True Security Threat: Withdrawal

For many in Israel, the recent negotiations here and in London over territorial percentage figures are simply irrelevant to the core issues of peace and security.

One could quibble about percentage points, but in doing so, what is being avoided and what is crucial for Israel’s future is the simple fact that the essence of Oslo has been unrealized.

The Declaration of Principles signed on the White House lawn in September 1993 was presumed to have ushered in a new era in the Israel-Arab conflict. Yasser Arafat and his PLO had promised to fulfill obligations, something they had never done--not with their “Zionist enemy” or even with their Arab compatriots.

Later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed himself to following through with the guidelines and signed agreements, hundreds of pages long in certain instances, which the previous Labor-led government had bequeathed to the new Likud coalition. The government of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres avoided the issue of Jewish civilian presence in the areas that the Palestinians presumed would eventually be relinquished. Rabin, despite his deriding the approximately 150 Jewish settlements, provided unprecedented security measures for them including bypass roads and increased military personnel and equipment.

There are those who refuse to recognize the strategic and tangible security value of these communities. They reject, on their own ideological and political prejudices, any Jewish presence and seek the ethnic cleansing of the post-1967 territories. Paradoxically, for them, peace is not intended to be between peoples. They ignore the fact that without these communities, a Palestinian state would have been a reality five years ago. And that is the true security threat to Israel: an independent and sovereign PLO state.

With all due respect to First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, a PLO state is in no one’s long-term interests, neither the Israelis’ nor the Palestinians,’ given Arafat’s sorry human rights record and embezzlement of public funds.

Israel’s security is linked unalterably to the upholding of agreements. On the contrary, the Palestinian Authority is notorious in its policy of violating the most central of these agreements. Terrorism, a threat, is exploited by Arafat as an instrument of policy. Illegal arms have not been confiscated nor have murderers been extradited. Incitement to violence is frequently published in the official Palestinian press together with vile anti-Semitism. The Palestinian Covenant, demanding elimination of Israel, has not been invalidated.

In just one day this week, one Jewish man was stabbed to death, another was injured in a second stabbing incident and there was an attempted kidnapping of a policeman.

Israelis regard the consistent infractions and the continuation of the terror as indicative that Oslo was a mistake. That error can only lead to one conclusion: Israel’s security--personal and national--is still at risk.

At present, more than 90% of those Arabs who consider themselves Palestinians reside under Arafat’s municipal rule. Even the superhawk Netanyahu handed over in January 1997 most of Hebron, the last outstanding issue that he inherited. In exchange, the United States joined in assuring him that future moves would be conditional on full compliance with Oslo by Arafat, which has not been the case.

It is the presence of almost 200,000 Jewish civilians that prevents Arafat from achieving his goal, never really disguised, of attaining a military position from which Israel’s security can be effectively challenged. Why should Israel continue to hand over the most tangible of elements--land--when all evidence points to greater security difficulties?

The Jewish communities across the former “green line” border are indispensable. Their locations essentially deny Arafat his vision of statehood. They protect the main population centers and Ben-Gurion Airport and prevent the development of a hostile eastern front.

In principle, Israel should not be expected to give up the heartland of its historic homeland. On very practical grounds, it cannot be expected to yield on this issue. Security is not a psychological comfort, but the assurance that the future of Israel and its citizens is not to be in doubt.