УConstitutional Democracy:

The Key to Peace in the Middle EastФ




By Professor Paul Eidelberg

Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in the Middle East



аааа [T]he Middle East may well be on the verge of a major regional war.а Numerous sources in the region report that the supreme rulers--both civilian and military--in most Arab states, as well as in Iran and Pakistan, are convinced that the present vulnerability of Israel [resulting from the Oslo Accords] is so great that there is a unique opportunity to ... begin the process leading to the destruction of Israel....Toward this end, several Arab states [including Egypt], as well as Iran and Pakistan, have been engaged in a frantic military build-up and active preparation in the last few months....

ааааа У[T]he PLOТs preparations for an imminent war are evident.а In Gaza, Arafat ordered the marked acceleration of the building of a personal bunker, four stories deep.а Moreover, the PLO is rapidly building all over Gaza a chain of command centers, ammunition and weapons-storage areas -- all of them underground and well-fortified to even withstand Israeli bombing and shelling.а The PAТs [Palestinian AuthorityТs] security forces are also accumulating large stockpiles of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, including missiles, even though they are forbidden by the Oslo Accords.


ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Congressman Jim Saxton, House of Representatives

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Task Force Report

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа International Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа December 12, 1996


ааааа Oh Allah, destroy America, her agents and allies!а Allah, raise the flag of Islam over the Al-Aksa mosque, Jerusalem and Palestine...

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Ikrama Sabri, Mufti of Jerusalem

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Palestinian Authority Senior Cleric

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа September 12, 1997


ааааа IDF [Israel Defense Forces] units will soon begin drilling for combat to foil military operations by Palestinian Authority forces.... This confrontation might lead to an all-out conflagration in the Middle East.

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Nahum BarneТa

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа УThe Wind of WarФаааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Yediot Aharanot (in Hebrew)

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа September 12, 1997


ааааа Because of IsraelТs own internal weaknesses and AmericaТs Уeven-handedФ diplomacy, Israel may soon disappear in an Arab-Islamic sea.а IsraelТs demise would be the greatest loss not only to the United States but to mankind.а A new goal is needed:а the promotion of Constitional Democracy in the Middle East, beginning in Israel.

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа The Author



The Policy of УTerritory for PeaceФ



ver since the Six-Day War of June 1967, it has been assumed by every American Administration that peace between Israel and her Arab-Islamic neighbors depends on IsraelТs withdrawal from the territories she conquered in that war, specifically, the Sinai, Judea-Samaria (the so-called West Bank), Gaza, and the Golan Heights.а American policy-makers still believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that desire for lost territory, not implacable ideological hostility, animates IsraelТs Arab-Islamic adversaries.а IsraelТs Labor Party has encouraged this perception of the Arab-Israel conflict; so too, with less fervor, has the Likud.

ааааааааааа Accordingly, the Carter Administration mediated the March 1979 Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty by which Israel withdrew from the Sinai.а More recently, the Clinton Administration mediated partial implementation of the August 1993 Oslo or Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles, in consequence of which the Israel Defense Forces withdrew from Gaza, Jericho, Ramallah, Hebron, etc., and await orders to withdraw from most, if not the remainder, of Judea-Samaria.а Some 200,000 Jews in Judea-Samaria will then be dependent for their security on the PLO-Palestinian Authority whose 40,000-member Arab police-force -- twice that of IsraelТs -- is led by former terrorists.а This is the bizarre consequence of the policy of Уterritory for peaceФ pursued intermittently by Israel with the prompting of the United States.


ааааааааааа To anyone who has not sacrificed his intellect to the now deified УPeace Process,Ф the policy of Уterritory for peaceФ and the agreements issuing therefrom have not brought peace to Israel and offer no promise of doing so.а Since Oslo, Arab terrorists -- PLO as well as Hamas -- have slaughtered more than 300 Jewish men, women, and children; 2000 more Jews have been wounded, many maimed for life.а Several of these Jews were/are American citizens.а


ааааааааааа While pundits in Israel and the United States intone the mantra of peace, weapons of war



are being smuggled into Gaza from Egypt, the creator and patron of the PLO.аа It matters not that

Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel.а Arms are also being smuggled into Judea-Samaria from Jordan.а It matters not that Jordan, too, has a peace treaty with Israel.а Nor does it matter that Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists have headquarters in Amman, JordanТs capital.а Welcome to the Middle East.

ааааааааааа The truth, obscured by every American President and Israeli Prime Minister, is that the УPeace ProcessФ is a charade, a tactic employed by Arab leaders to truncate Israel and thereby facilitate its ultimate demise.а Evidence for this conclusion will be found in a detailed report issued by Congressman Jim Saxton (Rep-NJ), brief passages of which are cited above.а Notice that the report was published before the Arab suicide bombings which occurred in Jerusalem in July and September 1997.а Those bombings compelled Israel to deploy additional police and military forces in Jerusalem to protect not only its own citizens, but tourists, Americans included.аа This counterterrorism activity diminishes IsraelТs ability to defend itself from abroad.аа Strategic analyst Professor Louis Rene Beres of Purdue University warns that IsraelТs (entirely understandable) preoccupation with counterterrorism has now effectively compromised the country's capacity to prepare for or prevent the war described in Congressman SaxtonТs report.а Beres writes:


Arafat and his collaborators are operating according to a very precise strategy of attrition and annihilation.а By practicing terror against Israelis on a regular but intermittent basis -- one that allows the charade of a "Peace Process" to enchant the Americans and others who always hope too much -- a policy of attrition is successfully weakening Israel's capacity to ward off the coming war of annihilation.а At the same time, the attritional benefits of such terrorism are augmented by a less tangible but still significant corrosion of Israel's will to survive.а Military analysts customarily distinguish between wars of attrition and wars of annihilation.а Yet, such wars need not be mutually exclusive; they can be complementary parts of a single belligerent strategy.а So it is today with respect to present and future aggression against the Jewish State by Israel's multiple Islamic enemies.1



What Motivates IsraelТs Government?



he question arises:а Why have IsraelТs political leaders pursued a policy with such deadly and I dare say predictable consequences?а Why have they been willing to yield tangible land, which is irreversible, for a nebulous and revocable peace?а Do they really believe that their Arab-Islamic neighbors have abandoned their once proclaimed ambition to destroy the Jewish State?аа Aware of the 15-year civil war in Lebanon, the 8-year war between Iraq and Iran, the military collaboration between Iran, Syria, and Iraq, the vilification of Jews and Israel in EgyptТs state-controlled media -- in short, the details of the Saxton report -- why is it that IsraelТs political leaders are willing to take risks for peace that no other government would dare ask of its people?

ааааааааааа This is not an academic issue.а This issue concerns not only Israel but the United States. Quite apart from our historic friendship with Israel, its security and ability to defend itself are connected with AmericaТs strategic interests in the Middle East.а Another war in this region will probably involve weapons of mass destruction and an Arab oil embargo that could cripple the economies of the democratic world.а Hence it is of vital importance that we examine, candidly, whether the desire for peace is the only motive that prompts IsraelТs political leaders to surrender strategic territory to its Arab adversaries?а Let us begin by asking:а What do IsraelТs political leaders really think of IsraelТs adversaries?

ааааааааааа It was only after she left office in 1974, and then only in her memoirs, that Golda Meir publicly admitted:а УI have never doubted for an instant that the true aim of the Arab states has always been, and still is, the total destruction of the State of Israel, or that even if we had gone back far beyond the 1967 lines to some miniature enclave, they would not still have tried to eradicate it and us.Ф2

ааааааааааа At this point, recall the Madrid Peace Conference of October 31, 1991 co-sponsored by the United States and the former Soviet Union.а Attending were delegates from Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon as well as proxies of the PLO.а While the delegates from Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria were preparing for that conference, delegates from these same countries, as well as from 57 other Arab-Islamic regimes (400 in all, including high-ranking PLO representatives) were attending the УInternational Conference to Support the Islamic Revolution of PalestineФ held in Teheran ten days earlier. аAll the delegates, without exception or qualification, signed 28 resolutions issued by this conference, resolutions hostile not only to Israel, but to the United States.а For example, Resolution 3 calls for the Уelimination of the Zionist existence.Фа Resolution 11 Уcondemns the efforts of the United States to hold the so-called Middle East peace conference.Фа Resolution 15 Уstrongly condemns the extensive presence of the U.S. in the sensitive region of the Persian Gulf.Ф Resolution 22 emphasizes Уthe need for an all-out jihad against the Zionist regime.Ф

ааааааааааа Among the countries that signed these resolutions was Egypt, a supposed ally of the United States which had erased $7 billion of Egyptian debt in exchange for EgyptТs nominal participation in the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War.а Moreover, EgyptТs Уsemi-officialФ newspaper Al-Ahram saw fit to publish the conference resolutions in full and without a word of government condemnationЧthis, despite EgyptТs peace treaty with Israel.а Yet no Israeli spokesman dared proclaim that the Teheran Conference made nonsense of the projected Madrid Peace Conference.а In any event, the Teheran Conference confirmed Golda MeirТs judgment regarding IslamТs inherent hostilityа toward Israel (to say nothing of America) .3


The same judgment will be found in Prime Minister Benjamin NetanyahuТs book A Place Among the Nations.а In the introduction of the Hebrew edition, written in 1995, Netanyahu refers to the Oslo peace process and warns in unambiguous terms:а


After the far-reaching concessions, in land and power, that Israel will be effecting in its withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries, after the УsolemnФ propaganda ceremonies that will accompany these withdrawal agreements ... we will find ourselves dwarfed and weakened, facing a bitter and miserable reality: then we will hear around us demands that are hard even today, only with renewed vigor, thatа weа mustа continueа toа giveа upа territory Уthatа wasа capturedа illegally,Фа andааа Уin contravention of the original [UN] partition planФ; even among us there will be those who support the claim that we do not have a right even to the tiny area of land that remains ours.а This process will lead either to another terrible war or to the destruction of the State of Israel.


Once he became IsraelТs Prime Minister, however, Mr. Netanyahu adhered to this deadly process. He rationalized his behavior by saying he was obliged to honor the agreements of his predecessors, the late Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, even though he had written that those agreements would emasculate Israel and endanger its existence.а

ааааааааааа But what of Rabin and Peres?а When they shook hands with Yasser Arafat in those Уsolemn propaganda ceremoniesФ to which Netanyahu alludes, did they really believe that the leader of the PLO had ceased to be a terrorist, that he had become a convert to peace?а Or did they believe that he could be compelled, perhaps by American pressure, to overcome his past and not only renounce terrorism, but suppress terrorist activities in the territories that would eventually come under his control?а Which ever the case, surely Mr. Rabin and Mr. Peres must have been profoundly concerned about IsraelТs strategic vulnerability once the country was reduced to a 10-15 mile strip on which dwell 80 percent of its population.а Besides, might not IsraelТs truncation erode their peopleТs morale or confidence in the future, especially when surrounded by an ideologically and culturally hostile Arab-Islamic world?

ааааааааааа Let us consider only Mr. Peres.аа On June 27, 1975, at which time Peres was IsraelТs Defense Minister, he told an interviewer from Davar, a Labor Party newspaper, that Уthe lack of minimal territorial space would put us [Israel] in a position of having absolutely no early warning ... and would engender among the Arabs an irresistible urge to attack the Jewish state from all sides and destroy it.Фа This remark anticipates the conclusion of the Saxton report.а Yet Mr. Peres obviously changed his mind since he gave that 1975 interview.а No doubt the leading architect of the Israel-PLO Agreements would say that circumstances in the region have changed since 1975.а He could point to the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty of 1979 as indicative of the emergence of a УNew Middle East,Ф one committed to peace.4


(He maintains this position despite the Saxton report.)а On the other hand, Mr. Peres contends that the advent of missile warfare has made territory and national borders irrelevant.а There are American and Israeli generals as well as civilian strategic experts who would dispute this position.а They might point to IraqТs invasion of Kuwait, as well as AmericaТs military build-up in Saudi Arabia, in the Persian Gulf War as a refutation that missile warfare renders territorial depth irrelevant.5

ааааааааааа Can it be that Mr. PeresТs change of attitude regarding IsraelТs borders was also influenced by partisan political considerations?аа I am treading on delicate grounds, but IsraelТs future is at stake, and so are the best interests of the United States. а

ааааааааааа When Mr. Peres stated in 1975 that the lack of minimal territorial space would put Israel in a position of having absolutely no early warning and would engender among the Arabs an irresistible urge to attack the Jewish state from all sides and destroy it, his Labor Party had been in uninterrupted control of the government for 27 years, that is, from its inception in 1948.а What made that monopoly of power possible was the alliance of IsraelТs religious parties, for Labor never received more that 51 of the KnessetТs 120 seats (despite the partyТs domination of the media and the economy as well as the countryТs educational and cultural institutions).а

ааааааааааа In June 1977, however, a minor revolution took place:а the Likud Party came to power joined by the religious parties.а LaborТs political future looked bleak indeed, for the Jewish population of the country was becoming increasingly religious, largely because of the high birthrate of religious families, but also because tens of thousands of secularists were leaving the country.а To compensate for its diminishing electoral base among Jews, Labor would have to attract more Arab voters to its banner if was to regain power.а But this means Labor would for the first time become dependent on IsraelТs Arab parties to form a government and to exercise its prerogatives.

ааааааааааа There is now an abundance of evidence that, prior to IsraelТs 1992 Knesset elections -- the elections that brought Labor back to power -- some of its spokesmen met secretly with high-ranking PLO officials in Cairo and London.а The quid pro quo emerging from those clandestine meetings was this:а PLO chief Yasser Arafat would induce IsraelТs Arab citizens and parties to support Labor, in return for which, a new Labor Government would legalize such meetings, engage in serious Уland-for-peaceФ negotiations with the PLO, with the object of creating, step-by-step, a Palestinian state with Arafat as its President.6а

ааааааааааа Labor, together with its Left-wing ally Meretz, won 56 Knesset seats, five short of a majority. аThe majority was made possible by the five seats of IsraelТs two Arab parties.а This is not to say that the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of August 1993 was merely a Machiavellian drama.7а Let us probe a little deeper.

ааааааааааа As a socialist party, Labor has an internationalist orientation that contradicts the nationalist dimension of Zionism.а Indeed, when Shimon Peres was Foreign Minister under the premiership of Yitzhak Rabin, he applied for IsraelТs membership in the Arab League!а Israel, he declared, has entered a УPost-ZionistФ era -- he might well have said a УPost-JewishФ era.а Consistent therewith, and under RabinТs authority as Defense Minister, the words УZionismФ and УJudaismФ were erased from IsraelТs Soldiers Code of Ethics.8

ааааааааааа Here we touch on a fundamental dilemma:а How can Israel remain a Jewish State when almost 20 percent of its citizens are Arabs, most of whom not only identify themselves as УPalestiniansФ or as part of the УArab Nation,Ф but supported Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War despite his threat to incinerate Israel, including themselves?а



Arab Attitudes Toward Israel



ne can hardly blame these proud Arabs for not wishing to live under a Jewish majority -- which is why they are exempt from military service (i.e., for security reasons).аа Mr. Peres is obviously aware of this demographic and ideological dilemma, which, given the prolific Arab birthrate, has explosive ramifications.а Perhaps he believed that these Arabs could be assimilated, could become УIsraelis,Ф if only Israel ceased to be a Jewish State and were transformed into a state of its citizens?а But consider a 1994 symposium held by the Dayan Institute of Tel Aviv University.а

ааааааааааа Participating in that conference were prominent Arab citizens who spanned the entire spectrum of political opinion, from those who were members of the Labor Party to those who were undisguised supporters of the PLO.а

ааааааааааа Professor Howard Adelson comments:а УWithout an exception, those Arabs pointed out that even if a new Arab state were to be created between Jordan and Israel, that would be insufficient because almost a million so-called Israeli Arabs would still be living under СforeignТ domination.а The claim of the Arabs was that, if the Jews truly wanted peace, they would have to change the name of the state so as to reflect the entire population rather than merely the Jewish majority.а The state, in effect, would have to become a bi-national one with a new flag and a new national anthem.Ф9

ааааааааааа Adelson concludes that inasmuch as the Arab participants in this conference also insisted on the enactment of an Arab law of return to admit all Arabs who supposedly fled from the land as well as their descendants, the success of the Oslo process (or the American-Israel policy of Уterritory for peaceФ) entails the disappearance of the Jewish State.

ааааааааааа It required Arab suicide-bombers to awaken pundits from their Oslovian slumbers.а Not all.а But leaving the benighted as well as entrapped or timid politicians aside, it is now obvious that the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement was based on sand, to say nothing of deception.а It should also be obvious that Arafat, who sanctifies suicide bombers as Уholy martyrsФ and embraces Hamas murderers as Уbrothers in blood,Ф remains what he has never ceased to be, a terrorist chief dedicated to IsraelТs destruction.а Hence it is inane or willful ignorance to demand that Arafat suppress terrorists in areas under the control of his Palestinian Authority, so many of whose officials are themselves unrepentant terrorists.

ааааааааааа Mr. Netanyahu knows this. Like his predecessors, however, Netanyahu is trapped in the Уpolitics of peace,Ф the politics that even well-meaning men use to gain or retain power.а But let us examine such behavior from another perspective.



IsraelТs Political Institutions



s previously indicated, ever since the Six-Day War, every Israeli government, regardless of its political complexion, has been under pressure from the United States, more precisely, the State Department, to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders.а Nevertheless, how Israeli politicians react to American pressure depends not only on their own moral and intellectual character but also on the character of IsraelТs political institutions, a factor ignored by virtually all commentators.а Let me explain.

ааааааааааа IsraelТs Government, i.e., the Cabinet, is composed of a multiplicity of parties.а Mr. NetanyahuТs Cabinet consists of no less than seven parties, each with its own agenda!аа This makes it virtually impossible for IsraelТs Prime Minister to pursue a firm and coherent foreign policy or national strategy conducive to his countryТs long-term interests.а Meanwhile, the lack of Cabinet solidarity renders the Government more subject to international pressure.аа

ааааааааааа As is well-known, the multiplicity of parties in Israel is the result of proportional representation based on a threshold of only 1.5 percent.а This is by far the lowest electoral threshold among some fifty countries using proportional representation.а What is more, Israel is the only reputed democracy that employs proportional representation with fixed party lists and without constituency elections.а The entire country constitutes a single district, and voters cast their ballots in parliamentary elections for political parties, not for individual representatives.а This has grave consequences.

ааааааааааа Assume that the leader of party A is IsraelТs Prime Minister, and that the leaders of parties, B, C, D and E are his Cabinet Ministers -- a typical Israeli concoction.а Now, because a majority of the KnessetТs members (MKs) owe their position and perquisites to these parties and not to the votes of constituents, they cannot function as judges of their GovernmentТs policies as do legislators in all democratic countries.а If an MK were to vote against his Government he would be committing political suicide.а This will inhibit him from resisting policies he deems unwise or self-destructive.10а He will then be less able to resist the same foreign pressure prompting his Government to pursue that questionable policy.а Meanwhile, because the voters have no individual Knesset Member accountable to them, whom they could then expect to uphold their basic interests -- which may well be opposed to the GovernmentТs foreign policy -- they themselves, the voters, will become unduly sensitive and more subservient to Уworld opinion.Ф

Therein is a hitherto unnoticed reason why Israeli governments -- no longer in the youth of аZionism -- have yielded to the American State DepartmentТs post-Six Day War policy of Уterritory for peace,Ф contrary to the deepest convictions of a large majority of IsraelТs Jewish population. If this majorityТs convictions on the territorial issue have since been eroded, a basic cause is this: they lack Knesset representatives of their own choosing.11


Although Israel may be a unique case, nothing so weakens this country as the absence of a Legislature separate from the Executive, one whose members are directly accountable to the voters (and not simply to their party).


Clearly, IsraelТs political leaders are handicapped by IsraelТs political institutions, above all by its electoral laws.а Fundamental change is needed, which can best be accomplished -- I do not say now -- by the adoption of a written Constitution.а To facilitate discussion and a deeper understanding of IsraelТs institutional flaws, the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in the Middle East, an American-Israel research organization, has designed a Constitution involving, inter alia, a presidential-parliamentary system with institutional checks and balances, constituency elections (with a threshold that would eliminate small parties), and a comprehensive Bill of Rights.а In contrast to current practice in Israel, agreements with foreign states or entities would require public hearings and serious parliamentary debate.а Treaties would require the ratification of extraordinary parliamentary majorities; they would not be ratified by Уsolemn propaganda ceremoniesФ on the White House lawn.а By elevating its dignity and power, the parliament could rally to the support of the Government should the latter be subject to perverse international pressure.



Why AmericaТs УEven-HandedФ Diplomacy is Destructive



propos of such pressure, let us now examine the significance of the American State DepartmentТs Уeven-handedФ diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel and her Arab neighbors -- the diplomacy guided by the dogma of Уland for peace.Фааа

ааааааааааа The formula Уland for peace,Ф at least in the present context, is fundamentally irrational.а First of all, unlike Уpeace,Ф not only is land tangible and its surrender irreversible, but the land Israel is expected to surrender is precisely the land which various Arab states used as launching pads to attack Israel before the Six-Day War.

ааааааааааа Second, if A is willing to surrender land for peace, while B is willing to go to war to obtain that land, it follows that whereas A prefers peace to land, B prefers land to peace.а The asymmetry does not bode well for peace.а Knowing that A prefers peace to land, B need only threaten war to obtain more land from A.а This is precisely the conclusion drawn by Mr. Netanyahu in the above cited passage from A Place Among the Nations.

ааааааааааа Third, substitute Israel for A and IsraelТs neighbors for B and it will be seen that the asymmetry between them is rooted in the conflicting character of their respective regimes.а Insofar as Israel is a democracy, a regime based on the primacy of consent, it cannot, in principle, pursue a foreign policy of conquest.а In contrast, because IsraelТs neighbors are autocracies, regimes based on the primacy of coercion, their policy toward Israel will be modulated by intimidation or the threat of war.

ааааааааааа To be Уeven-handedФ in a conflict between a democracy and a dictatorship is to succumb to moral equivalence.а Moral equivalence roughly describes U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.а I say УroughlyФ because it should be obvious that Washington exerts more diplomatic pressure on Israel than on IsraelТs autocratic adversaries.а Again and again American administrations importune democratically minded Israel to make good will or gratuitous concessions to the Уother sideФ regardless of the Уother sideТsФ undemocratic character.аа But even if Washington were in truth Уeven-handed,Ф such a policy, in the long run, favors IsraelТs adversaries and thereby conduces to war.



ааааааааааа By placing Israel and Arab-Islamic dictatorships on the same moral level, the American government dignifies and strengthens the rulers of these dictatorships, and renders them more arrogant and ambitious.а That EgyptТs tourist maps refers to all of Israel as УPalestineФ is a reflection of the nature of that regime, even if the slight is intended for domestic purposes!


*а *а *





ranted that the American-Israel policy of Уterritory for peaceФ has increased the likelihood of a catastrophic war (recall Czechoslovakia and World War II); granted that IsraelТs burgeoning Arab population represents a demographic time-bomb that threatens to transform Israel into another Lebanon; and granted further that IsraelТs existing political institutions hinder firm and forthright political leadership, what can be done to prevent IsraelТs sudden or eventual demise?

ааааааааааа First, both the U.S. and Israel must renounce the policy of Уterritory for peaceФ and adopt a new form of diplomacy.12а

ааааааааааа Second, and bearing in mind the ominous Saxton report, the United States should announce that any attack on Israel will be deemed an attack on the United States and dealt with accordingly.а The U.S. should therefore move its embassy to Jerusalem and thereby affirm Jerusalem as IsraelТs undivided capital.

ааааааааааа Third, the U.S. should call for an international moratorium on the shipment of arms to the Middle East.а

ааааааааааа Fourth, Israel must reform its political institutions.а All citizens, on pain of losing their citizenship, should be required to perform national service (individual exemptions aside) and acknowledge, by an oath of loyalty, IsraelТs sovereignty as a Jewish State.а

ааааааааааа Fifth, ArafatТs Palestinian Authority should be denounced for what it is, a terrorist hotbed.а It should be quarantined and disbanded and its criminals should be brought to justice.13

ааааааааааа Sixth, Israel and the United States should formulate a functional (as opposed to a territorial) autonomy plan for Arabs in Judea-Samaria and Gaza based on the idea of a canton under IsraelТs sovereignty.










ааааааааааа Seventh, consistent with the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United States should promote gradual implementation of constitutional democracy in Arab-Islamic world.а For this purpose it should call for an International Conference on Constitutional Democracy.



ааааааааааа Epilogueааа



resident John Adams, a Harvard graduate, said that the Jews, the first teachers of ethical monotheism, have been the greatest benefactors of mankind. The Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality have long been part of American and international law. The УHigher LawФ doctrine of the American Declaration of Independence is rooted in the Bible of Israel.а On the eve of the American Revolution, Harvard president Samuel Langdon referred to the Уcivil polityФ contained in the Torah (the worldТs first Written Constitution) as an Уexcellent general modelФ for American government.14

ааааааааааа The bond between America and Israel is profound, and our own self-respect as a nation under God requires that we be faithful to the nation that gave mankind the Book of Books, hence that we do nothing to impair IsraelТs strength and dignity as a Jewish State.а Together, Israel and America are the best hope of humanity and for peace in the Middle East.


*а *а *













1 From Internet

2 Golda Meir, My Life (London:а Futura Publications, 1975), p. 364. The sequel reads:а УThe Arab rulers pretend that their objective is limited to reaching the lines of 4 June 1967, but we know their true objective:а the total subjugation of the State of IsraelФ (p. 365).а To this day EgyptТs tourist maps depict Israel as УPalestine,Ф as does the logo on PLO stationery.

3 On September 12, 1997, immediately following the 10-minute address by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to Arab Palestinians on the Voice of Palestine, the PA's official radio station, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrama Sabri, whom Arafat appointed as the PAТs senior and official Muslim cleric, intoned on the same station:аа


ааааааааа Oh Allah, destroy America, her agents and allies!а Cast them into their own traps, and cover the White House with black!а Oh Muslims, our brothers in faith everywhere, the purpose of the American Secretary of State's visit to Palestine is to support the Israeli position regarding deceitful security and fanatical settlements....


ааааааааа Oh Allah, destroy America, her agents and allies!а Allah, raise the flag of Islam over the Al-Aksa mosque, Jerusalem and Palestine...а Allah shall take revenge on behalf of his prophet against the colonialist settlers who are sons of monkeys and pigs....


The Voice of Palestine is under the auspices of the PA's Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation (PBC).а According to the Philadelphia Inquirer (September 7, 1997), the PBC has been funded by the United States government.

ааааааааааа Lest the above venom appear exceptional, see Y. Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Israel (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972), for more than 400 pages of vilification of Jews and Israel by Arab and Islamic leaders, academics, and theologians throughout the Middle East.

4 See Shimon Peres (with Arye Naor), The New Middle Eastа (New York:а Henry Holt, 1993), pp. 95, 99.

ааааааааааааааа For a critique, see my УThe Primacy of Politics and Religion Versus the Primacy of Economics in the Arab-Jewish Conflict,Ф Jerusalem Foundation Paperа (New York:а Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in the Middle East), No. 11, March 1997.а But see note 7 below.

5 PeresТs confidant, Hebrew University Professor Shlomo Aronson, stated at a June 1985 international conference in Jerusalem that retention of Judea-Samaria was not necessary for security because of IsraelТs nuclear deterrent. This statement was a response to a paper which the present author presented at that conference.

6 See Paul Eidelberg, Demophrenia:а Israel and the Malaise of Democracy (Lafayette, LA: Prescott Press, 1994), pp. 122-124.

7 The late Prof. Y. Harkabi, a Peres confidant and one-time head of Israeli military intelligence, described himself as a УMachiavellian dove.Ф

8 Israel was to be transformed into the state of its citizens, as opposed to the state of the Jews.а This is why the present author regarded LaborТs victory in the 1992 Knesset elections as an electoral coup dТetat.

9 The Jewish Press, September 5, 1997, p. 10.

10 IsraelТs Knesset is a little more than rubber stamp for the Cabinet.а During modern IsraelТs 49-year history, no Labor- or Likud-led Government has ever been toppled by a Knesset vote of no-confidence.а It was only in 1990, under a Government of National Unity, that the Government fell on a vote of no-confidence.

11 See Shlomit Levy et al., Beliefs, Observations and Social Interaction Among Israeli Jews (Jerusalem:а Louis Guttman Israel Institute of Applied Social Research), ch. 14, p. 101, Table 38, Appendix A.а

ааааааааааа A survey of 800 sixteen-eighteen year-old Israeli, i.e. Jewish, youth confirmed previous studies of basic religious and political attitudes held in society at large (Yediot Ahronot, July 23, 1997).а The respondents were asked if they agree with a of number ideas.а Examples:

ааааааааааа (1)а It is impossible to put full confidence in any Israeli Arab.а 67.6% agree.

аааааа (2) Arab representation in the Knesset endangers Israeli security. 73.5% agree.а (Note:а The percentage would have been higher had the survey been made after Arab Knesset Members, in violation of IsraelТs criminal law, went to Syria, an enemy state, and there met with President Hafez Assad and various terrorist organizations.)

аааааа (3) Israeli Arabs desire the destruction of Israel.а 70.8% agree.а (Recall that these Arabs openly supported Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War despite his threat to incinerate Israel, including themselves.)

ааааааааааа Given their distrust of Israeli Arabs (who enjoy all the rights of Jews), it may be assumed that a greater percentage of these Jewish youth distrustа Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs.а This being granted, one may reasonably conclude that these youth are at least logically and psychologically opposed to the policy of Уland for peace.Ф

12 For the outlines of a new diplomacy, see my УDemocratic Versus Martial Diplomacy:а A Jewish Alternative,Ф Jerusalem Foundation Papers (New York:а Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in the Middle East), No 8, Sept. 1996, published in Hebrew in Nativ:а A Journal of Politics and the Arts, Vol. 10, Nos. 1-2, Jan.-April 1997.

13 Ponder the following article by Nahum BarneТa, УWind of War,Ф which appeared in Yediot Aharanot (in Hebrew), Sept. 12, 1997:


ааааааааа Some IDF [Israel Defense Forces] units will soon begin drilling for combat to foil military operations by Palestinian Authority forces.а This will happen for the first time since the signing of the Oslo agreement; as a matter of fact, for the first time ever. In icy military lingo, the situation the IDF will be training for is called "low intensity conflict," or in simpler language, guerrilla warfare.

ааааааааа The pessimistic scenario outlined by security sources foresees an undeclared war. Accordingly, the number of shooting incidents

in the field will increase, and instead of gunfire from an ineffective distance, as witnessed this week at an IDF checkpoint near Hebron, they will shoot to kill with assault rifles from close range. Palestinian policemen in and out of uniform, with Fatah members fighting alongside them, will take part in operations against the Israelis....












ааааааааа The IDF will impose an external closure on the territories as well as internal closures to keep the cities apart.а Its mission will be to besiege and isolate the areas controlled by the PA. The IDF is also preparing for the possibility that it may be ordered to enter Gaza and the West Bank cities, perhaps even reoccupy them. The assessment is that such an order will not be issued, both because of international pressure and because of the heavy casualty toll it would entail, but preparations need to be made for an eventuality....

Of course, this confrontation might lead to an all-out conflagration in the Middle East. The IDF is preparing for the possibility of three different wars which would require different military responses: with the Palestinians, with the Shiites in Lebanon, and in the longer run, with Syria. There is no certainty that Egypt will not be dragged into the circle of fighting, and the same applies to Iran and Iraq ....


14 See Abraham I. Katsh, The Biblical Heritage of American Democracy (KTAV, 1977), p. 137.








Сайт управляется системой uCoz