By Amb Yoram Ettinger
Israel’s battle against Palestinian terrorism and conventional military threats must not be inhibited by its ties with the U.S. and Egypt.
In 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor. In 1982, he launched a comprehensive war on the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s terrorist headquarters in Lebanon. Both operations were executed irrespective of bullying and pressure from the U.S. and notwithstanding the fragile 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty. Begin realized that failing to eradicate these threats would imperil Israel’s survival, erode its power of deterrence and thus undermine Israel’s deterrence-driven peace with Egypt and its strategic cooperation with the U.S.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Israel-Egypt peace treaty did not collapse. Once again, Arab leaders did not rush to rescue the PLO, demonstrating that the Palestinian issue was not a crown jewel of Arab policymaking. Moreover, Egypt – just like all other Arab countries – would not sacrifice its own national interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue.
While the U.S. Administration condemned Israel for the large scale military operations, and imposed a brief military embargo, these operations resulted in the 1981 and 1983 strategic Memoranda of Understanding between the U.S. and Israel, which enhanced joint national security projects, upgrading Israel’s long-term strategic posture.
From 1983 to 1992, during his two terms as prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir was severely criticized by U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush for crushing Palestinian terrorism during the First Intifada and expanding Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. At the same time, however, U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation was bolstered at an unprecedented level while he was in power. Washington recognized that U.S.-Israel cooperation never revolved around the Arab-Israeli conflict. Mutually-beneficial U.S.-Israel ties were based upon shared values, common threats such as Islamic terrorism, ballistic missiles and rogue regimes, and joint interests such as research and development and job creation in the high-tech market and in the defense industries.
In August 1948, U.S. Ambassador to Israel James McDonald recorded Prime Minister David Ben Gurion’s response to the American demand (accompanied by a regional military embargo) to end the “occupation” of Arab land or agree to a land swap, to accept the internationalization of Jerusalem and to allow the return of the Arab refugees: “Speaking with solemn emphasis, [Ben Gurion] added that as much as Israel desired friendship with the U.S. and full cooperation with it and the U.N., there were limits beyond which it could go. Israel cannot yield to anything which, in its judgment, would threaten its independence or its security. The very fact that Israel is a small state makes more necessary the scrupulous defense of its own interests; otherwise it would be lost … Ben Gurion warned President [Harry S.] Truman and the State Department that they would be gravely mistaken if they assumed that the threat or even the use of U.N. sanctions would force Israel to yield on issues considered vital to its independence and security. [He] left no doubt that he was determined to resist, at whatever cost, ‘unjust and impossible demands.’ On these he could not compromise [“My Mission,” 1951, pp. 49-50].”
Ben Gurion’s defiance transformed Washington’s image of the Jewish state from a strategic liability to a potential strategic asset.
In 1973, Prime Minister Golda Meir put Israel’s ties with the U.S. above its own national security concerns, rejecting advice to pre-empt the impending Egyptian-Syrian offensive so that Israel would not be perceived as the aggressor. Irrespective of Israel’s military victory during the battle, the trauma of the 3,000 Israeli fatalities and the fact that the nation was very nearly eliminated still haunts Israelis and embolden their enemies.
In 2011, Israel benefits from a robust economy and military, as well as growing Western awareness of the threat of Islamic terrorism and the violence and volatility on the Arab street. Israel, therefore, should not refrain from flexing its decisive military muscles in the face of military threats, lest it reaffirm the image of a restrained and indecisive Israel which could further fan the flames of anti-Israel, anti-Western terrorism.
@ Joseph Rapaport:
@ abie:
But if Israel will not utilize its full power to defeat the enemy, there is nothing to do but complain- which is all that we are doing.
So long as BiBi remains in power we are doomed to fail.
@ Joseph Rapaport:
I fully agree with you. And that leadership cannot be from the Oslo styled elements in control since, in some cases almost four decades if not more.
Nothing new here. Israel is responsible for its security and must use WHATEVER methods will work. This means ratcheting up their response
to arab aggression, not looking for ways to “lure” them back into two-state negotiations. Daniel Pipes states very plainly that in order
for there to be peace after a period of hostilities (war), one of the two parties to the conflict must be thoroughly defeated and no longer
feel they can benefit from prolonging it. Only at that point will an accomodation come about. For Israel to get to that place requires much
tougher leadership than has been shown so far.
I have been comparing comments made by a vast number of people over the last ten years with reference to the reactions to savage acts by the islamics against our people in Eretz Israel.
Not a systematic research job but enough to show me that a very significant shift has taken place.
Just as much, it plain to see that the ultimate show down will not be far from now.
Israel will have to act to destroy the enemies, be them external or external.
The major blocking stone is that our leadership… is not up for the job at hand.
There is a small Arab village adjacent to the Israel Gaza border it’s about 100 meters from Sederot called Bayt Hanun. Next Rocket Israel should cut the village off from the south with tanks and from the north send in 8-10 armored D-9’s and level the place. I would level it with the residents in them but for the sake of image I would give them an hour to leave. Israel would then hold that territory and annex those few hundred meters. This method should continue with the next attack to the next village and repeat the operation. I would do everything to ensure there are no videos and no press.
Word has it that the Soviets… (ahem)… surgically relocated the gentlemen’s family jewels to those possessors’ respective pharygeal cavities, then sewed them up at the lips (for safekeeping, no doubt; jewels, y’know) before proceeding to ship the bodies to the parties’ families. Not sure whether this was done before or after the actual killing took place, but in any event, as you’ve aptly noted, it does seem to have proved remarkably persuasive thereafter with the terrorists.
Not to suggest that I’m expressly recommending it as policy.
@ LT COL HOWARD:
I acknowledge Yamits reference to articles on blackmail. In Lebanon when a Russian diplomat was kidnapped ,the Russians kidnapped and brutally slaughtered a member (or several members) of the group that had done the kidnapping. Hence ,no further Russian diplomats were kidnapped while the US had to cope with this as a weapon employed by the terrorists against the United States. (I do not recall exactly the details, but the story and the principle it illustrates are close enough to make the point.)
I agree
I agree that they should but they don’t vote as a group and Israel is a low priority for them. They vote according to their perceived interests as American liberals and not as Jews.
We have been knocking off their leaders from the beginning of the state. Limited strategic value as most expect to have a short life in any event. Then there is always someone to take their places. I would use Chechnya as the appropriate Russian model but our guys wouldn’t do it. I would!
Amb Yoram Ettinger’s article is excellent.
Yamit has repeatedly challenged me to offer specifics. Since, I do not have the detailed knowledge to know and understand all the factors and considerations it would be inappropriate to do so. Further, I have sworn an oath to the United States of America. My unconditional loyalties lie there.
I am sympathetic to Israel. My extensive experience within the Islamic world makes me even more sympathetic to Israel. Thus I make the following recommendations:
Israel, and Israel alone is responsible for security and state must make its own judgments as to what’s in its best interests and then do it.
Israel should publicly proclaim its undying friendship(love ?) for the United States. At the same time, Israel should improve its ties with China, Russia, etc. . Dependence on any single ally means that the ally takes you for granted and courts those that may be less in their camp. Why expend any capital on courting friends who are already in your pocket?
The same thing is true for American Jews. They should be a swing vote (available to the highest bidder). When I ran environmental programs for then Gov. Reagan, a lobbyist of high skill told me that politicians could not be bought, but they can sure as hell be rented, until someone came along with a higher payment. If you are bid for in a competitive race you price goes markedly higher.
Years ago, the Arabs settled on a simple policy: no recognition, no peace, no negotiations. Also, they wanted the Palestinian “refugees” to be an indigestible and corrosive mass to be used against Israel. They have been faithful to this proposition. Another simple policy was offered by President Reagan concerning the Soviets: “we win, they lose.”
When the Saudis offered their “peace initiative” some years ago my Saudi associates told me that it was a hoax . They told me that it was given to Thomas Friedman since his ego would permit him to delude himself that he was a messenger of peace whose name would then live through the ages. He was viewed as having wide acceptance in the United States and Israel. The Saudis real message was that when everything (and I emphasize everything) was settled (boundaries, water rights, etc., etc., etc., etc.) to the satisfaction of all (and I emphasize all) parties (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., etc., etc.) then and only then the Arabs would “consider “(and I emphasize consider) normalization with Israel. (They did not say as a Jewish state, but rather acknowledge the fact that it exists.) Their “offer ” was successful in that a large number of American Jews, a large number of liberal Israeli Jews, and the American media and government bought into it.
I acknowledge Yamits reference to articles on blackmail. In Lebanon when a Russian diplomat was kidnapped ,the Russians kidnapped and brutally slaughtered a member (or several members) of the group that had done the kidnapping. Hence ,no further Russian diplomats were kidnapped while the US had to cope with this as a weapon employed by the terrorists against the United States. (I do not recall exactly the details, but the story and the principle it illustrates are close enough to make the point.)
There is a lot of talent on the site. I entered it in order to learn. This is why I am so appreciative of Ted and the articles that he posts. Although, I read very widely it turns out I spend more time with his materials than with anyone else’s. Again, thank you Ted.