In Response to Haaretz's "Israel's Choice"

Brad Bernstein

This is my counter argument to the Haaretz article "Israel's Choice: Make Peace or Dissapear"
(found here)

This is the sentence that sums up the article :"In order to save Israel, we must immediately separate from the territories and their inhabitants." Which is normally followed by "what happens if Israel is attacked after withdrawing?" and then either "that will never happen because there will be peace" or "then Israel will be fully justified in the eyes of the world to defend itself"

There are so many problems with this logic and it goes beyond a simple Israeli withdrawal.

Israel's last 4 PM's have made huge offerings to the Palestinians and neighboring only for those gestures to be returned by an intifada, 2 wars, and a rejection to come back to the negotiating table. In case you have forgotten:

1. Barak with Clinton offered about 95% or so of the WB and East Jerusalem etc to the Palestinians only to have the counter offer be an intifada that left over 1,000 Israeli civilians murdered. Barak also withdrew from Lebanon which allowed Hezbollah to arm itself and start a war with Israel in 2006.
2. Sharon took the bold move against his own history and withdrew from Gaza completely only to have Hamas arm itself and start a war with Israel in 2008. 3. Olmert made a similar offer as Baraks only to have it flatly rejected.
4. Netanyahu in his Bar Ilan speach openly stated that he supports the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state (albeit demilitarized - as were Japan and Germany following WWII). Which has been followed by the Palestinians refusal to return to the negotiating table.

The counter I hear to all of this is the so-called Arab Peace Initiative (or Saudi Peace plan that they presented to Thomas Friedman). That in return for Israel's withdrawal to the '67 boarders that the Arabs will declare the conflict over, etc. As much as this is a liberal wet dream, the fact is that Saudi's and other Arab regimes have no control over Hamas, Hezoballah or more importantly their major benefactor Iran. And while Israel would love to have peace with the Saudis, but really what does it gain other than some nice trade opportunities, and in case you didnt know Israel's economy is doing just fine without trade with the Arab world.

So, the real existential threat to Israel is not the Arabs, or the Palestinians but the Iranians and their proxies in Hez and Ham.

I know you are all afraid that if the Palestinians dont get their own state, that one of two things will happen: 1. The Palestinians will become Israeli citizens and then Israel will lose its Jewish majority or 2. Israel will become a pariah state because of its so-called apartheid like laws. - Both of these options are ridiculous And Israel at its core cannot allow for option 1 to unfold as it would destroy Israel. And option 2 is neo-form of antisemitism as the world is trying to de-legitimatize Israel.

So what are the options?
If Barak Obama were a real leader and could seize the opportunity to make a real difference in this region he would understand that Iran is the real problem here, not Israel. And he would demand that Israel withdraw in return for: a non-nuclear Iran, and the elimination of Hamas and Hezbollah. He would also demand that the Arab world take an active role in reviving the Palestinian economy and nation building with the help of Israel. Israel is being asked to take a huge risk by withdrawing and leaving the center of its country and major population base (airport, economic heart, etc) exposed, literally, to rocket attacks from the WB in return for "hoping the Palestinians will not start a war, intifada, etc" The reason he is so despised here is that he has only made demands from Israel, and mere empty threats at Iran.

All Israel wants is something a little more tangible and a little less historically proven to be flawed in return than "hope".

Related content

An Agenda for Mr. Netanyahu NY Times Editorial 2009 President Obama has set clear and appropriate priorities ahead of the visit to Washington on May 18 by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Speaking to Jewish-American activists last week, Vice..	Letter to the Editor of New York Times Dear Editor, / / / I have just finished reading yet another New York Times article that focus’s its main attack on Jewish settlements in Judea & Shomron. These articles clearly promote the opinion that..
Letter to the Daily Beast / To The Editor of the Daily Beast, ..	What do you mean when you say 'no'? Gideon Levy Publisher: HaaretzDate of publication: 11/19/2007 / A festive day for peace: Israel is planning to announce a freeze on construction in the settlements as compensation for refusing to discuss..
Letter to Haaretz To the Editors of Haaretz, / / It’s a sad irony that the single most damaging, inflammatory and reckless media outlet in the global mediascape, where Israel is concerned, is an Israeli newspaper:..	Editorial Steven Erlanger Publisher: The Economist Date of publication: 10/05/2006 'JERUSALEM, Nov. 4 — Israel continued its military offensive in Gaza on Saturday, destroying a minivan containing..