The international community wants an all-out war between Israel and the Arab states and terrorist organizations. They are pushing for it. And, I fear, they want the Arab side to win. This is the only possible conclusion based on examining recent international decisions affecting Israel.
The best way to test this hypothesis is to examine what would happen were Israel to follow the recommendation-decision issued by the International Court in the Hague and by the United Nations.
Let us suppose that tomorrow Israel begins dismantling its security fence in Samaria and Judea. Shortly thereafter, a wave of Arab suicide bombers march into major Israeli population centers, killing dozens. There is no doubt regarding this scenario, as every Arab terrorist group in the Palestinian Authority has made it clear that fence or no fence, terrorism will continue.(1) Incredibly, the vast majority of the Arabs in the Palestinian Authority want it to continue, regardless of its deleterious effects on themselves.(2)
After a time, Israel will react with force, as it did in Operation Defensive Shield following a series of suicide bombings, which culminated in the Passover Massacre in Netanya. Then, rest assured, the international community - in the form of the United Nations, the European Union, international NGOs, etc. - will again express its outrage, at Israel. Such was the scenario during Defensive Shield in April 2002.(3)
So, continuing our game of "what if Israel did what the UN and EU want", let us further suppose Israel then acquiesces to world pressure and ends its campaign in PA territories. The PLO and its sister organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad will rearm themselves, acquire longer range rockets and missiles and continue the battle to destroy Israel, just as they have sworn to do.(1)
It may happen that the PLO, or one of its satellites, will get lucky and manage to kill a dozen Jews with a Kassam-3 rocket or even a Katyusha. Then, Israel will face a difficult choice. Failure to retaliate in this neighborhood is suicidal and will invite further attacks. Massive retaliation will garner even greater condemnation from the world, possible Hizbullah engagement in the north and even Arab state-sponsored military skirmishes. So Israel, still playing our game, would have to "lie back and enjoy it," as a misguided Texas gubernatorial candidate once infamously recommended in another context.
All the while, of course, there would be a constant flow of US-sponsored negotiations and plans, right alongside periodic escalations of the violence. Some future Israeli leader may even be convinced to give up some more territory in another convoluted "peace" maneuver.
Eventually, relatively weak and limited Israeli reactions, combined with progressive concessions, would encourage the Arab side that the end of Israel is near. At that moment, a concerted effort to wipe out the Jewish State by Arab terrorist gangs, Arab states, Israeli Arab irredentist forces, along with the studious neutrality of the European Union, will be inevitable.
Then, the real war starts. And the UN and the EU representatives will act shocked and surprised, of course, even as they blame Israel for the "sudden" escalation (an "escalation" in UN-speak, of course, is when Israel kills its tormentors).
It is clear, therefore, that the world community is pushing for, encouraging and working towards war in the Middle East. In order to make sure the UN and EU fail in these efforts, Israel must pay no attention to their condemnations and forge ahead as national security dictates. Ironically, this itself may include going to war, but at Israel's discretion and not at a UN-imposed deadly disadvantage.
Footnotes:
1) For recent declarations, see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=64687 and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=65677 and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=63942;
"The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the premise that the war and struggle on the ground [i.e., locally against Israeli territory] is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land... for the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the '65 revolution..." (Palestinian Authority Minister of Supply Abd El-Aziz Shahian quoted in Al-Ayaam newspaper, May 30, 2000.)
"When we picked up the gun in '65 and the modern Palestinian Revolution began, it had a goal. This goal has not changed and it is the liberation of Palestine." (Salim Alwadia, Abu Salem, Supervisor of Political Affairs, quoted in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 20, 2000.)
The official website of the Fatah terrorist organization, headed by PLO leader Yasser Arafat, bluntly stated, "a legitimate Palestinian entity forms the most important weapon that Arabs have against Israel, the outpost of the imperialist powers." The statement was part of a January 1, 2002 manifesto marking the 37th anniversary of the founding of the Fatah. Pointedly emphasizing that the Fatah was founded in the late 1950s and carried out its first terrorist attack on Israel in 1965, the celebratory article states, "Fateh believes that the Zionist movement constitutes the biggest threat against not only the Palestinian national security but also against the security of the Arab world." Fatah recommends eliminating the threat through a combination of "the popular armed revolution" and other forms of the "revolution" at the "organizational, military, political, and diplomatic levels. The complementary nature of the different forms of revolution guarantees the continuity of the struggle until victory is achieved." (See www.fateh.net/e_editor/01/311201.htm)
2) www.mediareviewnet.com/hamas
3) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1402 (2002) "calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities...." It also calls for "an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction...." But of course, how can UN resolutions have any effect on terrorist groups?
The best way to test this hypothesis is to examine what would happen were Israel to follow the recommendation-decision issued by the International Court in the Hague and by the United Nations.
Let us suppose that tomorrow Israel begins dismantling its security fence in Samaria and Judea. Shortly thereafter, a wave of Arab suicide bombers march into major Israeli population centers, killing dozens. There is no doubt regarding this scenario, as every Arab terrorist group in the Palestinian Authority has made it clear that fence or no fence, terrorism will continue.(1) Incredibly, the vast majority of the Arabs in the Palestinian Authority want it to continue, regardless of its deleterious effects on themselves.(2)
After a time, Israel will react with force, as it did in Operation Defensive Shield following a series of suicide bombings, which culminated in the Passover Massacre in Netanya. Then, rest assured, the international community - in the form of the United Nations, the European Union, international NGOs, etc. - will again express its outrage, at Israel. Such was the scenario during Defensive Shield in April 2002.(3)
So, continuing our game of "what if Israel did what the UN and EU want", let us further suppose Israel then acquiesces to world pressure and ends its campaign in PA territories. The PLO and its sister organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad will rearm themselves, acquire longer range rockets and missiles and continue the battle to destroy Israel, just as they have sworn to do.(1)
It may happen that the PLO, or one of its satellites, will get lucky and manage to kill a dozen Jews with a Kassam-3 rocket or even a Katyusha. Then, Israel will face a difficult choice. Failure to retaliate in this neighborhood is suicidal and will invite further attacks. Massive retaliation will garner even greater condemnation from the world, possible Hizbullah engagement in the north and even Arab state-sponsored military skirmishes. So Israel, still playing our game, would have to "lie back and enjoy it," as a misguided Texas gubernatorial candidate once infamously recommended in another context.
All the while, of course, there would be a constant flow of US-sponsored negotiations and plans, right alongside periodic escalations of the violence. Some future Israeli leader may even be convinced to give up some more territory in another convoluted "peace" maneuver.
Eventually, relatively weak and limited Israeli reactions, combined with progressive concessions, would encourage the Arab side that the end of Israel is near. At that moment, a concerted effort to wipe out the Jewish State by Arab terrorist gangs, Arab states, Israeli Arab irredentist forces, along with the studious neutrality of the European Union, will be inevitable.
Then, the real war starts. And the UN and the EU representatives will act shocked and surprised, of course, even as they blame Israel for the "sudden" escalation (an "escalation" in UN-speak, of course, is when Israel kills its tormentors).
It is clear, therefore, that the world community is pushing for, encouraging and working towards war in the Middle East. In order to make sure the UN and EU fail in these efforts, Israel must pay no attention to their condemnations and forge ahead as national security dictates. Ironically, this itself may include going to war, but at Israel's discretion and not at a UN-imposed deadly disadvantage.
Footnotes:
1) For recent declarations, see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=64687 and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=65677 and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=63942;
"The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the premise that the war and struggle on the ground [i.e., locally against Israeli territory] is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land... for the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the '65 revolution..." (Palestinian Authority Minister of Supply Abd El-Aziz Shahian quoted in Al-Ayaam newspaper, May 30, 2000.)
"When we picked up the gun in '65 and the modern Palestinian Revolution began, it had a goal. This goal has not changed and it is the liberation of Palestine." (Salim Alwadia, Abu Salem, Supervisor of Political Affairs, quoted in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 20, 2000.)
The official website of the Fatah terrorist organization, headed by PLO leader Yasser Arafat, bluntly stated, "a legitimate Palestinian entity forms the most important weapon that Arabs have against Israel, the outpost of the imperialist powers." The statement was part of a January 1, 2002 manifesto marking the 37th anniversary of the founding of the Fatah. Pointedly emphasizing that the Fatah was founded in the late 1950s and carried out its first terrorist attack on Israel in 1965, the celebratory article states, "Fateh believes that the Zionist movement constitutes the biggest threat against not only the Palestinian national security but also against the security of the Arab world." Fatah recommends eliminating the threat through a combination of "the popular armed revolution" and other forms of the "revolution" at the "organizational, military, political, and diplomatic levels. The complementary nature of the different forms of revolution guarantees the continuity of the struggle until victory is achieved." (See www.fateh.net/e_editor/01/311201.htm)
2) www.mediareviewnet.com/hamas
3) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1402 (2002) "calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities...." It also calls for "an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction...." But of course, how can UN resolutions have any effect on terrorist groups?