FactsOfIsrael.com News, Comments and Links
Israel will continue to fight Palestinian terrorism
The National Post (www.nationalpost.com) has a good article that explains why Israel should continue its fight against Palestinian terrorism, including the Islamic Jihad, the Hamas, and Arafat's terror groups such as the "Al Aksa's Martyr's Brigade".
The main idea is that a unilateral retreat from the Israeli army would be simply interpreted as weakness by Arafat and other Palestinian terrorists.
To prove this point, the writer, Daniel Pipes, shows how the Hezbollah (a terrorist group based in Lebanon, backed by Iran) has increased its attacks against Israel after she retreated from Lebanon in 2000.
"And fight it did. In the two years since Israel's retreat, Hezbollah has initiated more than 40 unprovoked strikes against Israeli targets, including army outposts in an area known as the Shebaa Farms and civilian villages along Israel's northern border. It also kidnapped (and presumably murdered) three soldiers and a reserve officer, the former abducted from Israeli territory, the latter from Switzerland.
I copy the full article below.
Israel only stands to lose from retreating
How to break the Arab-Israeli impasse? Palestinians and Israel's Left have an idea: Israeli forces should immediately leave the West Bank and Gaza, even without an agreement.
Would such a move help -- or make a bad situation worse? An insight comes from a similar Israeli retreat from southern Lebanon just two years ago this week, for which the Israelis are still paying a heavy price.
Some background: For more than two decades, Israeli troops held down a "security belt" in the part of Lebanon adjacent to Israel to protect Israel's north from attacks by the militant Islamic group Hezbollah. Hezbollah killed an average of 25 Israelis per year, making the army's continued operations there deeply unpopular in Israel. Prime Minister Ehud Barak responded to this discontent on May 23, 2000, by unilaterally pulling back to an internationally recognized border.
Barak was convinced the violence would henceforth cease. "The tragedy is over," he said. His colleague Shimon Peres was more specific: "The chances of the north being attacked are slight, because the Syrians, as well as Hezbollah, have a lot to lose now."
They were hardly alone in their optimism. Martin Indyk, the American ambassador to Israel, was nearly euphoric, terming the withdrawal "a golden opportunity." "This is a happy day for Lebanon but also for Israel," chirped United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.
But there was a fly in the ointment. Hezbollah determined that Israeli forces had not completely pulled back to what it considered acceptable lines; it held that the "Zionist entity" still occupied four areas of Lebanese territory. This claim provided Hezbollah with justification to continue fighting.
And fight it did. In the two years since Israel's retreat, Hezbollah has initiated more than 40 unprovoked strikes against Israeli targets, including army outposts in an area known as the Shebaa Farms and civilian villages along Israel's northern border. It also kidnapped (and presumably murdered) three soldiers and a reserve officer, the former abducted from Israeli territory, the latter from Switzerland.
In early April, things heated up further, with almost one Hezbollah attack per day. These involved 1,160 mortar rounds, 205 anti-tank missiles, and several surface-to-air missiles. The heaviest shelling was on April 10, when Katyusha rockets rained on civilian targets and six military outposts. The attacks then diminished slightly but still continue. In the past month, Hezbollah has launched at least nine more attacks on Israeli targets, causing at least five casualties.
The future threatens yet greater dangers. Hezbollah could prompt the Israeli government to retaliate against Syria (which controls Lebanon) and the Syrians might respond with chemical or biological weapons; or they might successfully appeal for Egyptian, Iraqi, and other Arab reinforcements. Accordingly, strategist Gal Luft correctly notes that Hezbollah "has the capability to drag Israel into a regional war."
So much for Annan's "happy day."
"We thought that when the Israeli army withdrew, we'd finally get peace," lamented the mayor of a northern Israeli village recently. "I cannot understand what Hezbollah is doing."
Actually, it's easy to understand. Israel's retreat backfired because Jerusalem underestimated its enemy. Like the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah seeks not just to push Israeli soldiers out of some disputed land. It seeks nothing less than to destroy the State of Israel.
The Lebanon episode illustrates three main points relevant to the West Bank and Gaza:
- When Israel retreats before an enemy that seeks its destruction, it is perceived as weak. This in turn emboldens that enemy to step up its attacks. The lesson: Israel should consider pulling out of disputed territories only after having achieved true and permanent acceptance of its existence by its enemies.
- Grit and determination impress Israel's enemies, not the size of its arsenal. Hezbollah's leader, Hasan Nasrallah, explained days after Israel's May, 2000, withdrawal: "Israel may own nuclear weapons and heavy weaponry but, by God, it is weaker than a spider web."
- Even when Israel exactly complies with United Nations demands and wins the approval of the secretary general, this gains it no lasting benefits. Thus, 4,000 UN peacekeepers in Lebanon have done virtually nothing to prevent Hezbollah's recent campaign of violence.
Those who call on Israel unilaterally to retreat from the West Bank and Gaza are again underestimating the ambitions of Israel's foes. Such a step would invite more bloodshed, not less.
Daniel Pipes is director and Jonathan Schanzer is a research fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Link to this page | Email this entry | digg this
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains some copyrighted materials the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.