Moreover, the guerrilla and terror actions in Vietnam, Algeria, Ireland, and other places were not directed against the very existence of the rival nation. For example, the National Liberation Front (FLN), which began operating in 1954 for the liberation of Algeria from French occupation, never called for the destruction of France as a national entity. On the contrary, the FLN listed among its objectives "external contacts between France and Algeria...defined in an agreement between the two states on the basis of equality and mutual respect."

Terror, by definition, does not attempt to engage an entire army. Its objective is attained when the terrorist outflanks the security forces and spears the soft spot of public morale among the civilian population.

The declared aim of the communist underground active in Malaya against the British in 1948 was to install a communist government on the peninsula, including Singapore, while "unifying the citizenry at all levels: the castes, the nationalities, the political parties, the mass organizations..." Here, too, there is no trace of any opposition to the existence of the British people in its homeland.

However, the Palestinian Charter states quite clearly that Palestinian independence can only be attained through the destruction of the State of Israel. The Charter remains the constitutive document of the Palestinian Authority, and attests to the strategic goal of the Palestinian Arabs, which has not changed, despite the agreements that the PA has signed with the State of Israel. Section 19 of the Charter stipulates: "The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time." And Section 22: "Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods....The liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence...in the Middle East." Thus, the State of Israel is to be absolutely eradicated.

While the Palestinian Authority made a commitment to change the sections of the Charter calling for Israel's destruction, the Charter still has not been changed, and both public and leadership adhere to it. According to a survey by the Palestinian Center for Journalism and Media, most Palestinian Arabs believe that the purpose of the latest uprising is not only to terminate the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza but also to destroy the State of Israel. Apart from the Nazi leadership, history has yet to witness an organization, like the PLO, that openly declares that its national goal is the destruction of a neighboring people. The "political horizon" offered by the Palestinian Charter is positioned at precisely the same place as the horizon of the Mediterranean Sea.

Human beings are frequently disposed to ignore facts that threaten their basic assumptions. But those among us who may belittle the power of spoken and written words and their practical significance should recall the period preceding the Yom Kippur War when Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president, declared that he was prepared to sacrifice an enormous number of soldiers for the liberation of Sinai. Sadat intended his words to be understood literally, yet in Israel they were met with disbelief: "He doesn't really mean it," "It is impossible for a leader to act in that way," "It was a statement intended for internal consumption," etc. The results of Israel's contempt are well known, but the lesson was not learned, and we continue to understand the words of Arab leaders in accordance with a value system which is irrelevant to the subject of our interpretation.

It is particularly difficult to implement a fighting doctrine (in this case that dictated by the doctrine of limited conflict) that does not derive its logic from the security doctrine of which it is a part. While the terrorists do not use tanks and jets, their actions have a more damaging effect on public morale than the aggregate of all Israel's past wars. We must, therefore, for all intents and purposes relate to their actions as a war. Terror, by definition, does not attempt to engage an entire army. Its objective is attained when the terrorist outflanks the security forces and spears the soft spot of public morale among the civilian population. As opposed to other kinds of war, the collapse preceding the realization of its objective does not begin at the battlefront, progressing backwards into the civilian hinterland. Its objective is the home front, the citizens who have lost their confidence in the ability of the army, which they have come to view as a body incapable of providing them with personal security.

For the State of Israel to be capable of dealing with prolonged fighting of the kind dictated by the doctrine of limited conflict, there must be a fundamental change in its basic assumptions -- those which produced its traditional security doctrine, the main thrust of which was to avoid a protracted war. Now, according to the basic conceptions of its local perpetrators, terror is a tool utilized in a full-scale war; it is, therefore, a mistake of major dimensions to continue to treat terror as something "non-war"

Outpost               - 4 -               April 2004