Years before his conquest of Europe Adolph Hitler expressed a desire to unify all "German" lands. He achieved much toward that end and on the way left the world with many valuable lessons that we in Israel should be mindful of.
Upon his successful march into Austria, Hitler's desire to wrest the Sudetenland - a strategic territory, largely populated by German speakers and bordering northeast Austria - from Czechoslovakia was well known. Political forces and terrorist attacks (rooted in and supported by Germany) were used against the Czechs to achieve this end. Eventually, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain applied tremendous pressure to the Czechs while promising them inviolable peace, if only they would give away strategic land borders.
On September 29, 1938, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Britain, and France signed the Munich agreement, which demanded that the Czechs forfeit the Sudetenland to Nazi control. They reluctantly did so. This process cleared the road for the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia just two days later, on October 1. The destruction of Czechoslovakia was complete by the following March. It must be remembered that at that time, Czechoslovakia possessed the strongest military in Europe. Had the Czechs not given away the mountainous Sudetenland border, there would have been little possibility of a German victory in case of war.
We are not exempt from the truths of history, no matter how badly we desire to be. One of the bitter failings of Israeli leadership over the last 56 years has been the lack of long-term vision and planning. This has usually been combined with a staunch refusal to acknowledge enemy intentions.
Ahead of the state of Israel lies a dilemma born out of these very liabilities: whether or not to withdraw all military and civilian presence from within the Gaza Strip. It is the thinking of many that such action will curb terrorism. However, I assure you that it cannot. In fact, it will do the opposite.
The goal of Arab terrorists in Israel is the liquidation of the Jewish state and the birth of a new Arab state in its place. If this was not previously understood, it was clarified when the following offer made by Ehud Barak to the Palestinian Authority at camp David II went refused: 95% of Judea and Samaria, including eastern Jerusalem, and shared sovereignty of the Temple Mount; land in the Negev to compensate for the missing 5%; a passageway cutting across Israel to connect Gaza with Judea and Samaria; and the return of 100,000 Arab refugees. Yasser Arafat refused all of this, because his goal, and the goals of those who support him, are not that of a state next to Israel but of a state in place of Israel. Had he wanted a state next to Israel, it would have been his.
However, in mind of the terrorists' true goals, strategically, it is far more advantageous to force the Israelis out of territory than it is to negotiate with them for it on their terms. For, while still under alleged "occupation", Arabs can kill Jews while calling for renewed negotiations at the same time. It is a two-pronged attack, whereby they are simultaneously the aggressor and victim. This is an approach that creates substantial credibility within the eyes of the 'international community' ("Why would people blow themselves up if they weren't in the right?"), which then puts pressure on Israel to negotiate for 'peace'. Meanwhile, the Arabs gain de facto autonomy due to Israeli withdrawal, carried out due to fear of Arab demographic growth and hostility. That they can do all of this on their own terms, without any form of compromise, speaks much of the Arabs' increasing power and Israel's increasing weakness. Statehood actually complicates this process and will only actually be sought for when most strategically effective in the war against Israel.
Minding this perspective, a withdrawal from Gaza will be a major victory for terrorists. It would play into their hands. Israel would be sending terrorists a clear message: we are not as determined to win as you are and we are afraid of you, so we are going to try and get as far away from you as we can. This is sweet music to the ears of our enemies. Furthermore, the pride derived from such a victory would inspire new recruits to join terrorist ranks for years to come. Gaza would be an example to be emulated by other Arab sectors within Israel. Withdrawal would also provide a much-needed rest for weary combatants hiding in fear of Israeli retaliation.
The result will be a more determined, ideological and better-trained militia. Ultimately, it will provide for the expansion of terrorist movements and opportunities for new offensives.
The fate of Gaza is the fate of Israel, because what happens in Gaza can happen in the rest of Israel. For the secret of Gazan Arab success lies in the heavily unbalanced demographic rates of Jews and Arabs, along with Muslim terrorists' barbaric willingness to kill helpless civilians - both of which are threats to all of Israel. The guarantee of more attacks lies in the fact that the Arabs find them to be justified, doable and successful - a reality whether we withdraw or not.
So, in the face of the terrorists' actual goals there can be no doubt that withdrawal both encourages and rewards attacks on Israeli civilians. Finally, withdrawing from Gaza would represent yet another instance in which the leaders of the Jewish state refuse to consider long-term consequences, and yet again deny the truths of history.
Giving in to them encourages terrorists to increase their efforts to commit acts of terrorism.
We should know better by now.
Upon his successful march into Austria, Hitler's desire to wrest the Sudetenland - a strategic territory, largely populated by German speakers and bordering northeast Austria - from Czechoslovakia was well known. Political forces and terrorist attacks (rooted in and supported by Germany) were used against the Czechs to achieve this end. Eventually, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain applied tremendous pressure to the Czechs while promising them inviolable peace, if only they would give away strategic land borders.
On September 29, 1938, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Britain, and France signed the Munich agreement, which demanded that the Czechs forfeit the Sudetenland to Nazi control. They reluctantly did so. This process cleared the road for the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia just two days later, on October 1. The destruction of Czechoslovakia was complete by the following March. It must be remembered that at that time, Czechoslovakia possessed the strongest military in Europe. Had the Czechs not given away the mountainous Sudetenland border, there would have been little possibility of a German victory in case of war.
We are not exempt from the truths of history, no matter how badly we desire to be. One of the bitter failings of Israeli leadership over the last 56 years has been the lack of long-term vision and planning. This has usually been combined with a staunch refusal to acknowledge enemy intentions.
Ahead of the state of Israel lies a dilemma born out of these very liabilities: whether or not to withdraw all military and civilian presence from within the Gaza Strip. It is the thinking of many that such action will curb terrorism. However, I assure you that it cannot. In fact, it will do the opposite.
The goal of Arab terrorists in Israel is the liquidation of the Jewish state and the birth of a new Arab state in its place. If this was not previously understood, it was clarified when the following offer made by Ehud Barak to the Palestinian Authority at camp David II went refused: 95% of Judea and Samaria, including eastern Jerusalem, and shared sovereignty of the Temple Mount; land in the Negev to compensate for the missing 5%; a passageway cutting across Israel to connect Gaza with Judea and Samaria; and the return of 100,000 Arab refugees. Yasser Arafat refused all of this, because his goal, and the goals of those who support him, are not that of a state next to Israel but of a state in place of Israel. Had he wanted a state next to Israel, it would have been his.
However, in mind of the terrorists' true goals, strategically, it is far more advantageous to force the Israelis out of territory than it is to negotiate with them for it on their terms. For, while still under alleged "occupation", Arabs can kill Jews while calling for renewed negotiations at the same time. It is a two-pronged attack, whereby they are simultaneously the aggressor and victim. This is an approach that creates substantial credibility within the eyes of the 'international community' ("Why would people blow themselves up if they weren't in the right?"), which then puts pressure on Israel to negotiate for 'peace'. Meanwhile, the Arabs gain de facto autonomy due to Israeli withdrawal, carried out due to fear of Arab demographic growth and hostility. That they can do all of this on their own terms, without any form of compromise, speaks much of the Arabs' increasing power and Israel's increasing weakness. Statehood actually complicates this process and will only actually be sought for when most strategically effective in the war against Israel.
Minding this perspective, a withdrawal from Gaza will be a major victory for terrorists. It would play into their hands. Israel would be sending terrorists a clear message: we are not as determined to win as you are and we are afraid of you, so we are going to try and get as far away from you as we can. This is sweet music to the ears of our enemies. Furthermore, the pride derived from such a victory would inspire new recruits to join terrorist ranks for years to come. Gaza would be an example to be emulated by other Arab sectors within Israel. Withdrawal would also provide a much-needed rest for weary combatants hiding in fear of Israeli retaliation.
The result will be a more determined, ideological and better-trained militia. Ultimately, it will provide for the expansion of terrorist movements and opportunities for new offensives.
The fate of Gaza is the fate of Israel, because what happens in Gaza can happen in the rest of Israel. For the secret of Gazan Arab success lies in the heavily unbalanced demographic rates of Jews and Arabs, along with Muslim terrorists' barbaric willingness to kill helpless civilians - both of which are threats to all of Israel. The guarantee of more attacks lies in the fact that the Arabs find them to be justified, doable and successful - a reality whether we withdraw or not.
So, in the face of the terrorists' actual goals there can be no doubt that withdrawal both encourages and rewards attacks on Israeli civilians. Finally, withdrawing from Gaza would represent yet another instance in which the leaders of the Jewish state refuse to consider long-term consequences, and yet again deny the truths of history.
Giving in to them encourages terrorists to increase their efforts to commit acts of terrorism.
We should know better by now.