Soccer Dad

Drying off the Blanket?

Joseph responded to my earlier post about Charles Krauthammer's column proclaiming an Israeli victory in the war against the intifada. In a nutshell, Joseph feels that even if Israel has successfully repelled Hamas for now, the problem will be continuing to show that fortitude to continue doing so.

In January, 1968, The North Vietnamese were defeated in their "Intifada", aka the Tet Offensive. And yet, as many an observer has concluded, "The cost in North Vietnamese casualties was tremendous but the gambit produced a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson".

Israel may have won her Tet Offensive, but the leftist enemy within Israel has exerted its influence all the way to the PM's office, as Sharon's surrender plan testifies. There are major differences between the US in Vietman and Israel in Yesha - for one thing, the US was fighting on foreign soil and the motherland was never in danger, while Israel is fighting on her own soil - Yesha - and the motherland IS in danger. But the bottom line is similar: you can defeat an external enemy, but if the home-front is dominated by Lord Haw Haw, you ultimately lose.

Wake up, Israel!

This is not a trivial argument. Even now, Israel's "elite" newspaper is busily trying to resurrect the murderer Arafat. (Aaron Lerner posts some objections to the softballs tossed to Arafat at IMRA.) Certainly the effort of Ha'aretz bolsters Joseph's view and I won't deny that it bothers me too.
I even acknowledged feeling qualms about Sharon's plan. I posted "Doomed to Repeat" a few weeks ago giving some of the specifics of what bothered me. Still I think there's a difference between Sharon's retreat and a retreat that would have been carried out by a member of Labor. I think this is a retreat that may not be viewed simply as a loss. Too often those of who support Israel (myself included) look too much to the bad and unhappy and fail to acknowledge the actual accomplishments of Israel. That is exactly what Krauthammer was doing on Friday.
I'd like to point to a number of articles to support this thesis.
Back in 1985, Krauthammer wrote the following:

The war in Lebanon had two major objectives. The principal one was to defeat the PLO military and cripple it politically. In that the Lebanon campaign succeeded. When the PLO lost its territorial base, it ceased to be a military factor in the region. It was a blow, said Khaled el Hassan, an Arafat aide, "that even superpowers cannot withstand."

The PLO's expulsion to Tunis, and subsequent internal split, has had profound political effect as well. The war cost the PLO its freedom of action, its most valuable political asset. Part of the PLO has been seconded to Syria. The rest, headed by arafat, has been forced into subservience to Egypt and Jordan. Contrary to what Ambassador Lewis claims, that makes a peace process more possible now than before June 1982.

As long as the PLO--irredentist, committed to terror, and able to inflict real damage on Israel's northern border--was a major, independent actor, the peace process could go nowhere. The Arab countries could not proceed with the PLO and, except for Egypt, would not proceed without it. There was no hope of any progress. There is some hope now. Whatever slight movement Jordan's King hussein makes toward negotiation with Israel is a function of the PLO's weakness. It is the attenuation of Arafat's veto power, not Arafat's change of heart about Israel's, or Hussein's, right to exist, that gives Hussein some maneuvering room. And Arafat's power is, in turn, dictated by the new facts on the ground. For Arafat, that ground is Tunis.

The other, better hope is that as Arafat's post-Lebanon stature sinks, the possibility rises of non-irredentist Palestinians coming forth with Jordan to negotiate with Israel. Arafat may be a symbol among Palestinians, but Arafat the leader is another matter. Everywhere he has gone he has brought ruin on his people. And when he abandons his people--as he abandoned them first in Jordan, then in Beirut, then in Tripoli--he brings even more ruin. Sentimental attachment to such a leader, as Abu Musa and the other PLO rebels have shown, can only go so far.

In essence, these two goals have been accomplished all over again. Sharon's efforts since becoming PM have been to remove the threat and marginalize Arafat. True it was necessary because Arafat was resurrected by Oslo. But this time Sharon seems to be avoiding any political process that will revive Arafat again. Israel will have to continue acting in such a way to undercut Arafat; and that may not continue. (Give Labor - or even Olmert - the chance and they may very well repeat Oslo in some fashing. If Kerry is elected that may force another Oslo mistake on Israel. Yes, Joseph the Democrats are all worse than W.)
I also think that we need to look at a few article by Daniel Pipes.
When Sharon was elected PM for the first time, Pipes wrote "Is Sharon Dangerous?" and answered his own question:

Most of Sharon's long career as a soldier and a politician took place when Israel was perceived as a strong country. In those years, his impulsive and uncompromising actions were sometimes over the top.

But now, when Israel suffers from being seen as weak, Sharon could well be precisely what the country needs. His historical moment, it appears, has arrived.

But then more recently Pipes started questioning Sharon. In "Hezbollah's Victory, Israel's Decline" Pipes worries:

These many negative consequences raise questions about the morality of this Israeli government action.

In its early decades, Israel's strategic prowess was legendary, transforming a weak country into a regional powerhouse. The past decade has seen the opposite process, whereby that powerhouse reduces itself to a tempting target. That this change is entirely self-induced and achieved through the democratic process makes Benjamin Franklin's prophetic concern all too real.

The next week in "Sharon Loses his Way on Israeli 'Settlements'" Pipes wonders:

But I expect a quite different reaction : Palestinian Arabs will see a pullback signaling that Israel is weak, appeasing, and vulnerable. Far from showing gratitude, they will make greater demands. With Jenin and Ramallah in the maw, Jerusalem will be next on the agenda, followed by Tel Aviv and Haifa.

This implies Israel is fated to stick with its towns and communities in the West Bank and Gaza. They might be a tactical and political liability, but they must retained and defended.To do otherwise is to indicate to the Palestinian Arabs that open season on Israel has begun, spurring yet more violence than the 20 or so incidents now taking place daily.

But subsequent to these two columns, Israel has killed Yassin and Rantisi, essentially driving the leadership of Hamas undergound and largely ineffective. Pipes acknowledged this in April in "Anti-Israel Terror Backfires" that

Ordinary Palestinians, too, are drawing the salutary conclusion that murdering Israelis brings them no benefits. "We wasted three years for nothing, this uprising didn't accomplish anything," says Mahar Tarhir, 25, an aluminum-store owner." Anger and disillusionment have replaced the fighting spirit that once propelled the Palestinian movement," finds Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, a reporter for Knight Ridder.

As for Israelis, as early as July 2003 the military brass reached the conclusion that Israel was achieving victory. More sharply, Israeli analyst Asher Susser concluded in the Middle East Quarterly back then that the Palestinian effort to break the Israeli spirit through terror "has failed" and resorting to force "was a catastrophic mistake, the worst the Palestinians have made since 1948."

In this context, rapidly eliminating two Hamas chieftains in a row deepens Palestinian perceptions that Israel's will to defend itself is strong, its military arm long, and that terrorism is tactically wrong. Perhaps more Palestinians will realize the time has come to accept the existence of the Jewish state.

While Pipes doesn't explicitly reverse his earlier harsh judgments of Sharon, he seems to credit him implicitly with turning back the PA terror.

Israel, of course, could still lose by any number of bad decisions and failing to push its advantage. But for now Israel has won achieving some limited objectives. I think it behooves us to acknowledge it and be cheered.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at June 20, 2004 12:58 AM