(Continued from p.8)
* "[Khaddam] charged that plans were being hatched to break Iraq up into separate Sunnite, Shiite, and Kurdish entities that would then be rejoined with Jordan in a federation that would be part of a new Israeli-led bloc in the region. He warned that such schemes would lead to the dismemberment of other Arab countries along ethnic or religious lines, part of the process of strengthening Israel's hand against the Arabs by fragmenting them."
The implications of these economic, political, and strategic changes remain unexamined in the West, though many in the region have already understood and begun to adjust. Some in the region have already begun to tap Israel's power for their own purposes, forming the seeds of a new security architecture in the region. Specifically, the last two years has witnessed the emergence of a military alliance between Israel, Turkey, and to some extent Jordan. Instead of basing its security on Saudi stability and economic power, the West
Israel and the United States are forced not from weakness to relent, but because both have chosen to cede a victory in hand.
Israel, Turkey, and the Unted States can easily overcome their adversaries, but only provided the following four conditions obtain:
That Israel engage in a hard-headed analysis of her interests and understand that even when she has comfortably secured herself, she will need to remain vigilant, powerful, and aware enough never to delude herself into believing that her strength can be bartered to secure peace. The peace which is realistic and attainable is a product of Israel's strength and resilience; diminishing that strength erodes the foundations of that peace. The "new Middle East," as argued by Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin -- specifically the concept that treaties and multilateral pacts, rather than military defense planning, is the firmest foundation for national security -- is a dangerous delusion, not only for Israel, but for any country to entertain.
That Israel properly understand what the sources of military strength really are. It is a
combination, in order of importance, of the proper
identification of the political ideas which define both you and your
opponents, a proper identification of where your
opponent's ideas conflict with yours, a formulation of a plan to
batter one's opponent's conflicting ideas while simultane-
ously maintaining the initiative to prevent the
opponent from having the opportunity to attack vulnerable
points in your core beliefs, and then developing the tactics
and mustering the resources to execute the strategy.
While Sir Liddell Hart might have modified the concept of
strategy and military strength from von Clausewitz's
original formulation, preferring an indirect approach, the
basic elements remain constant. Military strength is
about political ideas.
That Israel learn to act without apology for who it is, where it came from, what Zionism is, what the Jewish people's rights are and for being at the cutting edge of the Western world. To secure itself, and to win acceptance of its existence, does not require of Israel self-effacing, self-denying, or embarrassed behavior. In fact, Israel must accept, even embrace, the accusations which Arab nations have hurled against it that it is an agent of the West. Israel is part of the West; it always has been. In fact, the Jewish people are very much at the center of creating and shaping the foundations and ideas which define the West, starting under Moses with how the departure from servitude to freedom was anchored and preserved through the giving of law at Mount Sinai 3500 years ago. And modern Israel was not created to express embarrassment over the centrality of its legacy, both religious and national, in forming the cornerstone of Western thought.
That Israel's friends in the United States work to convince those with the power and ability to influence American policy of the same about the US -- that evincing pride, not embarrassment, over being the leader, if not the current definer, of the West will bring it both respect and following. In short, both Israelis and Americans must understand that the challenge to Israel is part of the challenge to the West as a whole and to the ideas upon which the West is founded, such as freedom, democracy, limited government, and rule of law. Those ideas should be defended with pride, not diminished through apology under the mistaken belief that tyranny and its proclivity toward external aggressions are legitimate forms of cultural expression to which we should be sensitive.
If these concerns are kept in mind, then both the United States and Israel face an opportunity to fundamentally change the nature of their discourse with the Arab world, which, as Khaddam's statements indicate, is on the brink of a major upheaval where the most dangerous political forces have reached dead ends.
Unfortunately, Israel has proven itself incapable of exploiting this felicitous condition because it has failed to keep in mind these four things. Israel and the United States are forced not from weakness to relent, but because both have chosen to cede a victory in hand. Israel today is in trouble strategically. While it has tremendous strategic opportunities, it cannot exploit them. While it has eclipsing military power, it is unable to respond to even a small number of terrorists.
(Continued on p.11)
Outpost - 10 - May 1999