and the disappearance of Israel is their ideal and not a propagandistic figure of speech at all. What the left-wing leaders believed to be a mutually profitable compromise in a joint business, was in fact nothing but a sign of weakness and a signal to the Arabs for the intensification of pressure on us. The Arabs would never be able to give up anything that already belongs to them in the name of good neighborly relations -- be it their holy places or individual settlements -- if they are not compelled to do so by force. If this is so, they are simply unable -- in accordance with the laws of psychology -- even to imagine that others are prepared to give up all this voluntarily. This means only one thing for the Arabs: The "others" are unable to defend their interests and, consequently, these interests need not be reckoned with. The Arab leaders may be as immoral and cynical as our own left-wing leaders, but they are different, nonetheless, and the left-wing establishment has been unable to realize this for a long time.

2. When Arafat unleashed this war after Barak's most lavish offers at Camp David, the left-wingers were at first perplexed. They made almost unanimous statements to the effect that they had no longer a partner with whom to negotiate. This spontaneous and not very well thought out reaction convinces me more than anything else that they had indeed seen a partner in Arafat before: Of course, not a partner in establishing peace by joint effort, but a partner in the demoralization of the population and the division of power. It was a partnership similar to that of different Mafia groups pursuing similar goals, but then the left-wing establishment suddenly felt doubts about the honesty of the other side which they had already believed they had bought lock, stock and barrel. But the admission that no partner existed any longer (and, in fact, there had not been any!) entails a number of far-reaching consequences. It means that a harsh reaction to the aggression is needed. It means that the Oslo agreements were a mistake. That those who made the mistake must cede power. And, because they ignored every warning, they must be brought to trial.

And when the left-wing establishment realized these consequences, a qualitative change in its position occurred: They passed over from mistakes to conscious crime. To avoid these consequences which represent a direct threat to their power and well-being, the left-wingers decided to sacrifice the country's vital interests. The status of partner was re-established for Arafat. They are telling us now that peace is usually established with the enemy, not with a friend. But Arafat has violated every existing agreement, including his own obligation not to use arms in the course of the peace process. Speaking to an enemy who has demonstrated reluctance to comply with the agreements already reached, we cannot behave as we did during the first stages of the negotiations: Now peace with Arafat is only possible only after he surrenders.

In contrast to the aforesaid, the left-wing leadership demonstrated readiness to make the greatest concessions (except those which would bring about the country's total disappearance from the map, such as opening our borders to the Palestinian refugees), and all this with the only purpose of avoiding the admission that the way we have passed was erroneous. Since it was evident that the population would not support these concessions, it was decided to place the country under the conditions of permanent demoralizing terror and a long drawn-out war. The following points can find no explanation at all, other than conscious desire to act in precisely this way:
- Passive behavior of our army which even failed to occupy Bayt Jala , the Christian Arab village near Jerusalem from which the city's Gilo quarter was systematically kept under fire, although the village was formally inside our zone of control and its peaceful population would welcome this act;
- Continued supply of the Palestinian autonomy with fuel, electricity and financial resources;
- Systematic talk about the absence of any other negotiations partner but Arafat (who was brought from Tunisia by the left-wingers). This latter statement is about as clever as it would have been, for example, for Winston Churchill to try and explain to his people in 1940 that he had no other negotiations partner but Hitler, and the negotiations must go on despite the continuing air bombardments of London.

This policy of encouraging the aggressor can only be explained by the ruling elite's interest in the continuation of the war for the purpose of general demoralization of the people and in ending this war on conditions of our surrender. The current propaganda serves the same purpose. Being perfectly well aware of the fact that the neighboring Arab states (Egypt, Jordan) do not want any globalization of the conflict and a large-scale war, that expect Israel to put down this dangerous Palestinian focus of infection effectively and fast, the government goes on intimidating us with a large-scale war.

3. War may indeed flare up despite the wish of our neighbors if we continue our demonstration of weakness. Our weakness, our inability and reluctance to defend ourselves are an unconditional stimulus for aggression against us; such behavior on our part brings about a rise in enthusiasm among the Palestinians and among Arabs in general and reduce the capability of responsible Arab leaders (provided such leaders still exist) of keeping the situation under control. Throughout all the years of the existence of Israel, it was only the country's reputation -- the reputation of a country prepared for a recklessly harsh reaction to any aggression -- that could avert aggression against Israel. We had to wage a war every time when we relinquished this principle and this image. There would have been no Six-Day War, had Israel reacted immediately and sharply to the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the build-up of Egyptian armed forces in Sinai. It was only our long-time indecisiveness and the hope for negotiations that brought about the consolidation of the neighboring Arab States and made a large-scale war inevitable.

In 1973, only our stubborn reluctance to notice Egypt's preparations for war, which was also taken for our weakness, brought about the Yom Kippur war. Quite paradoxically, the more we demonstrate our intention to take only our own interests into account, the more we demonstrate our serious preparedness to meet with rebuff any violation of these interests, the more chances there are to keep peace. And on the contrary: The more we demonstrate our peaceable disposition and our readiness to understand our enemies as a reaction to their aggression, the more chances there are that war will indeed break out. Such are the specifics of our region which is absolutely different from contemporary Europe. However, in Europe of the 1930s, the situation resembled that existing in our region and brought about the same consequences. It was precisely the attempts to pacify Hitler at any price that made the war inevitable.

4. We are being told that we cannot oppose America and Europe and must submit to their demand for the conclusion of peace at the price of numerous concessions to the enemy (Arafat is an obvious enemy, and he is not even trying to conceal this). Only then, we are being told, our civilized friends will take care of our interests. This is either utter stupidity or a lie. No one ever takes care of the interests of those who have not enough power and courage to take care of their own interests themselves. Such countries are simply ignored. No one would have come to our aid in 1967 (the Americans were already making preparations for the evacuation to Cyprus of the surviving Jews). In 1973, an air bridge for the delivery of arms to Israel was opened only after Golda Meir made the hint that Israel would resort to extraordinary measures.

This is true that both Europe and America have serious interests in our region. We are situated in the epicenter of global economic interests, and very powerful forces are interested in maintaining calm here at any price, even if the price includes our disappearance from the map, but only under the condition that they do not have to pay an excessive price for it themselves. (I may recommend those interested in the subject to read very interesting publications by Barry Hamish in the Internet). This is precisely why, acting on the basis of their own interests, Europe and America will listen to us only if we give them to understand with utmost clarity that, in the name of our self-preservation and security, we are prepared for any aggravation of the situation, be it even serious to the utmost, and we will stop at nothing if our existence is threatened.

Then and only then will our friends stop exerting pressure on us because they will believe this unjustifiable from the pragmatic point of view, and they will start looking for other ways of settling the conflict, they will look for a settlement that would not be at the expense of our interests. After all, all people holding responsible posts in those countries are perfectly well aware that we are not aggressors, but it is much easier for them to resolve all problems at our expense in the case we hold any other position, which was exactly what Clinton tried to do. We may only make others reckon with us if they are convinced that the reluctance to do so on their part would be much more expensive for them. Such are the political realities of our humane world where all serious politicians know for sure that we are victims of aggression, but make believe they do not know it. Happily, we are nor Serbia and, in the case we stick to our firm position, the world will soon realize that it would be much cheaper not to drive us into extreme and reckless decisions. We will avert the second Holocaust only if we can give the world to understand that, should things go that far, the Holocaust will be universal.

5. So the problem lies in adopting a firm position. The left-wing establishment will never demonstrate such a position for the simple reason that it would be tantamount to the recognition of their global error and the loss of power. But are the right-wing leaders prepared to adopt such a position? We do not hear from them any unequivocal statements to this end, and this creates a feeling of hopelessness in many people. There is the impression that the right-wing leaders are still prepared to play political games even after the collapse of the peace process. We shall certainly have to vote for Sharon, there is no alternative. And we will. But Ari'el Sharon has already promised -- by way of celebration of the forthcoming victory and on Sharansky's personal request -- to form a national unity government immediately after his election, that is a government with the participation of all the above-mentioned faint-hearts, the advocates of national capitulation. This looks like the materialization of a joke from the "Beseder" comic magazine: "Sales on discount in the election campaign: Choose the least of the two evils and get the greater one as a gift!"

However, there can be only one alternative to this "peace process" and to the large-scale war which may follow from it: A clear-cut statement that the process has come to an end, that Arafat and his gang are no longer our partners, and that we will deal with them as dictated by martial law.

We are being asked by some people what is to be done with the Palestinians if we have to annex the Palestinian autonomy. According to them, it is impossible to grant the Palestinians Israeli citizenship but, at the same time, we cannot help providing citizenship to them if we want to remain a democratic country. Our answer must be unequivocal and simple: Our situation is unique. The Palestinians have declared their intention the wipe us out, and they will get a serious chance to carry out their intention if they get the right to elect deputies to the Knesset. As it has become absolutely clear, this intention of theirs will gain support from a great part of the Israeli Arab population and from the Arab deputies of the Knesset already elected, and this will happen even contrary to the Arab citizens' true interests, on the strength of the very logic of the developing process of destruction of Israel. But our right to exist as a Jewish state and as a people is above their right to civil equality, and this is so precisely on the basis of humanistic considerations. The right to existence, the right to life are incomparable to voting rights. We do not threaten them with annihilation, but they do threaten us with it. Unfortunately, out right to self-defense and to the prevention of another Holocaust includes limitations of civil rights for the Palestinians and military control over the territory up to the river Jordan. There is no alternative to this at present. Those Palestinians who do not agree to be satisfied with a broad autonomy and self-rule (but without an army and without the possibility to exert influence on Israel), must look for another country for themselves.

6. I know at least one serious and responsible leader today, sufficiently intelligent to ponder over the fundamental problems of our existence on this land and, at the same time, sufficiently resolute to carry out an abrupt but necessary turn in our policies. A leader for whom ideology is not an empty word and not an object for gambling. A leader who, in a union with all the sound forces of our nation, can overcome demoralization and stop the movement toward another catastrophe. His name is Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Zo Arzenu movement. Do not believe the unfounded accusations of extremism against this man. He simply has a very clear vision of the actual situation and is sufficiently responsible and courageous not to conceal what he sees from himself and others. You may get convinced of this if you read his book "Where There are no Humans..." Listen to what he says in his article "The war of ideals" published in the Nekuda magazine:

"The struggle that is going on between the Jews themselves is a confrontation of different world outlooks, a war for the determination of the national ideal... Do we pursue the goal of the creation of the only Jewish state in the world do we want a state that would be no more than a shelter for the Jews, a faceless state for all its citizens? The ideal of national mimicry has always been victorious until now: We have done everything for the assimilation of the people of Israel as a nation. The problem is that, trying to become 'the same as all other peoples of the world,' we have not become the same. Each people is unique, but we have lost our face, we have become worse than the others, we have become nothing. As our wise men used to say, if a Jews throws away his Jewishness and assimilates, he does not become a non-Jew because of this, he becomes worse than any non-Jew. And indeed, what other people could behave toward its own sacred places as we did? The Temple Mount happened to get into our hands once. And then what? We removed the Israeli flag from it at immediately, so that no one should think, God forbid, that we contemplated rebuilding the Temple."

"An immediate tactical decision is inseparably tied to the politician's main goal, to his ideal. It was not international pressure that made Moshe Dayan to take the Israeli flag off the Temple Mount, it was simply his ideal (the same as that of all leaders of the State of Israel, ever since it was founded) that is radically different from ours. When we finally gain a victory in the war of world outlooks, the war of philosophies, tactical decisions will appear by themselves. At the same time, no tactics, even most cunning and clever, can change anything while the society remains guided by the present obsolete ideals."