(Continued from p.4)
state; there will be no state; there will be no Palestinian state!" A few weeks later, Netanyahu said weakly "it seems that we will have to get used to the idea of a Palestinian state." Asked about the dramatic shift in his stance, he replied (in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, January 24, 1997) that "we must accustom ourselves to the fact that ideals on which we were raised are no longer valid." ....Rabin and Peres explained the abrupt turnaround in their political paths by citing the changed circumstances in the world in general and in the region in particular, corresponding to the Cold War. Speaking in the Knesset on September 22, 1993, Rabin said: "It is incumbent upon us to see the New World as it is now. We must join the journey towards peace, reconciliation and cooperation which is gaining momentum around the globe...the region has taken the path to peace and we cannot allow ourselves to miss the train."
Peres often speaks of "the winds of reconciliation and peace which are blowing in the Middle East." In the "New Middle East," the title of his book, Peres foresees an economic triangle like the Benelux countries between the Jordanian-Palestinian confederation and Israel. A "democratic, free, prosperous and ever-changing...regime will govern." Among the foundations of the New Middle East, according to Peres, are "the blossoming of the desert, progress, prosperity, justice and personal freedom." Carried away by his vision, Peres proposed that Israel join the Arab League. Both the idea of the confederation and the suggestion that Israel join the Arab League were greeted in the Arab world either with derision or presented as a Zionist plot to control the Arab world from within, in the well-known tradition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
In office, Netanyahu also spoke continuously in praise of peace, citing the agreements with Jordan and Egypt as examples of the far-reaching changes which have transpired in the region "among those nations who have decided to take the path of reconciliation with Israel." ....
It goes without saying that claims of the sort just quoted are intrinsically mistaken. An analysis of the reality in the Middle East over the last decade, "a region which is a lethal combination of nationalistic extremism and Muslim fundamentalism armed with weapons of mass destruction," to quote the French philosopher Jean Francois Ravel, reveals the depth and scope of the Jewish self-deception concerning an issue which goes to the very essence of the existence of the Jewish state.
Circumstances have indeed changed, but in a direction opposite to the one posited by Israel's Prime Ministers. There has been an increase in the level of conventional armaments (the Middle East purchases 42% of the weapons sold worldwide, 20 times the world average); proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, i.e. ballistic missiles; the spread of Muslim fundamentalism; and the expansion of extreme nationalism attempting to achieve regional hegemony....
With the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War era, Israel has lost its status as a "strategic asset" in the face of Soviet expansionism, which was vital in its geo-strategic significance to the West. Washington has, ever since, subjected the Jewish state to the constant pressure of "strategic abuse."
The loss of asset status was confirmed in the second Gulf War, when Israel was transformed into an embarrassing political burden. On the one hand, Israel was a target of Iraqi hostilities in a war in which it was not involved and, on the other, was prevented from retaliating. The role of Israelis was limited to donning masks, crowding into sealed rooms, and serving as a passive punching bag until the danger passed.
This exhibition of weakness and panic predictably led to a further weakening of the Israel Defense Force's deterrent capability. The rapid escalation in the
We are not discussing an unfortunate combination of political blunders, but rather a deterministic process of national suicide.
Israel was then subject to strategic abuse as it was coerced by the United States (which was fulfilling promises made to the Arabs before the war) into walking into the Madrid Conference trap under the heading "land for peace." Washington's pressure stood in glaring contrast to the Arab countries' attitude toward Israel during the war, in the course of the war, and thereafter, when manifestations of hostility toward Israel were even more extreme. For example, this was the editorial in Al-Ahram, Egyptian President Mubarak's mouthpiece, on August 7, 1990, in response to Washington's request that Egypt join the coalition against Iraq: "We want to extend our hand of peace to the United States after it washes its hands of the Zionist filth. American interests must give precedence to 200 million Arabs who believe that the neglect of Palestine is the neglect of the Holy of Holies. Preference should be given to the Arabs over the Zionist gang which came for no reason to a land which is not theirs and may not remain there." Another example was the wave of joy which inundated the Arab world, led by Israeli Arabs, in response to Saddam Hussein's decla-
(Continued on p.6)
July-August 1999 - 5 - Outpost