Let us now look separately at all the various tasks that lie before Israel.
A. The International Information Campaign.
Israel faces an exceptionally difficult problem on the international arena in terms of substantiating her position. In some ways, the task is nearly impossible, since it has long been clear that no matter what actions Israel takes, the U.N. and most of the international community will consistently condemn her, and no amount of convincing evidence to the contrary makes any difference. It is a foregone conclusion that this will also be the case with the very politically incorrect idea of resettling the Arabs of Yesha. However, despite these difficulties, it is still necessary for Israel to pursue its international information campaign for two important reasons. The first is that the international community must be made to at least consider the idea of transfer and be made aware of its many advantages. While the chances of winning widespread international support are slim, they are exactly zero if the transfer plan never sees the light of day. The second reason is that Israel does not really need to "convince" the whole world, but needs only a modicum of support from its closest ally - the United States. Even with such limited acceptance, it becomes infinitely easier to carry out the transfer.
The real problem with Israel's international diplomacy is that, until now, it has been a permanent political retreat. While other nations have been presenting plans and ideas, and making demands, Israel has only been responding to all of them, without offering its own alternative. Thus, we have the "Clinton plan," the "Tenet/Mitchell plan," the "Saudi plan," (which are all really the same plan, since they all have the same goal in mind) but no "Israeli plan." It is this lack of an alternative that is leading to Israel gradually being forced to accept the creation of a new Arab state in Yesha, whether on 16% of the land, or on 42% (Sharon), or on 96% (Barak). In essence, the international community is forcing its ideas upon Israel and she has only responded saying what she does not want, but not what she does want.
By presenting and aggressively promoting an alternative, Israel's diplomacy can recapture the initiative and put Israel back in control of her own fate. Once there is more than just one well-worn idea on the table about how to solve the problem, it will become possible to consider pro- and counter-arguments for each option and to objectively evaluate issues like respective sizes of territory, fertility of land, natural recourses, expenses, humanitarian aid, the potential for long-term stability and so on. With all this in mind, Israel's plan must simply be the creation of this new Palestinian state on part of the territory of one of the existing Arab nations. Israel's task then consists of demonstrating to the international community that, created virtually anywhere else, a new Palestinian state will be much more viable and will have a far greater chance to develop and thrive, than if it is crammed into the 2,268 non-contiguous square miles of Yesha. At the same time, the threat to world peace would be drastically reduced. The debate must be steered away from the rather weak idea of "the right to land" to the much more worthwhile "right to a normal existence and the diminished threat of massive war." The Jewish state must remind the world that it is not infinitely wealthy as far as lands and natural recourses go, and cannot part with the lands of Yesha, which happen to constitute the heartland of the Biblical Kingdom of Israel. It must make also make clear that if the world really cares about giving the Palestinian Arabs a new state, then the Yesha option is certainly the worst one possible and will drag the region toward full-scale regional (possibly nuclear) war. The most important consideration here is that transfer will save countless Arab and Jewish lives, provide much greater lasting regional stability and give the Palestinian Arabs the chance for a far better future than they can ever hope for if a state is made for them in Yesha.
Though many options can be considered for where to create this second Palestinian state (the first one being Jordan), today's geopolitical situation presents two good options for its creation - either on the land of Iraq or of Saudi Arabia. These ideas derive from America's intention to dismantle Saddam Hussein's regime, as well as Saudi Arabia's recently proposed "peace plan," (which unfortunately involves squeezing Israel into its unacceptable pre-1967 borders). Iraq was once already suggested for this role in 1930. Its vast, unpopulated, fertile lands and a severe scarcity of labor resources made the option ideal at the time. Today, if America is realistically considering toppling Saddam Hussein, the idea of relocating the Palestinian Arabs to Iraq deserves very serious attention. Following the "regime change," a division of Iraq into several autonomous regions (e.g. for the Kurds and Palestinian Arabs) would be one of the best strategic options available. First of all, this will forever end Iraq's attempts to gain hegemony in the Arab world (the reason for Iraq's incursion into Kuwait and a major factor in the Iran-Iraq war). Secondly this will remove from the international agenda the looming need for the creation of a Kurdish state (if the Palestinian Arabs need to have two states, the Kurds obviously deserve at least one). And thirdly, this will solve the Palestinian Arab problem, granting them a second state, which will be conveniently located far away from Israel.
The option of resettling the Palestinian Arabs on Saudi Arabian land, as suggested by the American Zionist Bertram Cohen (the so-called "Baruch Plan") has several advantages as well. The most important one is the fact that the Palestinian Arabs can be relocated in close proximity to the Islamic holy places of Mecca and Medina. Surely, living near these far more significant Muslim holy sites will be much better than pining after a "capital in Jerusalem," which is an almost purely political desire, and which Israel will never agree to divide anyway. Since the Saudis have recently shown such vocal support for various "peace plans" in the Middle East, nothing can be more honorable than sharing their land with their Palestinian brethren. If the Saudis are really interested in peace, their support for this option will truly bring peace to the region, since it will eliminate the major source of constant friction between the Arabs and the Jews.
It must be emphasized that in both these options the size of the territory allocated for the Palestinian Arabs can be at least four or five times larger than the 2,268 square miles of Yesha. The other extremely important point is that in both these options, the problem of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" will be immediately resolved. They will be able to start moving to their new homeland, with humanitarian aid and monetary assistance provided by the world community, with Israel in the lead. It is also worth remembering that most of the Arab countries were created artificially as a result of the world powers dividing up the lands of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I at their whim. For the sake of peace, it is only logical to carve a piece out of one of these vast lands to serve as a new state for the Palestinian Arabs. As British journalist Peter Hitchens wrote on March 10 in his article ?The Only Way to Peace?, ?If peace is what the Arab world wants, America is now in a unique position to arrange it. Her military and diplomatic power is at its zenith. Instead of asking Israel to give land for peace, why do we not ask the Arabs, who have so much more land, to give some of theirs, so that Israel's borders are no longer an invitation to invasion??
Finally, it should be noted that even a complete a priori rejection of either the Iraqi or Saudi Arabian options by the world community must not in any way discourage the Israeli initiative. On the contrary, it will clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy of all those countries who loudly clamor about "peace," but insist on doing it only at Israel's expense, not wishing to lift a finger to work toward a real peace. The rejection of the Israeli initiative will mean that the uproar for Palestinian statehood is pure twaddle, used only to cover up the anti-Jewish sentiment of the world community. By introducing its much preferable alternative, Israel will force the countries of the world literally to vote "yes" or "no" for real peace. If Peace is truly important for civilized mankind, it will be forced to look at the Israeli suggestion seriously. After all, current efforts by the international community to resolve the conflict all aim toward the creation of a Palestinian state, a solution of the refugee problem and the signing of a permanent peace agreement. These are exactly the goals that are at the heart of this alternative Israeli plan.
Some may argue that the U.N. and the world powers cannot demand that sovereign countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia share their land for the sake of peace. However, neither can they demand this of Israel, which needs every square foot of Yesha, while the Arab nations have far greater expanses of land, which they could spare. To lend more weight to this argument, and to support all of the explanatory work that Israel's spokesmen do on the world stage, Israel will need to take several important actions "on the ground." The first of these will be the immediate annexation of all the lands of Yesha. When this is done, Israel will be in the same position as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The discussion will then deal with taking the territories of sovereign countries and all three countries will thus be on an equal footing. The argument that Yesha constitutes "occupied Palestinian territory" is simply false, under every applicable piece of international law. There are a number of reasons for this, the most important ones including the fact that these territories had never been under any sort of Palestinian sovereignty prior to the Oslo agreements, and the fact that Israel won these lands in a defensive war, from an adversary whose sovereignty over them was never internationally recognized. The status of these territories is disputed, rather than occupied. Israel must draw attention to these facts and, just as it annexed the Golan Heights, must also annex these disputed territories, which are so crucial to its security.
[End Part 2 of 4]
----------------------------------
Boris Shusteff is an engineer. He is also a research associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.
A. The International Information Campaign.
Israel faces an exceptionally difficult problem on the international arena in terms of substantiating her position. In some ways, the task is nearly impossible, since it has long been clear that no matter what actions Israel takes, the U.N. and most of the international community will consistently condemn her, and no amount of convincing evidence to the contrary makes any difference. It is a foregone conclusion that this will also be the case with the very politically incorrect idea of resettling the Arabs of Yesha. However, despite these difficulties, it is still necessary for Israel to pursue its international information campaign for two important reasons. The first is that the international community must be made to at least consider the idea of transfer and be made aware of its many advantages. While the chances of winning widespread international support are slim, they are exactly zero if the transfer plan never sees the light of day. The second reason is that Israel does not really need to "convince" the whole world, but needs only a modicum of support from its closest ally - the United States. Even with such limited acceptance, it becomes infinitely easier to carry out the transfer.
The real problem with Israel's international diplomacy is that, until now, it has been a permanent political retreat. While other nations have been presenting plans and ideas, and making demands, Israel has only been responding to all of them, without offering its own alternative. Thus, we have the "Clinton plan," the "Tenet/Mitchell plan," the "Saudi plan," (which are all really the same plan, since they all have the same goal in mind) but no "Israeli plan." It is this lack of an alternative that is leading to Israel gradually being forced to accept the creation of a new Arab state in Yesha, whether on 16% of the land, or on 42% (Sharon), or on 96% (Barak). In essence, the international community is forcing its ideas upon Israel and she has only responded saying what she does not want, but not what she does want.
By presenting and aggressively promoting an alternative, Israel's diplomacy can recapture the initiative and put Israel back in control of her own fate. Once there is more than just one well-worn idea on the table about how to solve the problem, it will become possible to consider pro- and counter-arguments for each option and to objectively evaluate issues like respective sizes of territory, fertility of land, natural recourses, expenses, humanitarian aid, the potential for long-term stability and so on. With all this in mind, Israel's plan must simply be the creation of this new Palestinian state on part of the territory of one of the existing Arab nations. Israel's task then consists of demonstrating to the international community that, created virtually anywhere else, a new Palestinian state will be much more viable and will have a far greater chance to develop and thrive, than if it is crammed into the 2,268 non-contiguous square miles of Yesha. At the same time, the threat to world peace would be drastically reduced. The debate must be steered away from the rather weak idea of "the right to land" to the much more worthwhile "right to a normal existence and the diminished threat of massive war." The Jewish state must remind the world that it is not infinitely wealthy as far as lands and natural recourses go, and cannot part with the lands of Yesha, which happen to constitute the heartland of the Biblical Kingdom of Israel. It must make also make clear that if the world really cares about giving the Palestinian Arabs a new state, then the Yesha option is certainly the worst one possible and will drag the region toward full-scale regional (possibly nuclear) war. The most important consideration here is that transfer will save countless Arab and Jewish lives, provide much greater lasting regional stability and give the Palestinian Arabs the chance for a far better future than they can ever hope for if a state is made for them in Yesha.
Though many options can be considered for where to create this second Palestinian state (the first one being Jordan), today's geopolitical situation presents two good options for its creation - either on the land of Iraq or of Saudi Arabia. These ideas derive from America's intention to dismantle Saddam Hussein's regime, as well as Saudi Arabia's recently proposed "peace plan," (which unfortunately involves squeezing Israel into its unacceptable pre-1967 borders). Iraq was once already suggested for this role in 1930. Its vast, unpopulated, fertile lands and a severe scarcity of labor resources made the option ideal at the time. Today, if America is realistically considering toppling Saddam Hussein, the idea of relocating the Palestinian Arabs to Iraq deserves very serious attention. Following the "regime change," a division of Iraq into several autonomous regions (e.g. for the Kurds and Palestinian Arabs) would be one of the best strategic options available. First of all, this will forever end Iraq's attempts to gain hegemony in the Arab world (the reason for Iraq's incursion into Kuwait and a major factor in the Iran-Iraq war). Secondly this will remove from the international agenda the looming need for the creation of a Kurdish state (if the Palestinian Arabs need to have two states, the Kurds obviously deserve at least one). And thirdly, this will solve the Palestinian Arab problem, granting them a second state, which will be conveniently located far away from Israel.
The option of resettling the Palestinian Arabs on Saudi Arabian land, as suggested by the American Zionist Bertram Cohen (the so-called "Baruch Plan") has several advantages as well. The most important one is the fact that the Palestinian Arabs can be relocated in close proximity to the Islamic holy places of Mecca and Medina. Surely, living near these far more significant Muslim holy sites will be much better than pining after a "capital in Jerusalem," which is an almost purely political desire, and which Israel will never agree to divide anyway. Since the Saudis have recently shown such vocal support for various "peace plans" in the Middle East, nothing can be more honorable than sharing their land with their Palestinian brethren. If the Saudis are really interested in peace, their support for this option will truly bring peace to the region, since it will eliminate the major source of constant friction between the Arabs and the Jews.
It must be emphasized that in both these options the size of the territory allocated for the Palestinian Arabs can be at least four or five times larger than the 2,268 square miles of Yesha. The other extremely important point is that in both these options, the problem of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" will be immediately resolved. They will be able to start moving to their new homeland, with humanitarian aid and monetary assistance provided by the world community, with Israel in the lead. It is also worth remembering that most of the Arab countries were created artificially as a result of the world powers dividing up the lands of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I at their whim. For the sake of peace, it is only logical to carve a piece out of one of these vast lands to serve as a new state for the Palestinian Arabs. As British journalist Peter Hitchens wrote on March 10 in his article ?The Only Way to Peace?, ?If peace is what the Arab world wants, America is now in a unique position to arrange it. Her military and diplomatic power is at its zenith. Instead of asking Israel to give land for peace, why do we not ask the Arabs, who have so much more land, to give some of theirs, so that Israel's borders are no longer an invitation to invasion??
Finally, it should be noted that even a complete a priori rejection of either the Iraqi or Saudi Arabian options by the world community must not in any way discourage the Israeli initiative. On the contrary, it will clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy of all those countries who loudly clamor about "peace," but insist on doing it only at Israel's expense, not wishing to lift a finger to work toward a real peace. The rejection of the Israeli initiative will mean that the uproar for Palestinian statehood is pure twaddle, used only to cover up the anti-Jewish sentiment of the world community. By introducing its much preferable alternative, Israel will force the countries of the world literally to vote "yes" or "no" for real peace. If Peace is truly important for civilized mankind, it will be forced to look at the Israeli suggestion seriously. After all, current efforts by the international community to resolve the conflict all aim toward the creation of a Palestinian state, a solution of the refugee problem and the signing of a permanent peace agreement. These are exactly the goals that are at the heart of this alternative Israeli plan.
Some may argue that the U.N. and the world powers cannot demand that sovereign countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia share their land for the sake of peace. However, neither can they demand this of Israel, which needs every square foot of Yesha, while the Arab nations have far greater expanses of land, which they could spare. To lend more weight to this argument, and to support all of the explanatory work that Israel's spokesmen do on the world stage, Israel will need to take several important actions "on the ground." The first of these will be the immediate annexation of all the lands of Yesha. When this is done, Israel will be in the same position as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The discussion will then deal with taking the territories of sovereign countries and all three countries will thus be on an equal footing. The argument that Yesha constitutes "occupied Palestinian territory" is simply false, under every applicable piece of international law. There are a number of reasons for this, the most important ones including the fact that these territories had never been under any sort of Palestinian sovereignty prior to the Oslo agreements, and the fact that Israel won these lands in a defensive war, from an adversary whose sovereignty over them was never internationally recognized. The status of these territories is disputed, rather than occupied. Israel must draw attention to these facts and, just as it annexed the Golan Heights, must also annex these disputed territories, which are so crucial to its security.
[End Part 2 of 4]
----------------------------------
Boris Shusteff is an engineer. He is also a research associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.