56 Friday, February 15, 1980 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS Carter Doctrine for Soviets Leaves Israel Vulnerable By YITZHAQ BEN-AMI The emergence of a new Carter policy towards the Soviet Union, somewhat startling because of its suddennesi, should not sidetrack attention from what, by now, has become his "old" doctrine on Palestine. What is fascinating in Mr. Carter's conduct of foreign affairs is his combining inno- cence with detachment from history. It took the President three years to re- cignize the reality of the centuries-old Rus- sian drive towards Southwest Asia and the Indian Ocean; it took him hardly any time at all, after assuming the Presidency, to formulate his doctrine on Palestine. Unlike his belated enlightenment on Russian-Imperialism-Nationalism, under the black Czarist eagle, and today under the red banner of the USSR, Mr. Carter has given a perfected doctrine, hatched and matured at the Brookings Institution, under the tutelage of one of its most distin- guished alumni — Zbigniew Brezezinski. YITZHAQ BEN-AMI Recent in- ternational developments are domi- nated by the unpredicta-1 bly (by the United States intelligence community) swift col- lapse of the Shah's re- gime, fol- lowed by the deterioration of Iran's cen- tral govern- ment, and its national cohesiveness. Those were followed by the ominous signs of growing internal subversion of Saudi Arabia's medieval hierarchy, the oc- cupation of the U.S. embassy in Teheran, .1 and the invasion of Afghanistan. These events gave birth to the Carter doctrine. In brief, it is based on U.S. power coun- tering Soviet expansionism and subver- sion. The doctrine assumes that Saudis., Egypt, as well as other states presently ruled by "friendly" regimes, would eventu- ally welcome American military power into their national territories. Also, that overt and covert activities by the U.S. will secure such bases for its military, assure the West accessibility to, and the safety of, the Arabian Peninsula's, hopefully also Iraq's and Iran's,' petroleum resources. It assumes that the USSR may try, but will fail, to subvert these developments. The gap between the basic pre- requisites for carrying out the pro- nounced doctrine, and the political and military realities of the region, must cause untold anxieties to the mill- tary leadership of the U.S., and the few Western leaders whose sights are aimed higher than next summer's gasoline requirements. The fact is that, as of early 1980, the West is an unwelcome alien to the people who inhabit the lands from Morocco to the shores of Japan. Futhermore, the states and regimes stretching across North Af- rica, through the Middle East and India, have in common those symptoms that make that vast stretch of the globe one of the most unstable. The socio-economic inequalities, fueled by massive accumulation of wealth by the few, compounded by uncontrolled historic, social and religious strifes, combine to make that part of the world a most fertile ground for nihilism and anarchy. These are the grounds that Russia, the generation-old, imperialist-colonial giant of the north, has been covetously looking at, to sow its seeds of divisiveness and reap its harvest of anarchy and internal col- lapse. Superficially, it appears that the new Carter Doctrine has, by now, grasped the not-so-new background of recent events. However, it does show its im- maturity in its vagueness on the prac- tical steps to counter the aggressive challenge from the north. Inter alia, one of its crucial shortcomings is the almost instinctive incorporation within the new doctrine of the old Carter policy on Palestine. This has become more obvious in recent weeks, through the al- most daily messages channeled to the lead- ing publications in the country by "senior officials" in Washington. The crux of the messages is that a "com- prehensive solution of the Palestinian question" is crucial to securing the U.S. and the West's positions in the Middle East. Somehow, we are invited to recognize that the "Palestinian question" played a decisive role in the toppling of the Shah, the invasiton of Afghanistan, the growing threat to Pakistan, and an eventual Baluchi uprising in southwest Iran .. . Seriously, however, the "Carter Pales- tine Doctrine" derives its rationale from ignorance of the history of the region, its people, and the driving forces that have kept it in turmoil for the past six decades and before. abandoned and has, time and again, surfaced through statements of key members of the PLO! Behind Syria stands ready and covetous Iraq, with its mounting oil wealth, growing armaments and dreams for a Fertile Cres- cent, from Khoramshar to Gaza, ruled by the heirs of the Assyrians and Babylonian Empires. And further down the road, a "new" or post-Sadat Egypt may confront Syrian- Iraqi Baath expansionism in the south of Palestine. Egypt has had a soft spot for southern Palestine for centuries. Such scenarios are not improbable for that little country on the crossroads of three conti- nents, which has not known peace for mil- lenia. This is where the second shortcoming of the "Palestine Doctrine" comes in — the lack of historic understanding of Israel's rebirth by Carter, and the intentional ig- noring of it by Brzezinski. The Hebrew nation that has emerged, after 2,000 years of Diaspora life, does not intend to become another version of the threatened Christian community in Lebanon, face the fate of the Armenians of Turkey, or the end- less subjection of the Kurds by Iraq, Iran and Turkey. Not for such a fate was the nation's hope and dream kept alive through 20 centuries. It was no accident that, in early 1979, Arik Sharon, at a Jerusalem meeting, with the Israeli Cabinet present, had to enlighten President Carter about the original area that was mandated to Britain by the League of Nations for the creation of the Jewish Homeland, and the truncating of almost three- quarters of it (in 1922) to create the Emirate of Trans-Jordan -- all by and for pure British colonial interests. To date, this and previous administra- tions ignored the unilateral abrogation by Britain of the Mandate; the creation of an Arab Palestinian state (Jordan) on terri- tory assigned to the Jewish National Homeland; the illegal attempt by that state in 1949 to annex additional lands on the West Bank; that a Palestinian Arab state has existed, de facto, since 1922; that its illegal annexation in 1949 of the West Bank was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan We native Palestinians have our grave doubts about the validity of the Palesti- nian Arab claim to nationhood. That claim has no roots in history or fact, in ethnicity or in culture. Nevertheless, let us assume that this refusal is preventing the settling of the dispute between Palestinians of Jewish and Arab ancestry. The fact is that Israel, despite many apprehensions and misgivings, declared its readiness to accept such an Arab Palestinian state (now called Jordan), in the large area the British cut off from the land, internationally pledged and recognized as the Jewish people's. Israel is ready to forge peaceful and close links with that entity, to strengthen it eco- nomically and to help protect its indepen- dence. The belligerent Arab neighbors op- pose such concepts. Syria has coveted parts of Jordan, aiming (as in 1970) to absorb it and in the process elimi- nate Israel and fulfill its dream of a great Syria! That goal has not been JIMMY CARTER -411i111 ■ - The key to independent survival is self- reliance. Israel must have defensible geo- graphic borders and the means to defend them alone. There is one force it obviously could not face by itself— Russia. Survival of a free world, in which Russia has swept down, by land, to the African Continent, is hard to accept as a probability. Israel's geo-political deliberations prob- ably exclude, in the foreseeable future, a direct Russian attack on it. Other military probabilities are analyzed as manageable from an Israeli survival viewpoint. It may seem unreal, but the danger to Israel's security comes from another source. It we read correctly the signs emanating from Washington, Carter, in case of re-election, would resume the "brutal pressure" of Camp David (so aptly described by the Washington correspon- dent of the Tel Aviv daily, Haaretz) — aim- ing at the creation of a PLO state in Judea and Samaria. Israeli sacrifices and internal ten- sions will mount in direct proportion to U.S. pressures. At a certain point, the people of Israel, the one realiable solid ally of the West on the Asiatic mainland, faced with a critical choice between survival as a defenseless minority or independence, may choose to go it alone. Descreetly (this being an election year), the Carter Administration is pursuing a single-minded policy which would turn the Hebrew nation into an emasculated, Mid- dle Eastern minority community. The ceremonial references to "secure borders," the "existence of Israel" cannot be taken seriously. They will not survive even a covert campaign in the U.S. that will link the lowering standards of living in the U.S. (because of an Arab oil embargo), or physi- cal dangers to U.S. troops caused by U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel's security. Once the political year of 1980 is over, the "brutal approach" once applied by Car- ter on Menahem Begin (at Camp David) will be reborn. One can only hope that, this time, it will fail and Israel will hold stead- fast. But in the process, Israel probably will find itself alone, vulnerable and weakened. Weakness invites aggression, and any armed conflict between Israel and • its neighbors will be costly and tragic for all. What is disheartening about the Car- ter "Palestine Doctrine" is that it is (like John Connally's and George Ball's concepts of the Middle East) founded on the illusion that if only Israel would cease to exist (or at least self-shrink into a "Maronite- Christian-Lebanese" style community) the Middle East will quickly turn into a peaceful oasis in this turbulent world. This simplistic reasoning and solution, wishfully conceived in the minds of "prag- matists," was applied to other parts of the world, with disastrous results. Critical avoidance of facing the region's vulnerability — its inherent ethnic tur- moil, its enormous wealth, and its obvious appeal to imperial interests of all colors — borders on -the catastrophic. Sadly, the West, the champion of humane and free societies of our times, must rely for its bas- tions, its pillars for defense of the area, on anachronistic and artifically conceived states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as real and secure as the Fate Morgana that abound in the Arabian Desert. Neither Islam nor Pan Arabism are the cohesive forces of the future. The Middle East is emerging out of its Middle Ages, to be rocked and torn by its next era — Nationalism, combined with socio- economic upheavals. Within that larger context, there is a smaller, regional problem — the Arabs of Palestine. Those Arabs who con- sider themselves as of a new Palesti- nian nationality may or may not sur- vive as such under present scenarios. The Jews of Palestine, today's Israelis, have offered repeatedly to live alongside a Palestinian-Arab state (Jordan) in peace and friendship. If the Palestinian Arabs are serious about declaring themselves a national entity, independent, prosperous and secure, their natural ally is Israel. The chance for an independent existence can be found in mutual respect, achieved in face-to-face comprehensive negotiations between the two peoples who live in Pales- tine, on both sides of Jordan. The Palestinian Arabs will have to ac- cept their population's dislocation, the same as the 800,000 Jews from the Arab countries have accepted theirs. More than half of the Hebrew nation, back home in Israel, come from Arab lands. Exchanges of populations took place all over the globe. Millions of Hindus and Mos- lems on the Indian sub-continent have reconciled to their population exchanges. So did Greeks and Turks, Poles and Ger- mans, and others throughout recent his- tory. Today's deep antagonism between the two people will not be solved by a "Carter Doctrine" that will emasculate the Hebrew state or expose a Palestinian-Arab nationalism to de- gredation by their Syrian or Iraqi "brothers," or subjugation by the im- perial interests of the Soviets. It is for a much different "comprehen- sive" solution to the Palestinian issue than the Carter "Palestinian Doctrine" is offer- ing, that the West should be striving for in the land between the great desert and the Eastern Mediterranean.