(Continued from p.10)
Why? Unfortunately, part of Israel, the part which shaped the state, is anchored to a different political tradition. Labor Zionism from its inception believed in the historical inevitability of progress and a socialist future. The march forward of history, it was argued, would deliver "a more progressive Arab," shorn of the "primitive state" which brought his class and national interests into conflict with that of the Jews. Once having come under the leadership of "progressive forces," the Arabs would see their common interests with like-minded "progressive forces" leading the Jewish community and the two would work together against the anti-socialist forces of reaction. The purpose of Israel's defense was to hold on until the inexorable forces of history effect such a change. As a result of this concept, a great deal of energy and skill were applied to tactics and the mustering of resources not only to build a military but also to secure diplomatic and financial support from abroad, particularly the U.S., to expand the amount of available resources, but little contemplation was given to the far more important higher end of the strategic spectrum. It was enough to sit and wait until the "currents of history" had their effects.
However, resolute and sharp-minded men and their ideas, not inexorable, fatalistic forces, shape history. Israel's failure to think strategically across the entire spectrum, and the United States' inability to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict as a political, rather than merely an ethnic and religious conflict, have led Israel and the United States to where they are now: impressive Israeli military victories that have never been applied toward securing the political victory which will bring it such peace as is possible and America the regional acceptance it so seeks. On the contrary, the political idea of Israel's right to exist is now as much as any time since 1948, under siege, even in Israel itself.
Labor Zionism's socialism thus defined Israel since its creation. But by the 1970s, it had led to a stagnant society and economy. Its failure was most exemplified by the large growth in emigration in the years before the 1967 War. Eventually, those who remained behind turned inward and began to lose the will to fight. Recalling Clausewitz, as the political objective lessens, the strategy to secure it becomes murky, the will to sacrifice for it erodes, and the value of power is ignored.
In contrast, many of Israel's neighbors, and especially the PLO, have retained a crisp understanding of this insight. They continue to nibble and hammer at Israel's core beliefs. In contrast, Labor Zionism never formulated a clear plan on how to bring the Arabs to accept Israel as permanent.
Since the Labor movement subscribed to Marxist notions of peace, that is, that universal proletariat control will obviate the need for war, Israel, under Labor Zionism relied on the "march of history" to deliver a change in the Arab world that would bring it to accept Israel's legitimacy. In the 1990s, Labor Zionism is coming full-circle; believing it could once again expedite the arrival of peace by offering the Arab world guidance to help it come into line with global historical trends. This time, it believed in a "New Middle East," a wonderful utopia where security concerns and national identities should be exchanged for an economic superstate, a sort of European Union of the Middle East. Because of Labor Zionism's inability to formulate a strategy to bring peace other than offering the Arab world European socialism or EU-style supra-nationalism, it never understood the requirements of strategic competition between itself and its neighborsnamely how to solidify one's key political objective while striking at the core of the opponent's political objective until he submits.
As Labor Zionism collapses in Israel, Israel is in retreat. Lacking a clear political objective, Israel is unable to formulate a strategy and motivate its citizens to fight. Even worse, the foundering of Labor Zionism has given way to doubt over the legitimacy of the nation among Israelis themselves, who are putting the questions of 1948 (whether Israel should exist), not 1967 (what size Israel) on the table. Once the questions of 1948 were reopened, it was natural that the PLO was brought into the picture. It represented the entirety of the Arab national claim--the negation of Israel's existence--as it stood in 1948. It did not represent only a human rights question for disenfranchised Arabs under Israeli rule--as developed after 1967. Israel had recognized the PLO, but the PLO had still not recognized Israel, namely it still has not changed its covenant which calls for Israel's destruction and has still not ceded the right of return, which would reverse the verdict of the 1948 war.
The purpose of Zionism was to move the Jewish people beyond survival, back into the realm of politics, back into the ranks of mankind. It was, ultimately, an answer to the shame of the Jewish people.
The political goal of any nation's government is the fulfillment of one's image as a nation -- the expression of national identity. Having stripped Israel of its Judaism, having reduced Jewish identity strictly to the level of survival, a nation loses all but its most primitive identity -- existence. There is no spiritual purpose to the political body. There is no point to fighting other than to avoid immediate physical destruction. But without political purpose, why fight at all? Flight is preferable. And that is what Israel is now doing: flight into the Oslo process, into utopian dreams.
Most of Israel's strategic problems arise because it, in stark contrast to its adversaries, fails to un-
(Continued on p.12)
May 1999 - 11 - Outpost