ISIS
Israel's Bottom Line
After everything has been said, it is the Jewish
state's military muscle that must be weighed
in the balance of Middle East power.
HELEN DAVIS
Foreign Correspondent
J
erusalem —
Regardless of what
else passed between
President Bush and Israeli
Prime Minister Yitzhak
Shamir this week, it is very
likely that the U.S. chief of
state imparted this message:
Once the crisis in the Gulf
is resolved, Jerusalem will
come under intense interna-
tional pressure, perhaps
supported by Washington, to
evacuate the occupied West
Bank and Gaza Strip.
There is considerable
doubt, however, whether the
most hard- line, right-wing
administration in the 42-
year history of the Jewish
state will be either willing or
able to accommodate the
resolute demands of the
international community to
move over and make way for
a Palestinian homeland.
On a practical level, any
Israeli government —
whatever its political hue —
would be hard-pressed to
simply pack up and return to
the borders it occupied
before the Six Day War of
1967.
True, Israel returned the
Sinai peninsula to Egypt in
exchange for a fully fledged
peace treaty in 1979, but
Egypt is not the PLO and the
vast expanse of the Sinai
Desert was never invested
with the sort of emotion that
is attached to the West
Bank.
Even so, the national
trauma induced by the Sinai
withdrawal — still the sub-
ject of contentious debate in
Israel — will pale into in-
significance alongside a
withdrawal from the West
Bank, with all its intense po-
litical, strategic and re-
ligious implications.
The West Bank is regarded
as part of Eretz Yisrael —
the biblically promised Land
of Israel — and has been set-
tled by some 80,000 Jews,
many of whom are
ideologically committed to
retaining control over every
inch of the territory,
whatever the cost.
30
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1990
Despite everything, Israel is still the Mideast's preeminent military power.
Militant religious Jews
might make up the hard-core
of the West Bank's
"ideological" settlers, but
the majority of the Jewish
settlers are secular, "good-
life" Israelis who have taken
advantage of the financial
incentives offered by suc-
cessive Israeli governments
to "establish facts" in the
West Bank and settle this
particularly volatile piece of
real estate.
Unlike their compatriots
who live in cramped apart-
ments in Jerusalem and Tel
Aviv, both categories of
West Bank settlers have
built comfortable homes and
gardens within commuting
distance of the main in-
dustrial and commercial
centers of Israel.
Both, moreover, are de-
termined to defend their
dreams and their comforts
with all the means at their
disposal.
"We're in a no-win situa-
tion," said one senior Israeli
political source at the
weekend. "If we don't give
up the territories, sooner or
later it will lead to a full-
scale Arab- Israeli war. If we
do give them up, we'll have a
civil war on our hands.
These people are not going to
leave without a fight."
The bottom line is Israel's
enormous military muscle,
which has been assiduously
developed and sustained by
a succession of U.S. ad-
ministrations.
Israel's military doctrine
has always been based on
fighting quick, successful
wars on its own terms
against a coalition of all its
Arab enemies simulta-
neously. There is no ques-
tion in Israeli minds that it
retains that capability.
While Israel cannot begin
to match the Arab world in
terms of manpower or finan-
cial resources, it is confident
that it possesses a level of
technological superiority
that will prove decisive on
the electronic battlefield.
"We don't need to put half
a million men into the field
to confront Iraq," said one
Israeli military source.
"Unlike the Americans, we
are not interested in taking
on the Iraqi army and lib-
erating Kuwait. But, if the
need arises, it should be
clear that we will have the
ability to neutralize Iraq
without weakening our
other fronts."
Israel did indeed confront
the limits of its power in at-
tempting to impose a polit-
ical settlement on Lebanon
during the 1982 invasion,
but on a purely military
level, it has the ability to
wreak havoc on any Arab
state. In the process, it could
also create serious political
problems for the United
States and destroy Washing-
ton's carefully crafted
designs in the region.
Moreover, Israeli officials
are quick to point out, it is a
potential that would be used
without regard to United
States interests if Israel
believed its own vital inter-
ests were at stake — and, as
far as the present Israeli
government is concerned,
continued rule over the West
Bank is a vital national in-
terest.
Israel, they point out, did
not ask for U.S. permission
when it destroyed Iraq's
nuclear reactor at Osirak in
1981, at a time when Wash-
ington was supporting
Baghdad in its war against
Iran. It did not request ap-
proval for the bombing of the
PLO headquarters in Tunis
when the US was conducting
an official dialogue with the
organization. It did not seek
Washington's blessing when
it landed a commando team
in Tunis to assassinate Abu
Jihad, the second-in-
command of the PLO.
President Bush can be in
little doubt that his powerful
regional ally can — without
prior consultation or co-
ordination — embark on
military initiatives which
could have profoundly em-
barrassing, perhaps even
calamitous, consequences for
its superpower ally.
He can also be in little
doubt that the Palestinian
intifada, which this week
entered its fourth year, has
exacted a heavy toll but has
not come close to providing a
credible threat to Israel's ex-
istence.
Far from bringing Israel
closer to the negotiating
table, the net result of the
past three years of inter-
communal strife has been to
radicalize the Jewish ele-
ment in the conflict, with
potentially disastrous con-
sequences for the Palestin-
ians in their uneven
struggle.
United States aid does in-
deed provide a hefty chunk
of Israel's civilian and
military budget, but in the
new world of hardball
politics, Mr. Shamir will
have left his host this week
in no doubt that Jerusalem
retains the right of indepen-
dent military action.
An indication of this de-
termination was provided by
Israeli Foreign Minister
David Levy in response to
suggestions that the Gulf
crisis might end without the
destruction of Iraq's military
might.
"Israel," he said, "does not
use the same instruments
and weapons that Saddam
Hussein used against his
people and threatens to use
against us.
"But if anyone thinks that,
through some maneuver in
the name of peace, he will be
able to continue threatening
with the aim of surprising
The national
trauma induced by
the Sinai
withdrawal . . . will
pale into
insignificance
alongside a
withdrawal from
the West Bank .. .
Israel, he will find Israel
ready, always, with its
might, to destroy his securi-
ty."
Indeed, Israel's leading
Hebrew-language news-
paper, Ha'aretz, reported
that Israel had informed
Washington that it would
feel free to deal with Iraq's
military capability if the
United States does not do so.
Israel can, as it has dem-
onstrated during the four-
month-old Gulf crisis, prove
to be a faithful and reliable
ally of the United States; but
the veiled threat that Mr.
Shamir is believed to have
carried to Washington is
that Israel also holds a po-
tent hand of cards which it
will not hesitate to play if it
is pushed too far in the un-
folding, unpredictable Mid-
dle East drama.
❑