Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. These materials may be under copyright. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the Bentley Historical Library at bentley.ref@umich.edu

January 13, 1989 - Image 1

Resource type:
The Detroit Jewish News, 1989-01-13

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.




JANUARY 13, 1989 / 7 SHEVAT 5749

The Key To Peace: Impose Democracy

Challenging assumptions that an Arab Palestinian entity would present a danger
to Israel, a noted scholar proposes following the model that worked with Japan.


Special to The Jewish News

Confusion about the nature of
democracy has seriously befuddled
the political discussion about Israel
by simplistically reducing it to an
issue of security versus democracy.
The resultant popular assumption is


Page 26

that Likud is hard on security and avoid the choice between democracy
soft on democracy, whereas Labor is and security by deploying democracy
strong on democracy and soft on for the enhancement of its security.
Democracies are notorious for their
security. Both are misconceptions.
In fact, Likud argues that by inability to conduct offensive warfare.
holding on to Judea and Samaria, it While they seem to have little difficul-
will prevent the type of security risks
that threaten the fragility of
democratic institutions; while Labor
holds that by excluding the Arab ty in mobilizing their citizens to de-
population centers from much of fend themselves, voters are reluctant
Jewish Judea and Samaria, it will to have their sons used as fodder for
enhance Israeli internal security. what is seen as the political ambi-
Both positions assume that an Arab tions of their leaders. Even Roosevelt
Palestinian political entity will be budged the American people out of
detrimental to Israeli security in- their noninterference policy in the
terests; the only question is whether early days of the Second World War
some form of Arab autonomy will be only when they felt their security
an improvement or a deterioriation of threatened.
Since World War II, no two demo-
the status quo.
There is an alternative: Israel can cracies have engaged in major war-


fare. Not that there have not been fre-
quent wars, but they have all been
between two authoritarian/
totalitarian regimes or between a
democracy and a nondemocratic state.
For a democracy to conduct an offen-
sive war, even against an authori-
tarian regime, it frequently has to
resort to news blackouts as did Bri-
tain in the Falkland Islands and
America in Granada.
The war between Britain and
Argentina over the Falkland Islands
is an excellent case in point. The war
took place precisely while Argentina
was under a military dictatorship.
Since Argentinians have regained a
say in their political destiny, talk of
war has dissipated. In the post-World
War II world, democracies have all

Continued on Page 18

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan