No territory for terrorists

Decision Brief                                       No. 06-D 35                    2006-07-17

(Washington, D.C.): Suddenly, the Middle East is embroiled in a war again. No, not the sort of low-level, terrorist attack-and-limited retaliation that has passed for “peace” in the Mideast for many years. This is a shooting war, with armies on the move; widespread air, artillery and missile attacks on military targets and civilian infrastructure; and the sizeable death, destruction and dislocation of refugees and foreign nationals that typifies a conflict that may yet become far-wider in scope.

Finding Fault

Naturally, there is an effort to assign blame for this state of affairs. The Bush Administration has parried international efforts to assign that blame to Israel by correctly noting that two terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah, launched the attacks and kidnappings of Israeli soldiers that set this war in motion.

The G-8 meeting over the weekend (which wound up being, as the diplomats say, “seized” with this matter to an unanticipated degree) blames what the joint communique calls “extremists.” That euphemism apparently allowed the various governments to assign blame to others, as well. These properly should include Iran and Syria , the states whose sponsorship – along with that of Saudi Arabia in at least the case of Hamas – is helping the two terrorist groups to grow in size and lethality.

Others, notably the UN’s Secretary General Kofi Annan, prefer a moral equivalence that places at least as much blame on Israel as on its enemies. Such sentiments are evident in calls for an immediate cease-fire – which President Bush has, to his credit, thus far strongly resisted. Unfortunately, the G-8 communique negotiated for the United States by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns is sufficiently ambiguous on this point to allow some to claim that it does, in fact, demand a cease-fire.

Israel ‘s Deadly Errors

The truth of the matter is that the present conflict might have been avoided had successive Israeli administrations not allowed conditions to be created which made it inevitable. This is not the same thing as blaming Israel for responding to the recent provocations.

Rather, it is to say that Israel ‘s previous behavior – undertaken by Labor, Likud and Kadima-led governments alike, in the fatuous belief that ceding territory to terrorists would result in something other than more terror – produced, predictably, just the opposite. Incredibly, despite the whirlwind that Israel is now reaping, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has recently reiterated his determination to give up virtually all of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem – an area vastly larger than the combined territories of South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip that his predecessors, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon, surrendered respectively to Israel’s enemies in 2000 and 2005.

The Rising Cost of Terror

This is all the more extraordinary since Israel has learned at great cost that the effect of turning over territory to terrorists has been not only to assure that more attacks are mounted against the Jewish State from those areas. It is now indisputable that such terrorist strikes are more deadly, as well.

For example, the attack by Hamas operatives that resulted in the capture of the first Israeli soldier three weeks ago involved the digging of a tunnel hundreds of meters under border fences, coming up behind Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions. Such a sophisticated and lethal operation makes a mockery of the idea of “disengagement,” based upon the notion that good fences will make, if not good neighbors, at least ones with which Israel can live. Under present and foreseeable circumstances, the only hope of discouraging more – and far more destructive – terror attacks in the future is if the Israelis exercise control of both sides of the border.

Similarly, many observers have been surprised by the number and range of the weapons being used against Israeli civilians and, in at least one case, against an IDF naval vessel off the Lebanese coast. Here again, the only surprise is that “experts” are surprised: Ever since Israel abandoned its security zone (and allies) in South Lebanon and relinquished control over the Rafah and other crossings between Egypt and Gaza, there has been a steady infusion of advanced armaments and skilled personnel from terror organizations like the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and al Qaeda able to operate them, and to train local terrorists to do the same.

A Taste of What is to Come

Bad as the resulting attacks on Israel have been – involving populated areas as far from the front lines as Haifa, Tiberius and Ashkelon – far worse would be in the offing were Israel now to compound the errors that brought on the present crisis. Today’s war would pale by comparison with what will inevitably ensue should the Jewish State turn over control of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem to those now operating against her from Gaza and Lebanon.

In that case, every major Israeli population center would be within range of artillery, mortar and missiles. So would virtually all Israel ‘s airports, major roads and infrastructure. And it is equally predictable that were Iranian, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas forces next allowed to operate with impunity from the West Bank, as well as from Lebanon and Gaza, they would use that safe haven not only to pursue Israel’s destruction, but that of the Free World more generally – including the United States.

The Bottom Line

It is time for the U.S. and the Free World to adopt anew the Bush Doctrine (as opposed to the negotiation uber alles “Burns Doctrine” promoted by the Under Secretary of State). Reduced to its essence that means no territory for terrorists.