New Wind Blowing in the Middle East

 With polls and early returns suggesting an overwhelming victory for Likud Party leader and retired General Ariel Sharon, it appears Israel will soon have a Prime Minister elected on a platform that promises to place the Jewish State’s relationships with its Arab neighbors on a more realistic and strategically sound footing. It will be a change for the better.

How much better will depend upon a number of things, including the level of violence the Palestinians unleash and the degree to which other nations actively or latently hostile towards the Jewish State engage in their own attacks on Israel. As a column by Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. that appeared today in National Review Online makes clear, there may not be much that can be done to prevent the former — especially in light of the untold quantities of deadly weapons the Palestinian Authority has been stockpiling.

It may be possible, however, for the United States to contribute to the restoration of Israel’s deterrent to aggression from elsewhere in the Middle East. The place to start would be for the Bush Administration to demonstrate — through steps like those outlined by Mr. Gaffney — that there is no exploitable "daylight" between America and her ally, Israel. The time to do so is now.

Stand by Sharon’s Israel Come What May

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

National Review Online, 5 February 2001

If, as widely expected, Ariel Sharon is elected Israel’s prime minister tomorrow, there is a high probability the event will be marked by intensified violence. The Palestinians have already declared they intend to make election day in Israel a "day of rage." In all likelihood, their rage will only grow in the weeks that follow and be expressed with acts of terrorism and attacks involving an array of anti-tank, anti-aircraft, and other powerful weaponry smuggled into Gaza and the West Bank ever since the Oslo peace accords were signed.

In the realm of Mideast possibilities, that would be the good news.

The bad news would be if, in addition to an intensified Intafada, Israel’s other foes — notably Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Libya — perhaps joined by her two "partners for peace," Egypt and Jordan, were to use Sharon’s election as a casus belli. No one knows what such a regional conflict would look like; would weapons of mass destruction be used and, if so, by whom and with what effect? Suffice it to say, the bloodletting that would accompany the Middle East’s next round of Arab–Israeli hostilities would likely make the previous wars pale in comparison.

The best hope for averting a renewed regional war is if Israel’s enemies perceive that Sharon’s election signifies that the Jewish State has found its footing again after years of irresolution and drift. Everything possible should be done to dissipate the perception fostered by Ehud Barak’s reckless concessions and other acts of appeasement — namely, that the Arab war option foreclosed since 1973 has once again become viable.

Of course, the principal responsibility for restoring Israel’s credibility so as to deter widespread aggression rests with the government and people of Israel. Should a majority of the latter give Ariel Sharon a mandate, it will be a powerful signal of strength and resolve — provided he does not immediately adulterate that message by seeking a national unity government that would assign key portfolios (such as defense and foreign affairs) to failed Labor party figures like Barak and Shimon Peres.

There are, however, steps the United States can — and should — take to reinforce with Arab and other audiences the folly of believing that Israel can be attacked with impunity. Specifically, as the new Bush administration congratulates the winner of Tuesday’s Israeli elections, it should also communicate the following messages to those who wish him ill:

• The United States is committed to the safety and security of the State of Israel. An attack against the Jewish State would be regarded as a hostile act against an American ally to which the U.S. would respond appropriately.

 

• The United States is determined to help maintain the qualitative edge of Israel’s military. It will also support Israel in retaining physical control of territory necessary to assure its ability to defend itself.

 

• In keeping with its practice in every other nation with whom it has diplomatic relations and an official presence, the United States will place its embassy in Israel in the capital of the Jewish State, Jerusalem.

 

• The United States will scrupulously and honestly monitor evidence that Arab nations and Iran persist in fomenting violence against the Jewish State and her people — behavior that is incompatible with peaceful coexistence between the parties and a durable and just end to conflict in the region. Eligibility for U.S. military assistance, financial support, and other benefits that flow from cordial relations with the United States will be adjusted accordingly.

As a candidate and as president, George W. Bush has repeatedly made clear his commitment to stand with Israel. The best way to ensure that that commitment is not put to the test under very ominous circumstances is to signal in these tangible ways that he means to stand with Ariel Sharon’s Israel, come what may.