Gadi Taub

This is probably one of the most dangerous junctures in Israel’s history. Not only because of the rising tide of Fundamentalism in the region, and the looming Iranian nuclear plan, which the international community is so sluggish in stopping. But also because the radical right in Israel, so badly defeated in the last elections, is on the rise again. The way the right is framing the problem is too easily appealing to many right now.

The right’s logic is this: no peace is possible because Israel’s enemies will settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel. Therefore Oslo was a mistake, and so are unilateral withdrawals. Each withdrawal is interpreted by the other side as defeatism, and only gets the missile threat closer to the heart of Israel. Withdrawal in the West Bank – Olmert’s “Convergence” plan – would only bring even the most primitive of them within range of Tel Aviv and Israel’s international Ben-Gurion Airport. In the renewed atmosphere of siege created by this war, all this strikes many as a sound argument. The settlers, a very small minority, now feel they have at long last carried the day and secured Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank.

But the logic is faulty. Nothing endangers Israel more in the long run than an inability to end the occupation. The right offers no plan to prevent the Jewish State from sinking into bi-nationalism, which would spell Bosnia. The right’s plan to keep missiles away from Israel’s cities, would only bring terror closer to home in an endless civil war. By the end of this decade there will be an Arab majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. If Israel “converges” to its international border the Arab minority (which, unlike the Palestinians in the territories holds full Israeli citizenship) would be some 20 percent of Israel’s population. Ending the occupation is thus Israel’s most vital interest.

Israel’s plan A to end the occupation – a peace agreement with the Palestinians – has failed with the collapse of Oslo, and Arafat’s refusal of partition in 2000. Israel’s plan B, unilateral withdrawal in the absence of a peace agreement, has now been forestalled by the missiles from Lebanon (and, importantly, by the primitive missiles from Gaza). The only feasible plan C is international intervention, and a multinational force to secure peacful withdrawal. But given the poor show of international will even in the emergency of Lebanon, it seems we would need a plan D. I can’t think of one. Suggestions would be most welcome.

In the aftermath of the of the Cuban Missile crisis, when the French discovered NATO was an American-run show, they slammed the door and left the Alliance. Stephen Ambrose once memorably described the move this way: the French thought there should be no annihilation without representation. They had a case back then. But they stumbled on a bad lesson all the same: in the Cold War context their political gestures have no consequences. What did the gesture mean anyway? Would America not protect Western Europe in the event that a Soviet attack would begin with France?

The bad habit remained with the French. High rhetoric is divorced from responsibility and consequences. The French are quick to preach to everyone about moral standards, but feel absolutely no need to make even the faintest excuse for breaking them themselves. A Washington Post editorial barely restrained its sarcasm when it noted that after great fanfare about brokering the deal in Lebanon, after supporting the idea of an international force (up to 15,000 soldiers according to Resolution 1701), it turned out the French were willing to send some 200 advisors. Presumably these would advise the Hezbollah about the virtues of peace.

Perhaps it is time the international community began to reconsider the role it is willing to grant France in global affairs. All nations, George Washington once observed, could be trusted only as far as their own interest goes. But French egotism surely exceeds even this grim assessment. If France wants to be represented in any important global forum, it should perhaps be taught that there is no representation without taxation. Proportionality applies not only to military retaliation. It also applies to the ratio between pompous presumptions and political responsibility.

These latest attacks on Israel were explicitly aimed at preventing territorial partition. They seek to undermine the very logic of sovereignty, which is at the heart of the problem of the global struggle agaist terrorism. You’ll find some thoughts along these lines in this piece I did for The New Republic website. The struggle between sovereignty and chaos in the Middle East.

The Hebrew version of this piece – The Arrogance behind the Radical Left – created a surprising splash here. I didn’t think the part Edward Said played in the misunderstanding of the war was a subject with such a large audience. But you never know. You can find the original Hebrew version here.