Author: Daniel Pipes
Publication: The Wall Street Journal
Europe
Date: December 3, 2001
In June of this year, Palestinian
television broadcast a sermon in a Gaza mosque in which the imam, Ibrahim
Madi, made the following statement: "God willing, this unjust state [of]
Israel, will be erased; this unjust state the United States will be erased;
this unjust state Britain will be erased."
The sheik's gentle homily came to
mind this weekend, when Palestinian suicide bombers launched nearly simultaneous
attacks on Israeli civilians in Jerusalem, Haifa, and Gaza, killing 26
and wounding nearly 200. If a reminder were needed that the war on terrorism
goes beyond Sept. 11 and the campaign in Afghanistan, the Palestinians
provided a powerful mnemonic. Even as U.S. and British forces respond to
the World Trade Center atrocity by closing in on Kandahar, the last city
under militant Islamic rule in Afghanistan, Israeli forces began preparing
a response to the Jerusalem atrocity with a "frontal attack" against the
Palestinian Authority.
The American and Israeli situations
seem very different to some, but Sheik Madi's remarks show they are not.
In both cases, the forces of militant Islam are targeting a Western country
with the intention of destroying it. Osama bin Laden years ago declared
a jihad against all Christians and Jews while his friend Mullah Omar, the
Taliban dictator, provided more specifics in mid-November: "The current
situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause-that is the destruction
of America. If God's help is with us, this will happen within a short period
of time-keep in mind this prediction. The real matter is the extinction
of America, and God willing, it will fall to the ground."
'Cancerous Tumor'
Likewise, with an almost numbing
routineness, militant Islamic leaders call for the destruction of Israel.
The most powerful of them all, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
called sometime ago for "this cancerous tumor of a state [to] be removed
from the region."
There are differences, to be sure.
The battle against the United States is newer, far less advanced, and less
supported by nonmilitant Islamic elements. Ironically, however, the U.S.
government has declared a "war on terrorism," while its Israeli counterpart
is still (with U.S. encouragement) trying to hammer out a deal with its
enemies. These differences aside, the drive to destroy the United States
and Israel are at base similar.
The latest attacks on Israel serve
to remind us of something else too: that the attempt to destroy the Jewish
state has gone on since it came into existence in 1948. For over a half
century, the majority of Arabs have persisted in seeing Israel as no more
than a temporary irritant, one they eventually expect to dispense with,
at best permitting Israelis to live in "Palestine" as a subject people
and at worst massacring them.
This destructive impulse has waxed
and waned since 1948. When a seemingly weak Israel first came into existence,
it started very high. Then 45 years of steadily losing to a tough and determined
Israel left the Arabs reeling by 1993 and partially open to the possibility
of accepting it. Rather than pushing this advantage to achieve full acceptance,
the Israelis made the historic mistake of easing up and offering their
two main enemies, the Syrians and Palestinians, an advantageous deal.
These offers completely backfired:
rather than understood as far-sighted strategic concessions intended to
close the conflict, Arabs interpreted them as signs of Israel's demoralization.
The result was an upsurge in violence and renewed Arab hopes of destroying
Israel through force of arms. For the first time since the 1960s, politicians,
civil servants, religious leaders, journalists, and intellectuals routinely
called for Israel's elimination.
Obviously, this wall of rejection
harms Israel, denying its bid to live as a normal nation, subjecting its
population to homicidal attacks, and compelling it to take tough steps
against neighbors. But Israel is prospering despite these attacks, boasting
of a high standard of living, a democratic body politic, and a vibrant
culture. In fact, the real harm is felt primarily by Arabs. The destructive
urge prevents talented and venerable peoples from achieving their potential.
Arabs are focused on harming Israelis rather than improving their standards
of living, opening the political process to all, and insuring the rule
of law. The result is plain: Arabs are among the world leaders in percentages
of dictatorships, rogue states, violent conflicts, and military spending.
A solution is easy to propose though
much harder to implement: the Arabs must reconcile themselves to Israel's
existence. Only that will close down the century-old conflict, permit Israel
to attain normality, and launch Arabs on the path to modernity.
This interpretation of the Arab-Israeli
conflict, which puts the onus on Arabs, differs profoundly from the usual
one. Even Israelis, not to speak of Arabs and everyone else, tend to think
that the Arab acceptance of Israel is already done and now it is up to
Israel to do its part by making a series of concessions (handing over the
Golan Heights, Jerusalem, etc.).
Inflamed Rhetoric
If it was possible to believe in
the Arab acceptance of Israel in 1993, surely today's inflamed rhetoric
and the drumbeat of Palestinian violence proves that it was a mirage. Israel
has the unenviable task of convincing its enemies that their dreams of
its destruction will fail; translated into action, this means it must show
resolve and toughness. How can it be otherwise? Such lethal intentions
as one finds widely in the Arabic-speaking countries can only be defeated
with strength. This will not be pleasant; Israel will incur both foreign
condemnation and domestic discontent, but it has no choice.
Understanding the conflict this
new way has profound implications for the West. It means that Europe and
the United States, always eager to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, can
most helpfully do their part by offering fewer clever plans and making
a greater effort to comprehend its basic truths. It means coming to terms
with the basic fact of continued Arab rejection of Israel, with all its
destructive implications. It means seeing the Israeli predicament, tolerating
its need to be tough, and pressing the Arabs to make a drastic change in
course.
For many governments, even the American
one, this approach requires a reversal from current policy (which is to
press Israel). Such as shift will not come easily, but it is a near-prerequisite
for anyone truly serious about closing down the Arab-Israeli conflict.
