SHARON'S REVERSE ZIONISM VERSUS
A PROGRAM FOR ISRAEL'S FUTURE
By David Basch
"Since Israel's existence runs counter to Muslim religious conviction and Arab nationalist passions, Arab population groups within Israel's perimeter of control will remain perpetually hostile to the existence of Israel. It is this larger threat that needs to be confronted in total, not merely that population component in Gaza. As noted, ceding Gaza offers no help in solving this larger problem but makes it worse by making Gaza the nucleus of a new Arab state whose mission is to combine all Arab populations in the effort to replace Israel...."
"Sharon's policy on Gaza -- at great Israeli cost in material resources and the destruction of the nation's unity! -- advances the Arab goal toward Israel's annihilation. A more effective policy would go counter to the Arab thrust of building a new Arab state and rolling back the existence of Israel.... A reverse Gaza policy thus provides an object lesson on how Israel can gain for her people greater security and assured hope for her future...."
"National suicide -- which will be the end result of allowing the establishment of a new Arab state on Israel's lands -- is hardly Israel's international obligation. Those theories of international law are to be seriously called into question that would allege that Israel's hostile Arab populations have a sacrosanct right to remain in Israel and avoid TRANSFER in spite of the fact that they are the vanguard of the designs of outside hostile, Arab powers to destroy Israel...."
A nation is a living organism that for its health must be served in all its dimensions, physical, psychological, and spiritual. Alas, Israel has suffered from technocratic leaders that deal not with the nation as a living organism but reduce it to their own one dimensional level of mechanistic thinking. To them the nation is nothing but an inanimate lump that can be that can be divorced from its culture and history, divorced from the longings, dreams, and aspirations of the Jewish people -- the very things that attach people to their nation and give them the incentive to build the nation and to sacrifice for its well-being. These are national spiritual resources of incalculable value that are being squandered by the visionless dolts that lead the nation.
The technocratic Sharon would embark Israel for the first time on an anti-Zionist course, a form of reverse Zionism, in Gaza and the territories for reasons that he deems to be practical, military considerations. In fact, these are grossly short-sighted expediencies that at the end of the day leave the nation worse off militarily and spiritually. Sharon would have Israel abandon lands and Jewish communities to which Israel has the most legitimate of claims and would create the obscenity of the very first phase of a new Arab state on Israel's territory. Such an Arab state that would be irredentist and a mortal danger. It is a formula for the slow but sure destruction of Israel.
Not only does this not make sense in terms of Israel's historic goals and Zionist aspirations, assaulting the very religious faith that has sustained the Jewish people, but it likewise makes no sense economically or militarily. The cost is horrendous and adds no new capacity for defense against the hostile Arab military forces already in the area. Rather, these enemy forces will be enhanced by opening up direct contact with Egypt and to weapon supply from an unimpeded Mediterranean coast.
The colossally stupid thought behind Sharon's surrender of Gaza is that it would win support for Israel from many nations of the world. But this is wholly an illusion. In fact, Israel's victory in the 1967 war made her more friends than all her appeasements and surrenders to the Arabs ever did. After all, nothing succeeds like success. Those nations that have not supported Israel up to this moment will not be more inclined to support the weaker Israel that would result from Sharon's surrender -- a weaker Israel menaced by the new hostile Arab state located within her very bosom that the Sharon plan puts in orbit. Where was the additional support of the nations when Israel returned the Sinai and its oil wells to Egypt? Where was this support when Israel surrendered to Arafat under the Oslo process and later offered to surrender to more than 95% of Arab demands? The alleged support that Sharon's new surrenders would bring is as unlikely to be manifest as before and even more so. Events have already shown Sharon's thesis to be false. Gaza is already an enemy military bastion and bombards Israeli cities while the world criticizes Israel for her spirited defense. Does Sharon imagine this criticism will abate when attacks spring from a legitimized new Arab state that seeks to liberate all its alleged lands -- all the lands of Israel -- from the "Jewish occupiers"? This savage darling of the U.N. will grow in support as Israel wanes.
Through Sharon's policy of surrendering Jewish lands, Israel will have acquiesced in the right of the Arabs to lands of the Mandate of Palestine that had been set aside for the Jewish people -- a major diplomatic setback. These lands, of course, will include Jerusalem which in no way differs in status from Gaza, both being Jewish lands included in the Mandate and liberated by Israel in the 1967 War when Israel victoriously defended herself against Arab attack. Either Israel has rights to all the lands that were assigned to the Jewish people under the Mandate or Israel has none. By relinquishing Gaza, Israel creates a precedent in the abandonment of her rights. In addition, Sharon's surrender also gives up the strengthening of Israel's rights to hold her territories gained from U.N. Resolution 242, which allows Israel to hold to secure borders.
Against these factors, Sharon and his fellow leftist technocrats pit the problem of the growing Arab population of Gaza. How is Israel to deal with this huge hostile population without abandoning the area? The question is a good one but it is no different from the same question posed concerning the growing Arab population of the territories (and even that of the Arabs of Israel). Since Israel's existence runs counter to Muslim religious conviction and Arab nationalist passions, these population groups will remain perpetually hostile to the existence of Israel. It is this larger threat that needs to be confronted in total, not merely that component in Gaza. As has been noted, ceding Gaza offers no help in solving this larger problem but makes it worse by making Gaza the nucleus of a new Arab state whose mission is to unite all these Arab populations in the effort to replace Israel.
How then to start Israel on a new path? Certainly Sharon's policy of gratuitously empowering the enemy by promoting his statehood and weakening Israel's claims to her lands is not the way. Sharon's policy on Gaza -- at great Israeli cost in material resources and the destruction of the nation's unity -- advances the Arab goal toward Israel's annihilation. A more effective Israeli policy would go counter to the Arab thrust of building a new Arab state and rolling back Israel. In this way, while the Arabs seek to progressively reduce the size of Israel and gain ever greater control of her physical resources, it makes sense that an effective Israeli policy must do the reverse: make it ever more evident that there is to be no new Arab state and that it is the Arabs that have no future in the Jewish land.
While it is disingenuously alleged that such a policy will preclude peace with the Arabs, there is absolutely no evidence that giving into Arab demands brings peace. Clearly, the opposite is true. It is Arab advances at Israel's expense that is guaranteed to promote war and further stimulate Arab efforts to destroy Israel.
A reverse Gaza policy thus provides an object lesson on how Israel can gain for her people greater security and hope for her future. Such a policy would begin by continuing Israeli strikes against the hostile Arab forces in Gaza that seek through Kassam rocket attacks to depopulate Israel's Southern cities like Sderot and Ashkelon. But what would be different is that Israel would make a "no man's land" of the intervening area from Gaza city to Sderot to the extent necessary to bring cities like Sderot out of range of Arab rocket launchers. Were rocket range to increase by improved Arab weaponry, so would Israel increase the extent of the new no man's land. What is more, these would be permanent changes in Arab holdings and would be just the beginning of such defensive action rolling back the Arab enclaves.
The other aspect of this new Israeli defensive program would seek to make the Jewish communities of Gaza more viable than before. Instead of removing the Jewish communities near the Mediterranean adjacent to Egypt as surrender artist Sharon plans to do, Israel would clear the Arabs from a ten mile wide corridor that runs North-South between Rafah and Kfar Dorom ending on the Mediterranean, a corridor that would encompass the Jewish Gaza communities and would connect them directly to Southern Israel. (If ethnic cleansing is valid for Jews, so is it valid for Arabs and for a better and more just purpose to boot.)
This would divide the Gaza strip in two, with one side in a tiny strip near Egypt and the second side beginning ten miles further Northeast, beyond Kfar Dorom. This division would effectively cut the Egyptian tunnel connection to inland Gaza. (Let the Egyptians try to build a ten mile long tunnel.) In this way, the Gazan Jewish communities on the Mediterranean would become integral parts of Israel, an area with a Jewish future and a barrier to the supply of weaponry from Egypt.
But what about the massive and growing Arab population in the Gaza City portion of the strip? The answer to dealing with this populationis the same as that for dealing with the Arab enclaves of Israel's Eastern territories in Judea and Samaria. These Arab enclaves will be confronted by progressively increasing pressure as a result of their own growth and scarcity of resources. It will become evident that it is these Arab enclaves that will have no future in the land of Israel, Israel being the nation with the prior claim to the territory.
While the Arabs are used to the idea that their growing enclaves will one day overrun Israel and absorb it into the Arab realm, Israel will make it clear with firm barriers to emphasize the point that this will not happen. The only future for these Arabs in both cases will be the greener pastures of any of the 22 Arab countries. It is Israel's future that will take precedence in the Israeli territories as the resident Arabs are encouraged and assisted toward one-way passage out of the land.
This situation is unavoidable since a cooperative existence between Jews and Arabs in Israel is clearly an oxymoron. Transfer, the relocation of the Arab population, is the long-term solution to the problem of lasting peace in the area. The alternative to transfer, letting the implacably hostile Arabs remain to grow and gobble up the lands and resources of Israel and eventually attack Israel, means Israel's certain destruction. Israeli politicians that tell their people that this is not the case go against reality and betray the future of the nation. The dye has long been cast so that there is no other choice than transfer.
As difficult intellectually and emotionally to the obsessed Israeli leftists as such a pro-Israel solution may initially seem, in the long run it is the most charitable way since it will save lives on both sides. The Arabs, cut off from weaponry supply and compressed into receding enclaves inversely proportional in size to their resistance,will be forced to cease their war because they will have lost the strategic conditions to wage it, saving Arab lives. Arab nations that would seek to enter the fray would find the price of warfare ruinous with the strengthened Jewish state. The Arab hordes that have been cultivated for the purpose of replacing Israel's Jewish population will be the responsibility of the Arab nations and their supporters that have contributed to this situation. Again, should the adjacent Arab nations attempt to block the movement of the Arab population departing from Israel, Israel would do what it reasonably could to help this population go around it to a better future, but any suffering of this Arab population would be upon those who attempt to restrain their pursuit of a better life. Israel, under the necessity of providing for her own continued existence in safety and security, finds this to be the inescapable situation forced upon her by her Arab neighbors. But is transfer legitimate? In fact, it happens to be a time honored mode of solving certain difficult international problems when the goal has indeed been peace and the prevention of future wars. This policy was used even by the Western Allies after World War II to transfer 12 million German ethnics to Germany for the sake of peace in Europe. Since any other policy will bring Israel certain defeat and the destruction of her people, transfer becomes most legitimate as the least destructive of all the possibilities. National suicide, which is the irrevocable end result of the establishment of a new Arab state on Israel's lands and a growing irrepressible hostile population, is hardly Israel's international obligation. Those theories of international law must be seriously called into question that allege that the residency of hostile Arab populations are sacrosanct despite their mortal threats to the existence and future of Israel, a legitimate U.N. member state. Those international theories are farces, just not designed to confront the situation of an Israel menaced by her Arab neighbors that use resident Arab populations as tools of enemy states to destroy her and are irrelevant.
It will not do for critics to deny the gravity of Israel's situation and Israel's desperate need to confront a lethal and hostile Arab population that threatens her existence. As we have recently seen, those -- like president Bush -- who have failed to anticipate the obdurate realities of the nature of hostile Arab populations, as has just happened to U.S. armies in Iraq that face the grave consequences of such ignorance and lack of foresight, should not be lecturing an Israel that would attempt to do better than succumb to the same false, rosy scenarios of coexistence based on fictions of the nature of the enemy. In any case, Israel has no choice if she is to exist other than to confront her enemies effectively and realistically.
If Israel is to survive, the hostile Arab populations within her territories must be transferred. The demands of peace in the region are such that Israel can legitimately claim cooperation on such a project from external nations in making transfer possible. It is too late to consider other fanciful options based on false realities. If a stalemate occurs in Israel's pursuit of this policy, as it is expected it will, Israel, whose existence hangs in the balance, has the moral right to make the consequences bear far heavily on the other side than on her own people. Peace loving nations that recognize Israel's legitimate rights will come to Israel's aid in the interest of peace in the region.
With this policy accomplished, the region can go on to live in peace -- a peace assured by a strong Israel that cannot be overwhelmed by any combination of Arab forces without ruinous, unacceptable consequences to the other side. This is the only workable and realistic formula for the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.