Gordon Liddy, a former "plumber" caught up in the Watergate Scandal, when describing what International Relations was like, once said "When you get out in the Mid-Atlantic, its not Charlie the Tuna you meet, but Jaws."



Israel, to be certain, is caught up in those jaws.



It is a truism to say that International Relations are governed by interests and not by laws or morality. In fact, the latter are often distorted or even inverted in the service of interests.



In trying to understand what is otherwise not understandable, this must be kept in mind. The interests of all nations lie with the Muslims both because there are over one billion of them compared to 12 million Jews and because they produce the lion's share of the worlds' oil. Very few of those nations also have interests that lead them to align with Israel. These include India, Turkey and the US. But even they only support Israel to a limited degree because they have overriding interest in good relations with the Muslims.



The importance of oil and the large number of Arab or Muslim states has been the bottom line for all policy decisions since the British Mandate. Britain did its utmost to support the Arabs during its mandate and had to be fought by the Jews to bring the Mandate to an end. Even after the Holocaust, the UN would not have voted for the Partition Act but for the Communist countries, which voted in favor. They also supplied arms to Israel. They saw Israel as a communist or at least socialist outpost. But their support was short lived. The same was true of France who at one time thought that supporting Israel would help them regain the Suez Canal. They too, abandoned Israel just prior to the Six-day War. In fact The US, France, Great Britain and Russia all abandoned Israel just prior to this war by not honoring their guarantee of maintaining international waters (Straits of Tiran) after Nasser closed these waters to Israel.







Israel's best friend, the US has always played a double game. Her core interest in the relationship is oil. She keeps Israel strong enough to make the Arabs come to her for help in curbing Israel or getting the return of land, yet keeps Israel weak enough that it too would be in constant need of the US. Restraining Israel or forcing Israel to make concessions allows the US to gain headway with the Arabs.







But for President Truman, the State Department would have voted against the Partition Act, which gave rise to the creation of Israel. The State Department has remained the enemy of Israel and is always looking for ways to reduce its strength and limit its victories. John Loftus in "The Secret War Against The Jews", described this as a war in which the World was trying to undo Israel. This war has gone on since WWII and continues to this day.







After the Six Day War, UN quickly passed Resolution 242, which mandated the land for peace formula. It also recited



"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security".





This muddied the waters because it ignored that this principle only applies to aggressive wars and not defensive wars. So in effect it was saying that Israel, even though the victor in a defensive war, could not acquire territory as a result thereof. It went on to recommend the application of the following principles in reaching a just and lasting peace







(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;



(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and

respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.







Right from the get go, the UN was recommending that Israel withdraw. Why the rush? Why couldn't Israel keep the land? At least it allowed that Israel had a right to "secure and recognized borders". Often missed is the fact that it required all states in the area to terminate "claims or states of belligerency." Furthermore "Palestine" or "Palestinians" were not even a glint in the eyes of their progenitors.







Over the years the World Community has maneuvered to end the conflict by forcing Israel to return to the pre '67 armistice lines. The US forced Israel to disgorge "every inch" of the Sinai to Egypt as the price to be paid to get Egypt to switch from the USSR to the US. This was followed by the Madrid Conference where Israel, under intense pressure, made great concessions such as putting Jerusalem on the negotiating table.







Oslo, which largely was an initiative of the then government of Israel, so it has no one to blame but itself, proved to be a huge mistake. It resulted in adding to the pressure of the world, the pressure from terrorist attacks emanating from Yesha. At least with Oslo, Israel was in a strong position and negotiated a strong deal. So strong in fact that the Arabs never honored its terms. The Arabs insisted on their rights acquired by the Accords but reneged on their obligations. The World, including Israel, did nothing. So Israel continued to follow Oslo with nothing in return.







When Arafat refused Barak's offer of 97% of Yesha and started the terror campaign in earnest, the World looked for ways to give the Arabs even more rather then holding Arafat's feet to the fire for returning to violence. Compare the efforts of the World to get Israel to stop building the fence, to stop targeted killings of terrorists, to stop humiliating the Arabs, to stop building the settlements, to release money to them, to make good will gestures and to release terrorists etc. with its attempts to get the Palestinians to stop the terrorist atrocities. In short, there is no comparison.







To the contrary, the World supports Palestinian terrorism by protecting Hamas and Hizbullah, by funding Arafat without financial accountability and by supporting Arafat politically. It does so as a means to force further concessions from Israel. And don't kid yourself; the US is totally complicit in this. The US, too, wants Israel to return to the pre '67 armistice lines and has, since day one.







Prime Minister Sharon has decided that the chances of Israel standing up to all this pressure which has gone on for 60 years and will not change any time soon, are virtually nil and that Israel's best course is to get what it can through negotiating with the US and by taking the initiative. Whereas Barak, with Clinton's approval, kept 3% back, Sharon is trying to double or triple this. And it's an uphill battle, even with Bush in the White House.







Israel has now trimmed its sails by shortening the fence and making it less objectionable to Washington in the hope of getting its approval. Evidently the US is also negotiating with the EU to get it to accept Sharon's plans. The EU is expected to demand that Israel retreat even further as the price of cooperating with the US on Iraq and Syria. Guess where the US will stand? What chance does Israel have when it has no allies?







For Israel to resist, it must throw off the shackles of World opinion, of American aid and of all agreements to date. It must pursue its own agenda. But first, it must destroy the terrorist infrastructure and expel all terrorists.







Will the world stand by? Hardly. Will there be boycotts and sanctions and mandatory resolutions and perhaps even UN forces coming to the territories without Israel's consent? Certainly. Can Israel stand up to all this? Is the game worth the candle? Israel will still have four million Arabs to contend with.







Better to cut the best deal possible rather that to take the risks outlined with little apparent benefit.