"The international community must deal with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as it dealt with Adolf Hitler"

An article by clear-headed Moshe Ya'alon from last August:

Misinterpreting the Mideast

Until they get past their mistaken assumptions, foreign envoys can do little to calm the region.

By Moshe Ya'Alon
August 26, 2007 in print edition M-4

After a few years of benign neglect, Israel is back on the itineraries of well-meaning foreign emissaries. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited the country last month in his new role as special envoy of the “quartet” of Middle East peacemakers. Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived. Each visit was concluded with a news conference at which promises of progress were made. But before any lasting on-the-ground movement toward peace can be achieved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, foreign emissaries, as well as some Israelis, will have to shake off some long-disproved tenets of the conventional wisdom about the dispute.

There are four main misconceptions that diplomats bring with them to Israel. Primary among them is the idea that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a prerequisite for stability in the Mideast. The truth is that the region is riven by clashes that have nothing to do with Israel. For instance, the Jewish state plays no role in the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, between Persians and Arabs or between Arab nationalists and Arab Islamists.

The second misconception is that Israeli territorial concessions are the key to progress. The reality is that an ascendant jihadist Islam believes that it is leading the battle against Israel and the rest of the West. Given this dynamic, Israeli territorial or other concessions simply fill the jihadists’ sails, reinforcing their belief that Israel and the West are weak and can be militarily defeated.

True, a majority of Israelis supported Israel’s unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005 in the belief that meeting Hezbollah and Palestinian territorial demands would nullify the cause of conflict between them. We now know the results: The Hezbollah and Palestinian reactions – concerted terror wars, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, rockets fired at Israeli cities – made clear that the Mideast’s central conflict is not territorial but ideological. And ideology cannot be defeated by concessions.

Emissaries also still believe that “the Occupation” blocks agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. In the West, the term usually means the territories Israel conquered in the Six-Day War in 1967. If the problem between Israelis and Palestinians were just the 1967 territories, and the solution were dividing those lands up between the two sides (as proposed, most recently, in 2000 by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak), the conflict would have ended long ago.

Instead, the heart of the problem is that many Palestinians – Fatah and Hamas, in particular – and even some Israeli Arabs use “Occupation” to refer to all Israel. They do not recognize the Jewish people’s right to an independent state, a right affirmed again and again in the international arena.

Finally, the well-intentioned visiting diplomats believe that the Palestinians want – and have the ability – to establish a state that will live in peace alongside Israel. But they are not being clear-eyed. The late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, established a thugocracy that never improved the basic living conditions of his people. Indeed, Palestinian unemployment and poverty are worse today than they were before Arafat and his cronies assumed power in 1994.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did not take responsibility for Gazans’ welfare, which in part led to Hamas’ electoral victory in 2006. Now confined to the West Bank after Hamas kicked his Fatah organization out of Gaza, Abbas has not moved to create a governmental structure.

A corollary of this fourth misconception is the belief that economic development can neutralize extreme nationalism and religious fanaticism, thus clearing the way toward peace and security. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, had a term for such believers: “naive Zionists.” Those who fit this description should demand that the Palestinians explain what they did with the $7 billion in international aid they received over the years. Seven billion reasons for economic progress – and yet, why did Palestinian mobs destroy the Erez industrial zone, where Palestinians worked and ran businesses for decades, on the Gaza border? Why do they attack safe roads linking Gaza and the West Bank? Why is the Palestinian economy in shambles?

Shorn of these mistaken assumptions, the picture in the Middle East is disturbing indeed. No wonder emissaries hold on to them. So what to do?

For starters, Western governments and their emissaries must refrain from pressuring Israel for territorial or security concessions, which at best produces only short-term gains and emboldens the Islamist terror groups. Instead, they should try to persuade the Palestinian leaders to commit to a long-term strategy premised on educational, political and economic reforms that would lead to the establishment of a civil society that cherishes life, not death; values human rights and freedom; and develops a middle class, not a corrupt, rich elite. At the same time, these governments should set up an international fund that would offer Palestinian refugee families aid – say $100,000 to $200,000 a family – for their resettlement on the condition that their acceptance of the money would signify resolution of their refugee status.

Under no circumstances should emissaries attempt to open a dialogue with Hamas. For the sake of Palestinian society, Hamas and its ideology must be defeated. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the most significant today; it’s the battle between jihadist Islam and the West, of which Israel is merely one theater. To defeat jihadist Islam, the West must overcome the regimes, organizations and ideologies that support and feed it – and Hamas is foremost among them.

The emissaries who travel to Israel must draw on their rich diplomatic experiences, free themselves from misconceptions about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the petty politics that flows from them – especially the binds of political correctness – to lead us all toward freedom, security and peace. Anything else is mere meddling."

[Moshe Ya’alon is a fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center. He served as the 17th chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces.]

When I wrote, above, "clear-headed" I may have given the impression that I approved of everything in Ya'alon's piece. I certainly do not. I meant that at least he has identified the problem as one of ideology, and one not to be solved by further surrenders of territory.

But the piece does display Ya'alon's continued use of the word "Palestinian" as a noun -- always a bad idea -- and does contain that giveaway phrase about how "Hamas and its ideology must be defeated" as if we should believe that Fatah, and its ideology (the same as that of Hamas, except that there are differences in tactics and timing), are somehow acceptable, and "with Fatah we can deal." No, there is no "dealing" with Slow Jihadists as with Fast Jihadists. There is simply a question of outmaneuvering them, keeping them constantly under pressure and off-guard, and never never making any real concessions to them, all the while, perhaps, smiling sweetly, or not --it really doesn't matter.

As for the ridiculous sums he mentions should be "offered" by the Western powers to supposed "Palestinian refugees" to drop their claims -- that will never happen, and merely suggesting it is to imply that such a debt is owed. And it is not owed. There was an exchange of populations, Arab and Jew, during and after the 1948-49 war (more Jews fled Muslim Arab lands, where they had lived a lot longer, and certainly had a lot more property to lose, than did the Arabs who left the area of present-day Israel between November 1947 (when impending war was in the air) and the end of 1948, by which time the war's outcome was clear), not to be treated differently than the exchange-of-populations of Greeks and Turks after World War I, or of Muslims and Hindus during Partition.

In any case, Ya'alon should have said that if the so-called "Arab refugees" are to be dealt with, they should be dealt with precisely as the Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim lands, who were resettled, and integrated slowly, by the Jewish state. Let the fabulously rich Arab states, and no one else, make payments to the Arabs they choose to call "refugees." They won't? Well, tough.

From the article.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the most significant today; it’s the battle between jihadist Islam and the West, of which Israel is merely one theater. To defeat jihadist Islam, the West must overcome the regimes, organizations and ideologies that support and feed it

Come on JW grow a set and report the crystallization of EUrabia this weekend in Cologne.

From the previous thread.

Update on Cologne:

Jewish Member(s) Of Pro-Cologne Beaten Up By Pro-Islam Thugs

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/09/21/jewish-member-of-pro-cologne-beaten-up-by-pro-islam-thugs/

just in from Cologne:

I am the “eyewitness” you quoted in the story. I would like you to know that two Jews were beaten up. I am leaving Cologne with a broken rib. I was readily identifiable as Jewish from my Kippa. As they were attacking me, they were yelling “Nazi”. How odd is that? Two jews beaten on the streets of Germany, by Germans who were calling us Nazis. All of this in reposne to us out there in the streets trying to protect their cultural heritage and right to exist.

From Jewish Member Of Pro-Cologne Beaten Up By Pro-Islam Thugs, 2008/09/21 at 7:47 AM

Deal with Ahmadinejad as we dealt with Hitler?

That must mean either the American president or the British prime minister will go to Tehran and bring back a piece of paper saying "peace in our time".

When will Tehran host the Olympics?

THAT is how the world dealt with Hitler.

'Morning Folks,,

This is OT for this post, but is very pertinent,,

SUPPORT TOM TANCREDO!!!

Seems this awesome man,, is really starting to get working,,

solsticwitch13
don't annoy the bikers
it's a islam free zone,,

how bizaar,, the info didn't post,, trying again,, my apologies,,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo has taken the Islamic bull(y) by the horns and has drawn up legislation that would bar entry to those Muslims who stand for Sharia Law and calls for the deportation for those that are already here who advocate Sharia law. Regardless of the out come of this, Tancredo's legislation opens up two new debates. The first is how can any of our lawmakers actually vote against this? Are any of our lawmakers actually crazy enough to vote in favor of Sharia over our Constitution? Another debate is where will American Muslims stand on this, will they scream freedom of religion on this? Because we can never truly give them freedom of religion, because to do that would mean to allow Sharia to be the law of the land. So American Muslims where do you stand, with the freedoms of America or the brutality of Sharia?

link here,,

http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2008/09/tancredo-proposes-anti-sharia-bill.html

solstice

"Achtung, baby!"

That's actually my favorite U2 album.

solsticewitch - there was a thread on Sept. 19th concerning Tancredo's "Jihad Prevention Act." Here it is:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022771.php

HI Darcy,,

Yeah,, I just found the thread,, my apologies,, I was so excited about seeing it,, LOL,, had to get it here.

At least,, there is REAL discussion now with our politicians,, which is really hopeful news.

Was too nice outside,, so I rode around all day,, LOL, and didn't catch my reading till now.

Boy,, Tom Tancredo,, ROCKS,, I really like that man!

solsticewitch13

One key indicator for the war against terrorism is the Israeli-Palenstinan relationship.

However, peace will not be possible until Islam undergoes some very severe changes. As it currently stands, Islam is incompatable with Western law. Islam is hostile and has a number of mechanisms that enable offensive warfare.

I believe that what the author was referring to is that these changes will NOT occur naturally. It will require offensive warfare to rid the world of them.

"I was so excited about seeing it,, LOL,, had to get it here." -solsticewitch

I don't blame you! Because it's very, very exciting! Speak Out, Tom Tancredo!

I'm going outside now, too. See ya!

Ya’alon seems to be the only one around in Israel who thinks we should face reality, and not only regarding Ahmadinejad .

A New Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict By Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon
http://www.jcpa.org/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=2515&TTL=A_New_Strategy_for_the_Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict

Excerpts:

No ideology, least of all radical Islam, can be defeated by concessions. Concessions encourage, energize, and inspire Jihadists. Those who wish for peace must face and assimilate this fact, and realize that territorial concessions in the struggle against militant Islam have only been counterproductive. As Bernard Lewis has said, this conflict is not about the size of Israel, but about its very existence.

What is worse, the mistaken paradigm and conceptions regarding Jihadism and the Middle East prevent the emergence of a new strategy. While the pundits and the public continue to debate "the solution," the problem has slipped from their view. The problem is Islamic Jihadism and Palestinian rejectionism towards Israel's most basic rights. Whoever realizes this, realizes also that what is needed is not a solution based on failed paradigms and wishful thinking. What is needed is a long-term strategy based on realistic assumptions culled from experience.

Finally, we have a politician who gets it. What Moshe Ya’alon says in his “A New Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict “ could until now be found only on the pages of jihadwatch.com, frontpagemagazine.com, thereligionofpeace.com and a few others. To have a former Israeli chief of staff formulate such clear views on the problem is indeed encouraging. But this article of his has so far remained unknown. I urge everyone to pass it on for it may yet prove to be a turning point. I believe Moshe Yaalon is destined to be
Israel’s future Defense Minister and PM.

Israel needs fresh elections NOW and a national unity government to face the Iranian nuclear threat. What we do NOT need is a government, which in the words of a Tory dissident describing Neville Chamberlain in 1940, was clinging to office “like a dirty old piece of chewing gum on a leg of a chair.” ( Troublesome Young Men. The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power and Helped Save England , By Lynee Olson, page 306)

This is connected to Iran's continuing aggressive stance against Israel. Yesterday there was an article in Iranian Press TV article slamming Sarah Palin's remarks expressing support for Israel.

I responded to the article as follows:

"You know, there would be no problem at all if your president would simply stop publicly threatening to annihilate Israel, which he does with alarming regularity. Sarah Palin's comments are merely a response to these threats, and are nothing more than an affirmation that the U.S. supports Israeli self-defense efforts.

The vast majority of Americans happen to be sympathetic to Israel, who most consider to be the rightful historical heirs of the holy land. Sarah Palin shares these views, not because she is a "tool" of the "Israel Lobby" as you might delude yourself into thinking, but rather because she knows her biblical history. And her name is, after all, "Sarah." Think about it.... "

Was I taunting them? The first paragraph was serious, but they make such easy targets I couldn't resist adding the second one. So, yes, I was taunting them. Anyone want to lay odds on whether it will actually be posted?

Before everyone gets all optimistic, recall that Gen Aylon has been out of his post for years, and this article is over a year old...Yet the Olmert/Livni governmental monstrosity keeps on rollin' along...And has AT LEAST 4 more months of power, ensured. These b@st@rds can do A LOT more damage in 4 months.

"The international community must deal with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as it dealt with Adolf Hitler, former chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Moshe Ya'alon said Sunday."

I hope he doesn't mean by this: "Deal with Ahmadinejad by ignoring/colluding with him until he is so strong he has US by the throat," as was done with Hitler. Actually, considering Gen Ayalon's record, I am sure he doesn't...But as for the Eurabians, gulp...

Before everyone gets all optimistic, recall that Gen Aylon has been out of his post for years, and this article is over a year old...Yet the Olmert/Livni governmental monstrosity keeps on rollin' along...And has AT LEAST 4 more months of power, ensured. These b@st@rds can do A LOT more damage in 4 months.

"The international community must deal with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as it dealt with Adolf Hitler, former chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Moshe Ya'alon said Sunday."

I hope he doesn't mean by this: "Deal with Ahmadinejad by ignoring/colluding with him until he is so strong he has US by the throat," as was done with Hitler. Actually, considering Gen Ayalon's record, I am sure he doesn't...But as for the Eurabians, gulp...

Yes, Ya'alon deserves support. Can he get enough of it, and in time? Or is he politically too weak, and would he be better placed at first as a minister -- Defense or Foreign Affairs -- in the cabinet of a government run, not by hopeless Livni, but by Netanyahu, who may be the only rival of the false-hope tribe with sufficient support to win? I don't follow Israeli politics, and so I don't know if Netanyahu gets along with, or fears as a potential rival, Ya'alon.

Realism is always welcome. In Israel, it is coming a little more than 40 years late -- it should have started in late June 1967, with the annexation of the "West Bank" and not merely of the Old City -- but it is coming. Not thanks mainly to the efforts of Infidel commentators, but to the behavior of Muslims, which in turn has led to an interest in study of the texts, and tenets, of Islam, and of the 1350-year history of Islam. That interest is something Muslims are organizing to tamp down, to punish, to prevent, any way that they can. But it's too late. Even where absurd efforts are made, by some in Europe, to keep people from learning, they are doing so nonetheless. The matter is too obviously pressing for them to continue to be soothed by political and media elites that have led them into such avoidable but not-avoided disaster.

Olmert is quitting.

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel Radio says Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has told his Cabinet that he will resign.
The report did not say when Olmert would submit his official letter of resignation to President Shimon Peres.

Olmert made the announcement just days after his governing Kadima Party elected Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to replace him as party chairman. Olmert is being forced from office by a corruption scandal.

Olmert's departure will clear the way for Livni to try to cobble together a new coalition government.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93AVQ4O0&show_article=1

To JewishOdysseus
>>and this article is over a year old...

The article I posted

A New Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict By Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon

http://www.jcpa.org/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=2515&TTL=A_New_Strategy_for_the_Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict

is from September 2, 2008

Yaalon is universally respected here in Israel for speaking hard truths and for being good at his job. He resigned as Army Chief of Staff because he was forced to, precisely for saying things like that handing over 'Aza to our enemies would only make matters worse. His predictions based on experience were, as I understand it, precise and correct. Even the media here which has a radical Leftist bias is forced to respect him.

Would I wanthim for PM? Perhaps. Yet I would prefer him as Army Chief of Staff with a PM who lets him do his job specifically because that is what he has again and again shown himself to be good at.

To Hugh:

>>I don't follow Israeli politics, and so I don't know if Netanyahu gets along with, or fears as a potential rival, Ya'alon.

Netanyahu wants celebrities in Likud
Netanyahu is interested in reserving slots for former generals Moshe Ya'alon,

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220353265492&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

While Iran's rhetoric exceeds Hitler's in its genocidal tone, the circumstances are quite different.

Iran is not amassing conventional weapons, therefore it could deliver a devastating nuclear attack on Israel, however upon completing that attack most Western countries would agree to bombing their military and economic infrastructure to such an extent that Iran would then be vulnerable to the expulsion of Shiites and loss of territory by their Sunni neighbors. The Iranian Shiites would be pushed into marginal land, contained, and made to whither from the world religious scene.

No, Iran is not pre-1940's Germany, unless of course it used it's nukes against its Sunni neighbors in order to mass enough land and wealth to secure a massive conventional army and most importantly a superior air force.

As for a military strategy in the area, the USA needs to get out of Iraq asap, so it can redirect substantial military spending to air superiority. GW Bushes big mistake was to go to the ground in a hot war. Punitive attacks worked with Libya and they would have worked in Iraq. As for Iran, if they get nukes, they might just use them in the belief that allah is on their side, however the doctrine of assured conventional destruction may encourage cooler heads to prevail.

"We in the West are in the same situation, indecisiveness in the face of a threat that is no less severe than the threat Hitler posed in 1938-39," Ya'alon told Army Radio.
(from the article)

While Tancredo is great and his anti Sharia law is fantastic, something I have wanted for several years, and his bill is something we must do, Iran is still the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Iran is not going to quietly go away. We can discuss it, we can think about it, but Iran will not go away until we DO something about it.

No amount of sanctions have worked or are likely to work. So what option does that leave? Bomb the friggen hell out of them so that they never want to do this again. Will they fight back? Yes, but the longer we wait, the greater the damage done to us. Is it really that simple? Yes it really is.

To: James Martel

>>”Iran is not amassing conventional weapons, therefore it could deliver a devastating nuclear attack on Israel, however upon completing that attack most Western countries would agree to bombing their military and economic infrastructure to such an extent that Iran would then be vulnerable to the expulsion of Shiites and loss of territory by their Sunni neighbors.”

And you think we in Israel are going to wait for “upon completing that attack”? How insensitive can you be?

Molodets.

You CANNOT deal or make "peace" with terrorists like this nut case. The article is over a year old and this guy has been removed from current politics in the mainstream, where it really matters for some time. Those of you who claim a "fresh" idea is called for need to recall WWII and all the appeasement and selling out Europe tried with hitler and the nazi regime. Remember Sudatenland??? Poland??? Because of these failed policies my family lost an unknown number of relatives in the holocaust, along with millions of others. The world was dragged into a conflict
because of these failed tries at peace. If you cut a deal with these islamofacists it will be seen as a victory throughout the islamic world and further weaken how Israel is preceived by all.

Tom Tancredo ROCKS and I have always liked him
what he has tried and is trying to accomplish. This guy is trying to do things that are critically needed to stop the stealth jihad and the islamofacist. We need to STOP anyone who supports sharia law from ever gaining access to this country. Those here need a one way ticket out. Those who try to come and want to "change" our country from the inside out need to stopped at all costs. The world may call us racist, discriminatory and bigoted but I will take that any day, considering the other options of islam and sharia law!

Hugh's comments are accurate and right on. This should have started in 1967 and continued to this very day. To give back the conquest of several wars that Israel DID NOT START or SEEK has proven foolish, and costly. I believe Israel has what is known as the SAMPSON OPTION. I would certainly keep that on the table and very close as current events unfold in the middle east. The name or code probably has changed and PLEASE correct if I am in error. It is an option that IF Israel is attacked by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and is being overwhelmed the Israel will in turn,reduce het attackers to rubble several times over. I think damascus,tehran and gazastan might look nice all leveled myself. There are other islamic ocuntries that will join in an attack on Israel. Lest we forget the russians and the powers plays they just did and are doing. Israel's enemnies are many and threat to us and rest of the west CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be Under
estimated!

Thank you Hugh.

I am not sure many here noticed my link to the new article by Moshe Yaalon. Apparently not many read the comments. Due to its significance I’ve decided to post the entire text. At least that will draw the attention I believe it deserves . I believe it is one of the most significant pieces that appeared in recent months regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please read it and decide yourselves:

A New Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon

Former Chief of Staff, Israel Defense Forces
Distinguished Fellow, Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, Shalem Center

• Solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, says mainstream public opinion, and the rest will follow. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only one of many afflicting the Middle East, and it is by no means the dominant one.

• The Palestinian leadership continues to evade accountability. Today the watchword is "weakness." The image of political impotence has become a precious asset in the Palestinian strategy. The problem is not Abbas' actual capabilities. The problem is his unwillingness and lack of determination to create and govern a viable and accountable state.

• Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others have called for more foreign assistance for the Palestinians. This strategy has no chance of success if it is not linked to reforms. Unless the Palestinians are first convinced through education to give up the extremism which informs their national and religious aspirations, they cannot be expected to be full partners in building a vibrant Palestinian economy.

• The central conflict of the Middle East is not territorial but ideological; not about borders but about Islamic Jihadism and Western liberty. No ideology, least of all radical Islam, can be defeated by concessions, which encourage, energize, and inspire Jihadists. Those who wish for peace must face and assimilate this fact, and realize that territorial concessions, or any concessions in any realm in the struggle against militant Islam, have been consistently counterproductive.

• From Oslo to Annapolis, we have engaged in a top-down strategy. We aimed to reach a political horizon or a final settlement agreement with the Palestinian leadership, hoping that political reform among Palestinians would follow. I propose we replace this approach with a bottom-up strategy in which the PA first proves its willingness and ability to govern.

Current efforts to achieve a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are based on a number of deeply flawed assumptions. These have in turn produced an erroneous paradigm and a manifestly failed strategy for seeking peace and security which is preventing us from moving forward.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Is One of Many in the Middle East

Solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, says mainstream public opinion, and the rest will follow. Since the November 2007 meeting at Annapolis, this has become the U.S. administration's policy.

I have a great personal desire to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solved, for the benefit of Israelis and Palestinians, and for the benefit of all the region's peoples. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that it is not the epicenter of the region's many ills. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only one of many afflicting the Middle East, and it is by no means the dominant one.

The most important fault-lines of the strife in today's Middle East are found rather in non-localized conflicts such as pan-national Islamic Jihadism against the West, the Shia-Sunni divide, and the Persian-Arab contest for power and influence. Within Muslim societies, across the region and beyond, there is a struggle between nationalists and Jihadists. Many, if not most, Muslim nations in the Middle East are torn internally between groups that believe happiness is achievable in this world, and groups who preach martyrdom (istish'had), the killing of infidels, and happiness in "the next world."
There are indeed more than a few struggles in the Middle East in addition to the Israeli-Palestinian one. None of them emerged from it, and none are dependent on it. Admittedly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been exploited by those seeking to inflame passions in other arenas, often cynically and with a view to influence the prevailing wisdom in the West. It is essential for our own well-being that we maintain our clarity of vision in the face of misinformation and false optimism.

Implacable Palestinian Rejection of Israel
Another myth is that at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the "occupation." This term refers to the territories conquered by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967. Among Palestinians from all sectors and factions (Fatah, Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, DFLP, etc.) there are those that use the term "‘occupation" simply as a euphemism for Israel ("from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River"). This view has proponents even among Israeli Arabs. They consider Israelis to be foreign colonialists and the entire land mass of Israel including its cities, towns, villages, and kibbutz farms as "occupied" territory.

The Palestinians have maintained a posture of implacable hostility to Israel's most fundamental and inalienable rights. The PLO, for example, existed and launched terror attacks against Israelis before 1967 when the West Bank and Gaza were not yet occupied by Israel. The PLO's pre-1967 raison d'etre has not magically disappeared in the meantime. Both Fatah and Hamas continue to maintain charters denying Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state. We find the rejection of Israel forms an integral part of the Palestinian ethos, and is expressed in no less than the founding documents and actions of the largest and most important Palestinian factions.

Rejectionism, far from being a "mere" matter of official policy or posturing, reaches the rhetoric of the Palestinian national leadership (including Mahmoud Abbas), the educational curriculum, and the Palestinian media. It deeply informs Palestinian strategy and policy. During the preparations for the Annapolis conference, it was demonstrated in the Palestinian refusal to make a basic declaration of their belief in "two states for two peoples." Instead they spoke only of "two states," avoiding explicit recognition of the Jewish people's right to an independent state. This quibbling over words is only the tip of an iceberg.

If the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were a territorial compromise within Mandatory Palestine, I have no doubt we would have reached this long ago. Instead, from the dawn of Zionism to the present day, the Palestinian leadership has rejected every partition plan proposed, and has reacted violently to all political initiatives seeking a settlement along those lines. This occurred in 1937 in response to the Peel Commission, in 1947 as a reaction to the UN partition plan, and in 2000 when the Palestinians rejected former Prime Minister Barak's proposal at Camp David.

Attempts by Israel at peace through territorial concession have been met, again and again, with violence by Palestinians. The core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the "occupation" according to its meaning in Western discourse. Rather it is the "occupation" in the Palestinian sense: The relentless refusal of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state. Professor Bernard Lewis put it succinctly in the Wall Street Journal on November 28, 2007, a day before the Annapolis Conference: "‘What is the conflict about?' There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence....If...the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise between existing or not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist."

Do the Palestinians Want a State?

It is often said that the Palestinians desire and are capable of establishing a state that will live in peace alongside Israel. Those who believe this is so must explain why the Palestinian leadership, from the implementation of the Oslo Agreement in May 1994 through to the present, have failed to take even the first baby steps toward establishing a state - this in spite of overwhelming and unprecedented international support.

The facts suggest that the Palestinian leadership has been motivated by something other than a desire to create a thriving state. Although the Palestinian national movement stands out in recent history as the cause celebre of the international community, and despite massive political and economic support, the Palestinians have failed to create and nurture stable, efficient, and accountable political institutions. They have also crushed what little civil society they had. I do not think this failure was inevitable; I believe it is directly due to Yasser Arafat's conscious decision to create a society based on "gang logic."

Arafat and his cronies brazenly violated every agreement they signed with Israel. By eschewing the principle of "one authority, one law and one gun," Arafat was able, with craftiness, to evade responsibility for what was occurring. He used Hamas, PIJ, and other terror organizations as proxies, though he had the power and legitimacy needed to confront and disarm them. While his proxies were fighting Israel, Arafat could remain aloof and appear innocent. Moreover, to bolster his influence over the chaos he had created, Arafat established his own direct terror proxy, Fatah Tanzim, or the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade as it became known after September 2000. Arafat's war by proxy required a certain level of permanent instability in Palestinian institutions, and it was this that led to the "gang logic" which we now see mostly strikingly in inter-Palestinian violence.

Arafat has since been replaced by Mahmoud Abbas, yet the Palestinian leadership continues to evade accountability, according to a modified version of Arafat's strategy. Today, the watchword is "weakness." The image of political impotence has become a precious asset in the Palestinian strategy. Western politicians, as well as many Israelis, believe that Mahmoud Abbas is the only alternative to a far more extreme Hamas. They believe, therefore, that he should be strengthened economically, and equipped with additional weapons and ammunition. This approach has not and will not pay dividends because the problem is not Abbas' actual capabilities. The problem is his unwillingness and lack of determination to create and govern a viable and accountable state.

Mahmoud Abbas is not weak. He possessed more than sufficient power to institute reforms when he was elected on January 9, 2005. He has chosen to avoid the attempt to govern his people effectively, or to create a political culture based on "state logic." He chose "weakness" instead as his method of preserving and partially controlling the many heads of the Palestinian Authority that he inherited from Arafat. There is little difference between Arafat's "gang logic" and Abbas' "weakness" - both are designed to avoid the daunting task of Palestinian nation-building, while permitting the continuation of a bloody struggle against Israel.

The Key to the Conflict Is Not Economic
A third prevailing misconception in the Western understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict relates to the economy. This misconception holds that the key to the conflict is economic. Those who hold this view believe, just as the architects of "Oslo" believed, that a prosperous Palestinian economy would neutralize extreme nationalism and religious fanaticism, leading to peace and an improved security situation for Israel. While the improvement of the Palestinian economy should be part of any strategy for attaining peace, I do not think that the Palestinians can be forced to enjoy an improved economy and the fruits of prosperity while their own priorities remain entirely elsewhere.
Although the PA has received no less than $7 billion from donors in recent years, neither Arafat nor Abbas has managed to improve the basic living conditions of the Palestinian people in any significant way. On the contrary, the Palestinian economic situation began to deteriorate precipitously from the moment Arafat rose to power in 1994, and continues to do so under the regime of cronyism he instituted. Examples of wasted economic opportunity abound on all levels, and Palestinian terror groups have directly devastated economic resources. They engineered the closure of the Erez industrial zone which employed 4,500 Palestinians and provided for their families. After the disengagement from Gaza in 2005. the Palestinians wantonly destroyed the greenhouses left behind by the evacuees which were purchased by former WorId Bank President James Wolfenson and others for their benefit.

There is no doubt that the Palestinian economy is in dire need of assistance. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other prominent figures have called for more foreign aid to be directed for this purpose to the Palestinians. However, unless further foreign aid is directly connected to reforms within Palestinian civil society, there is no chance of success. Unless the Palestinians are first convinced through education to give up the extremism which informs their national and religious aspirations, they cannot be expected to cooperate in the creation of their own prosperity. They can do neither of these things before first imposing law, order, and security in the territories under their control. No law can be imposed while the Palestinian leadership continues to reject all responsibility, whether under the guise of "weakness" or otherwise. Responsibility will never be assumed as long as the Palestinian people continue to nurse the dream of the disappearance of Israel as the Jewish homeland.
In light of historical experience, there are some fundamental questions we have to ask ourselves. Can we trust that a future Palestinian entity in the West Bank will not become Hamastan, as occurred in Gaza? Could such an entity, even according to the 1967 borders, be economically viable? Would the Palestinians be satisfied with those borders as a final settlement? Would it bring stability, peace, and tranquility to the region? Are these borders defensible for the State of Israel?

A Palestinian Entity in the 1967 Borders Threatens Both Israel and Jordan

I believe, in light of the Palestinian leadership's behavior since its inception, and especially since Oslo, that the answer is an unequivocal "no." As things stand today, a Palestinian entity according to the 1967 borders would present an existential threat to Israel, to the stability of the region, to Western interests, and to Jordan.

The paradigm of the "two-state solution" within the boundaries of former Mandatory Palestine under the present status quo is both irrelevant and dangerous. It is irrelevant because today there is no Palestinian partner willing to accept it as a final settlement. It is dangerous because it fosters illusions which undermine our resolve and embolden our enemies. Ultimately, the "two-state solution" paradigm, at this juncture, threatens the security and stability of the region.

The paradigm of the "two-state solution" is based on Israeli territorial concessions. It rests on the same idea which stands behind the "land for peace" principle which has dominated Israeli politics since 1967, and which bore fruit when peace was made with Egypt in 1979. The principle then enjoyed the support of the vast majority of Israelis. A slim majority of Israelis likewise supported unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza in 2000 and 2005, respectively. These Israelis, like many in the West, believed that peace and tranquility could be reached by addressing Hizbullah's and Hamas' talk of "occupation" as a simple territorial grievance. We now know the results. Both from Hizbullah and the Palestinians, the reaction came in the form of concerted terror wars, rockets fired at Israeli cities, and kidnapped soldiers. There is no clearer proof needed that the central conflict of the Middle East is not territorial but ideological; not about borders but about Islamic Jihadism and Western liberty.

No ideology, least of all radical Islam, can be defeated by concessions. Concessions encourage, energize, and inspire Jihadists. Those who wish for peace must face and assimilate this fact, and realize that territorial concessions in the struggle against militant Islam have only been counterproductive. As Bernard Lewis has said, this conflict is not about the size of Israel, but about its very existence.

What is worse, the mistaken paradigm and conceptions regarding Jihadism and the Middle East prevent the emergence of a new strategy. While the pundits and the public continue to debate "the solution," the problem has slipped from their view. The problem is Islamic Jihadism and Palestinian rejectionism towards Israel's most basic rights. Whoever realizes this, realizes also that what is needed is not a solution based on failed paradigms and wishful thinking. What is needed is a long-term strategy based on realistic assumptions culled from experience.

Begin with Changes in Palestinian Political Culture

Let me briefly outline a new strategy for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From Oslo to Annapolis, we have consistently engaged in a "top-down strategy." We aimed to reach a political horizon or a final settlement agreement with the Palestinian leadership, hoping that political reform among Palestinians would follow. This approach was based on the mistaken paradigms outlined above, and failed. I propose we replace this approach with a "bottom-up strategy" in which the PA first proves its ability to govern. Real gains in stability and security on the road to peace can then be consolidated through political agreements. Experience teaches that political agreements which precede real changes in Palestinian political culture are useless, or worse.

The process of change in Palestinian society can and should be supported by Israel and the West, but most of the burden will necessarily fall on the Palestinian leadership to assume the responsibilities of good government. The process of change must begin in the territory which falls under their responsibility in the West Bank (areas A and B) and must encompass educational, law and order, security, economic and political reforms. All reforms should be carried out in parallel, with clear benchmarks in each area.
The reform process suggested would not be dependent on any issue related to a final settlement. The enforcement of law and order in Palestinian cities, for example, is not dependent on a final settlement, or on any other outstanding matter of negotiation. The same is true for the entire package of proposed reforms - none depend on new agreements.

During the imposition of law and order in the West Bank, the IDF must continue to operate in the area in order to foil attacks against Israelis, and in order to prevent the rise of Hamas in the West Bank similar to its rise in Gaza. Gaza will be considered a hostile entity as long as Hamas ideology holds sway there, and as long as it continues to serve as a base of operations for launching terror attacks against Israelis. Ultimately, only a decision by the Palestinian leadership can impose law and order on the Palestinian street, and that decision is theirs alone.

The key to all other reforms is educational reform. During the implementation of the Oslo Accords we were forced to confront a Palestinian educational system designed to inculcate hatred of Israel. It sought in a variety of ways to undermine Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state. It took pains to deny every connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, called openly for our annihilation, and promoted terrorism and Jihadism. While the Palestinian leadership was negotiating with Israel, it was educating its young for a war of annihilation. This must change before there is any chance for the Palestinians to reach a final settlement with Israel.
An entire generation of Palestinians has already been educated according to this curriculum. Change will not come quickly. It is clear, however, that demanding Palestinian educational reform is the only path to solving the conflict which will not require Israel to relinquish the idea of a Jewish homeland, and in which Islamic Jihadism will not be unwittingly strengthened.
At the same time, there is no need to wait for the end of this process before dealing with the refugee issue, as is sometimes argued. The refugee issue should, in fact, be dealt with as soon as possible and in parallel to educational reforms in the PA. A humanitarian solution to this issue will serve to neutralize it as a weapon against Israel. As educational reform in the PA encourages new thinking and new paradigms, a regional settlement which would satisfy both parties is likely to emerge.

Today, Mahmoud Abbas is engaged with all his energy on the political horizon issues instead of using all his energy to meet certain benchmarks regarding reforms. Dealing with issues such as a political horizon or financial support is another way for him to escape the actual need to deal with reforms. So instead of dealing with law and order in Jenin, he speaks about Jerusalem and borders. First of all, let's see if the Palestinians are able to manage the autonomy that they have now to run their civil affairs and to govern themselves. That should be the main mission of former Prime Minister Blair.

Iran Is the Main Destabilizing Force in the Middle East

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the core of the Middle East's instability. It is, in fact, the Iranian regime which is the main destabilizing force in the Middle East today. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been exporting the ideology behind the rise of Islamic Jihadism, and it remains the base and center of gravity for worldwide Jihadism. We cannot afford to avoid confronting the Iranian regime. Until it is defeated, there will be no stability in Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, or any other nation in the Middle East.

Iranian leaders today are allowed to feel secure despite their commitment to global Jihadism. They have made a massive commitment of human, financial and military resources in order to undermine moderate regimes from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. So far, they feel like they are winning as Hizbullah gains power in Lebanon and Hamas is strengthening its grip in Gaza. The June 2008 ceasefire agreement brokered by Egypt between Israel and Hamas is another achievement for the Jihadists. Iran is also advancing its nuclear project as it violates agreements and understandings with international institutions. The Iranian regime, with its rogue activities, has escaped paying any significant price.

Yet the government of the Ayatollahs is not a natural one in Iran, nor does it enjoy wide popular support. It will not last forever.
At the Hudson Institute in 2006 I spoke of the military capabilities needed to meet the Iranian challenge. Almost all Western air forces are capable of implementing a mission against Iranian nuclear installations.

I believe that the Iranian nuclear project can be stopped. I believe that in the end we will witness an internal change in Iran because of the domestic economic situation. Although they benefit from high oil prices, they're not in good economic shape.

Economic sanctions are the best tool to encourage those, who are considered to be 70 percent of the Iranian population, who reject the ayatollahs' way. I believe the nuclear program can be stopped by putting the regime in the dilemma of deciding whether it goes ahead or not. They do not feel the dilemma so far. They feel like they are winning, and that they can do whatever they want because of Western weakness and lack of determination. Indeed, those who try to avoid economic sanctions because of their particular economic interests actually enhance the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran.

If the Iranians are confronted with determination and are placed in a dilemma that threatens their survivability, they may prefer survival to the nuclear project. That was the reason they decided to temporarily halt the project in 2003.

Impact of the Western Offensive

In 2002, 2003, and 2004, Western civilization led by the United States enjoyed the upper hand. Muamar Khadafi, the ayatollahs, Syria, and Hizbullah all restrained themselves. The number of Hizbullah provocations in Lebanon declined from 2003 to May 2005.
It was not just the American offensive, it was the Israeli offensive as well. When Israel moved from defense to offense in Operation Defensive Shield in March 2002, there was an impact of a Western offensive, with America's offensive war against the global Jihad and Israel's offensive against Palestinian terrorism. However, in 2005 they realized that the United States had lost the stomach to go on with the offensive and that American troops were bogged down in Iraq and there was not going to be any further phase.
In the case of Israel, the disengagement was seen as weakness. Israel moved from offense to withdrawal. And the whole impact of the Western offensive ended. That is what caused what we witnessed on Israel's northern border in 2006. The same Hizbullah that restrained itself from 2002 to 2005 changed its mind. By moving again from defense and withdrawal to offense, which is up to us, we can again change the whole approach of the Jihadists, if Western civilization will show determination and not weakness.

Dealing with Gaza

I personally was against the truce with Hamas in Gaza. I believe we should use another approach there. We should have intensified our military operations immediately after implementation of the disengagement plan, in the face of daily rocket launchings - which wasn't the case before the disengagement.

In 2008 Israel launched just one brigade-size operation in Gaza, named Hot Winter, in which 130 Palestinians were killed. And Hamas stopped firing Kassam rockets immediately afterwards, without negotiating anything. That should have been done with all the Palestinian factions: intensifying military operations and putting them in the dilemma of deciding whether it is worthwhile to fire rockets at Israel or not.
I'm not calling for reoccupying Gaza. It's not my business who governs Gaza. I believe in managing the crisis, not solving it. We're not going to solve it. In this regard, I prefer intensive, medium-scale operations, and targeted killing of the leaders rather than reoccupying Gaza. I believe that in the end they will cry for a ceasefire without conditions, as happened in 2003-2004.

The Challenge for the West

The Iranians, the Syrians, and their proxies must be punished by the international community for funding terror and challenging the international order. They have been allowed to nurture international terrorism, develop WMD, and instigate the Second Lebanon War. This would not have been possible without the lack of clarity and determination in confronting them shown beforehand by the international community.
In light of the ongoing conflict between Sunnis and Shiites throughout our region, Israel and the West can and must find common interests with moderate Muslims. In order to create new political opportunities, a coordinated international policy should be instituted to ally ourselves with other nations aware of the Iranian threat.

The confrontation between Muslim moderates and extremists around the world crosses borders and threatens societies from within. There is no society in which everyone is a Jihadist. There are always those who prefer democracy and human rights over tyranny, freedom over oppression, and life over death. More and more people in the region are realizing that the culture of Jihad is a culture of death and self-destruction. The West must directly approach and strengthen those elements in order for them to gain the political strength necessary to undertake reforms in education, politics, and the economy.
It is true that this process is likely to be a long one. The challenge for Western leaders is to convince their constituencies that there are no instant solutions, and to educate their publics to patience. Western leaders cannot promise quick solutions and should not be tempted to do so. What they can do is develop a viable strategy.
The struggle against Islamic Jihadism is, in many ways, a contest of wills. As our values and way of life are challenged by Islamic Jihadists, and our legitimacy as a Jewish state is challenged by Arab nationalists, we in Israel must consolidate our belief in our path and its righteousness.
The "solution," when it comes, will be only half our doing. For us, the quest for stability in the Middle East requires moral clarity, vision, and a long-term strategy based on realistic assessments. Ultimately, the long way is the shortest way and I believe the right one which will lead towards a better future for all the peoples of the Middle East and the free world.
* * *
Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Ya'alon is a former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces and is a Distinguished Fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs on June 24, 2008.

When a problem like Ahmadinejad comes along( This doesn't happen very often) the only thing a bully understands is violence. I don't know if he just doesn't understand how to get along with others or he simply and purposely refuses to get along with others. But, when a problem like Ahmadinejad arises, you might as well have him assassinated or take him out militarily because you are wasting your time talking to him.

Mladen, thank you for your thoughtful and extended posts. Could you share with us your assessment of the support Ya'alon's has within Israel and what this means in terms of the evolving political situation? His views resonate with those of most JihadWatchers, I think, but you're the one on the ground there. What's your take?

Comment on the photo of Hitler and Ahmad-whatever: Wouldn't old Adolf absolutely have hated being placed next to (and compared to) this twin-cretin, whom he would have considered genetically beneath him?
heh, heh, heh

To Eastview

Israelis seemed more concerned with where to go for the coming holidays ( Rosh Hashana and Sukkot) and excited about the Paul McCartney concert this Thursday (490 Shekels= $160 a ticket ) than they are about the looming threat from Iran. The newest celebrity is Israel Bar-On who won the Kochav Nolad, the Israeli equivalent of the American Idol. The young man, 17, comes from a haredi family but had decided to change his life, and with the song he composed and sings has won the country over. Survivor and reality programs are popular. The economy is booming. With the new route 6 ( where there are no pay booths since the pattern recognition computer picks the number plate from the moving vehicle and sends the bill home) it takes 2 hours to get from Be'er Sheva to Haifa.

This is not to say that people are not aware, and concerned. But in Israel's history there have been so many times that they had to fight for their survival that this is taken as business almost as usual. Everyone is glad to see the back of Ehud Olmert, however. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel' and Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia" have appeared in Hebrew translations, but I am not sure the majority still makes the connection Ya'alon does. Empirically they understand pretty well. I believe that when the elections come there will be a shift to the right.

Mladen,

Many, many thanks. (I have professional colleagues at the Univ. of Tel Aviv and the Open Univ. of Israel who worked with Ilan Ramon, and I have served as peer reviewer on a number of their research papers. But we never talk politics, so it's difficult to know their views on these matters.)

Mladen, thanks for the recent article by Gen Ayalon. But the point I was making is that he has been making perceptive comments like this FOR YEARS--they are nothing new from him--and yet it does not seem like the Israeli public has picked up on them, at least not to any significant extent.

A lot of cognitive dissonance there, IMHO.

To JewishOdysseus

You do have a point. But the cumulative effect of the rockets at Sderot, the prisoner deals with Hezbollah and the sudden jihad syndrome attacks like the one lat night will show at the next elections. But why does it take so long to understand the obvious? I think Melanie Phillips explained it brilliantly in the following article:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2079871/stasi-tactics-from-camp-obama.thtml
Excerpts:

But hey – this is the only way left-wingers know of dealing with 'the right'. They characteristically flinch from engaging in proper argument with their political opponents by debating the issues. No, what they invariably do instead is to reach for the insult and the smear, the character assassination, the career-ending labels of 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobe', 'Islamophobe', 'hard right', 'fundamentalist' and all the rest of it. Because their aim is not to discuss but to destroy their opponent altogether and thus to shut down the argument before it can get going.

What does that tell us? That the totalitarian left is terrified of argument because it knows itself to be on very weak ground. It does not have the confidence of its own supposed convictions. For sure, it is fearful that its opponents might win the electoral battle; but much more urgently, it is absolutely terrified that they might be right. That's really why the left never wants to have the argument – in case it exposes the vacuity of its own position to itself.

A vital part of leftist thinking is the assumption that to be on the left is the only sensible/decent/principled position to hold and therefore cannot ever be wrong; and that is because to differ from the left is to be of 'the right', and the right is irredeemably evil. (The idea that to be opposed to the left is not necessarily to be on 'the right' or indeed to take any position other than to oppose ideology and its brutal effects is something that the left simply cannot get its head round). And so the true nightmare is that if 'the right' turns out to be actually right on anything and the left to be wrong, by accepting this fact the left-winger will by his own definition turn into an evil right-winger. His entire moral and political identity will crumble and he will grow horns and a tail. So to prevent any possibility of this catastrophe occurring, the opponent has to be eliminated.