Israel's National Security: the
Psychological Dimension - Issues Of Palestinian State
25 Feb 2012By Alon Ben-Meir
No one should fault the Israelis for their
preoccupation with national security. Indeed, the
Jewish historical experience speaks for itself:
centuries of persecution, expulsion, anti-Semitism and
segregation culminating with the Holocaust and
followed by incessant, violent confrontations with
Arab states and the Palestinians. Such things have
created a major psychological barrier that places
national security concerns at the front and center of
Israel's domestic and foreign policy. For this
reason, any agreement on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict must take into full account Israel's
legitimate national security concerns, which are
deeply embedded in the mind and soul of every Israeli.
Regardless of how exaggerated Israel's sense of
vulnerability may seem to its detractors, the
Palestinians cannot afford to dismiss Israel's
concerns and hope to strike a peace agreement.
Although the Israelis and the Palestinians differ
about the kind of measures needed to alleviate
Israel's security concerns, only if the Palestinians
appreciate the psychological underpinnings behind
Israel's national security and agree on the security
measures needed will both sides reach an enduring
peace.
But Israel's national security strategy in the current
technological environment (one with sustained,
exponential growth in the social and economic
connectedness on the world stage) must be
recalibrated. Instead of reaching out and
demonstrating its willingness to achieve an equitable
peace, Israel is becoming a garrison state, building
fences and walls, isolating itself not only from its
neighbors but also from the international community.
Surely there will always be risks involved in making
territorial and political concessions but as long as
such risks are calculated and can be mitigated should
they come to pass, seeking absolute security becomes a
liability as it offers no room for the concessions
necessary to make peace. That said, there are many
voices in Israel that rightfully argue that given the
continuing antagonism and hatred toward Israel by
extremists groups like Hamas and states like Iran,
Israel cannot settle on a peace agreement at face
value. For this reason, whereas real peace provides
Israel the ultimate security it seeks other security
measures as a part of any peace agreement that must be
in place not only to guarantee such peace but also
further enhance it over time and make it irreversible.
Borders and National Security
Israel has legitimate national security concerns that
can be satisfied only through multiple security
measures. Unfortunately, those Israelis supporting the
notion of a "Greater Israel" often promote territorial
ambition in the guise of enhancing Israel's security.
Yet the Israeli's national and personal security can
never, and will never, be ensured by obtaining more
land to establish so-called "defensible borders."
After all, the land between the Jordan River and the
Mediterranean Sea hardly exceeds 42 miles, a short
distance by any standards. Territorial depth will not
guarantee Israel's security, especially in the age of
rockets and missiles but strategic depth can. Other
than the annexation of larger chunks of territory in
the West Bank, the only way to effectively protect
Israel's security is through a lasting peace agreement
made possible by a genuine, effective security regime
and cooperation alongside an equitable
"land-for-peace" formula. Such a formula must be based
on Israel retaining the major settlement blocs along
the "Green Line" while the Palestinians establish
their own state on historic Palestine consisting of
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Every American administration since President Carter
has supported the idea that the 1967 borders provide
the baseline for negotiations. In every negotiation
between Israel and the Palestinians since the Oslo
Accords in 1993, each side has agreed to the same
principle: a land swap to accommodate the Palestinians
for the land on which Israel's three major settlement
blocs are situated. Indeed, every Israeli government,
regardless of its political leanings has, and will
continue, to insist on incorporating these blocs of
settlements into Israel-proper under any peace
agreement. For most Palestinians and Israelis, this
formulation has become a given. There will be other
territorial disputes in connection with the Ariel
settlement, for example, which is located deep in the
West Bank, and Silwan near Jerusalem. But both sides
know that any agreement would entail a land swap,
albeit they will argue about the quality, contiguity
and equivalence of the land to be swapped. That said,
there is no question that these and many other, even
more intractable issues, including the continuance of
Israelis living in Palestinian territories, can be
resolved if Israel's national security concerns are
satisfied and both parties are genuinely committed to
peace.
However modified the borders will be to accommodate
both sides, the contours of the final borders will not
substantially enhance or severely undermine Israel's
national security. The annexation of more lands two or
three kilometers deep into the West Bank will make
little difference from a security perspective. A
mutually acceptable land swap, required because of
demographic necessity, where more than 70 percent of
the settlers reside along the 1967 borders is one
thing. To go beyond that is a simple land grab in the
guise of national security. What those who promote the
notion of a "Greater Israel" have in mind is to
surround the Palestinians from the east, west, north
and south, which theoretically enhances Israel's
security while isolating the Palestinians completely
and denying them contiguity. This would not only be
rejected off-hand by the Palestinians, but would also
deny Israel even a semblance of real peace with
security. This is the imperative that both sides must
recognize and thereby must carefully consider the real
security measures needed that can satisfy Israel's
requirements without humiliating the Palestinians.
Israel's ultimate national security requirements rest
on seven pillars over which every politically,
non-biased Israeli defense and security expert agreed
upon. Israel's national defense institutions and think
tanks, along with current and future American
administrations, should begin to articulate these
requirements to demonstrate that Israel's genuine
national security cannot be met by a mere annexation
of more swaths of land in the West Bank. Indeed,
Israel's national security must rest, first and
foremost, with peace augmented by other measures to
alleviate Israel's long-term security concerns.
First Pillar: Maintaining Credible
Deterrence
Since there is – and will continue to be for the
foreseeable future – a lingering distrust between the
two sides, Israel must maintain a credible military
deterrence that will make it abundantly clear to all
those who now or in the future harbor ill intent
against Israel and pose a real threat to Israel's
existence that they will suffer utter devastation
should they attempt to actualize their threats.
Israel's enemies should know that aiming for Israel's
destruction will bring about their own destruction
first. Simply put, Israel will not die alone; the
"Never Again" mindset (in reference to the Holocaust)
should be taken very seriously by Israel's
adversaries, lest they are determined to commit
national suicide.
In this regard, Israel and the United States can make
sure, as they have in the past, that no single country
or combination of states can overwhelm Israel
militarily, backed with America's continued guarantee
for Israel's national security. As such, no Arab or
Persian nation or other terror group would dare
challenge Israel militarily. That is why any agreement
must ensure that Israel's qualitative military edge is
maintained, as well as its right to defend its
citizens from unprovoked attacks of terrorism and war.
From a psychological perspective, preserving a
military edge will give Israel the sense of comfort it
needs, which has proven to be decisive in the past and
has certainly inhibited Israel's enemies, be they
groups or states, from challenging Israel militarily.
Second Pillar: An International
Peacekeeping Force
The alleviation of Israel's concerns over the
smuggling of weapons and the infiltration of
terrorists from the Jordan Valley cannot be achieved
by maintaining Israeli residual forces along the
Jordan River as Israel has been demanding. Israel's
insistence on maintaining such force does not foster
trust and increases resentment as for many
Palestinians it will be tantamount to continued
occupation. Instead, an international peacekeeping
force (perhaps with symbolic Israeli and Palestinian
participation) will have to be stationed along the
Jordan River. The force should be assembled from
specific countries that have a vested interest in
maintaining peace, including Arab states such as
Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, EU nations like
Britain, France and Germany, all the while including
the Israelis and Palestinians and operating under the
command of the United States. The Palestinians have
agreed to the stationing of such an international
peacekeeping force and they, as I understand, may well
agree to include a small Israeli contingency as a part
of the international force.
Such a robust force should be empowered by the United
Nations Security Council to act as it sees fit to
maintain calm, foster close relations with all
neighboring states and of course prevent the smuggling
of weapons and the infiltration of terrorists. To
ensure durability and cultivate confidence such a
force cannot be removed without an explicit UNSC
resolution where the US enjoys a veto power. Here too,
although Israel as a matter of principle does not
place any of its national security concerns in the
hands of other parties, the participation of small
units of the Israeli army with the international force
will alleviate some of these concerns, which would
also help engender long-term confidence between
Israelis and Palestinians.
Third Pillar: A Demilitarized
Palestinian State
The newly-established Palestinian state must be
demilitarized, with its security assured by the same
peacekeeping forces. The Palestinians should accept
the fact that they will never be in a position to
challenge Israel militarily. Moreover, no country,
including Israel, will ever threaten a Palestinian
state that lives in peace and harmony with its
neighbors. Peace between the Israelis and the
Palestinians will not be based on military equation.
Any Palestinian military buildup will run contrary to
the spirit of peace while providing the Palestinians
no decisive advantage under any scenario of armed
conflict with Israel. There are several countries that
do not have any military forces including Costa Rica,
Samoa, Grenada, and the Solomon Islands.
The idea here is to lessen Israel's national security
concerns in order to allow it to make important
political and territorial concessions to the
Palestinians. That is, the Palestinians can
increasingly benefit as long as Israel feels
increasingly more secure. The past three years have
demonstrated this fact as the security collaboration
between Israel and the Palestinian authority in the
West Bank clearly benefited both sides. For this
reason, instead of wasting hundreds of millions (if
not billions) of dollars on military hardware,
presumably to boost its national pride, future
Palestinian governments should respond to the yearning
of the people by investing in economic development,
education, health care, infrastructure and democratic
institutions that will enable them to take pride in
their achievements. This is what the Arab Spring is
all about and this is what the Arab youth demands from
their governments throughout the Arab world. The
Palestinian people are no exception.
Fourth Pillar: Development of
Bilateral Relations—People to People
The uprisings of the Arab Spring of 2011 ushered in a
new chapter of empowerment for the citizenry of the
Arab world. With the masses increasingly sharing
their voice and having it heard, people-to-people
dialogue, which seeks to counter and overcome the
mistrust and animosity on both sides, must be
employed. As the Arab masses seek their independence
from the oppressive rule of despots, Palestinians too
must eventually obtain their voice and their
independence. As the Arab states begin to succeed in
meeting the needs of their people, they will again
return to their concern for the Palestinian plight,
only this time armed with the legitimate support of
the millions of Arabs who have taken to the streets
demanding justice.
Israel's security as a Jewish and democratic state is
inextricably linked to its ability to forge the kind
of people-to-people relations that can develop a
foundation for peace in the region rather than even
greater, inflamed conflict. To be sure, one of the
principle requirements to mitigate the psychological
security hang-ups inherent within the Israeli's
experience is the expansion of the day-to-day
cooperation and collaboration between the two sides.
Indeed, trust cannot be established by agreements. It
must be nurtured over a long period of time when each
side lives up to the promises and commitments they
make. This is particularly important when trust hardly
existed before and when it has been betrayed time and
time again. For this reason, increasing trade and
tourism between the two sides is fundamental to the
development of trust and the fostering of mutually
beneficial relations. It is those kinds of day-to-day
exchanges of people and commodities that would reveal
and enhance the humanity of both sides, especially
since coexistence is inadvertent under any
circumstances.
Fifth Pillar: A Comprehensive Peace
All security measures, however elaborate and
sophisticated, cannot guarantee Israel's national
security unless they are accompanied by a peace
agreement. For this reason, every effort must first
focus on achieving a peace agreement negotiated to
accommodate Israel's legitimate national security and
demographic requirements while providing the
Palestinians the right to live freely on a contiguous
land mass in their own independent state alongside
Israel with dignity. In the final analysis, only a
genuine peace that meets the aspirations of both
peoples and fosters the acceptance of one another as
partners and neighbors will endure and offer Israel
the real security it seeks.
In this regard, the Arab Peace Initiative, which calls
for normalized relations between Israel and all
members of the Arab League and the Organization of
Islamic Conference upon the establishment of an
end-of-conflict agreement with a Palestinian state,
provides a historic opportunity to ensure Israel's
future through an agreed resolution of the core issues
at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Sixth Pillar: Maintaining Full
Security Cooperation and Collaboration
By virtue of the Israeli's and the Palestinian's past
experiences, full security cooperation between the two
sides in advance of, and subsequent to, any peace
agreement remains a central prerequisite. To prevent
the West Bank from becoming a launching ground for
rockets, as was the case following the Israeli
unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000
and from Gaza in 2005, future Israeli withdrawal from
the West Bank must be implemented in full coordination
with the Palestinian security forces. Progress made
between Israel and the Palestinian Authority under the
sponsorship of the United States Security Coordinator,
with assistance from Jordan, Egypt and the European
Union indicates that effective security cooperation is
possible, even in an atmosphere of tension.
The success of this cooperation was built on the
Palestinian Authority's ability to show tremendous
professionalism and commitment, as well as Israel's
removing roadblocks and expanding their zones of
operation as they proved their ability to succeed.
Even if the current cooperation breaks down, future
cooperation will need to be prerequisite to the
implementation of any peace agreement. Such ironclad
security mechanisms have been, and will always be,
Israel's chief concern. To encourage further Israeli
withdrawal from Area B, which is partly controlled by
Israel and Area C which is under Israel's complete
control, the Palestinians must fully adhere to any and
all security arrangements while Israel engages in a
phased withdrawal within a mutually agreed upon
timeframe.
Seventh Pillar: A Regional Security
Umbrella
Once a peace agreement is achieved and all security
measures are in place, the United States could offer a
security umbrella, along the lines of what Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton proposed in June of 2009,
under which all nations in the region at peace with
Israel (and with each other) could belong. Such a
regional security umbrella could also serve as a major
deterrence against Iran to prevent it from
intimidating or threatening any state in the area.
However, such an arrangement could only be implemented
following the establishment of an end-of-conflict
agreement based on the two-state solution as outlined
by the Arab Peace Initiative. In fact, the Arab Peace
Initiative could serve as an important precedent of
normalization that could lead to the kind of regional
security umbrella that would strengthen US and Israeli
relations with the Arab world while advancing their
shared interests of deterring Iran from obtaining
and/or deploying nuclear weaponry through terrorist
proxies.
The issues of borders and security are deeply
interconnected. A borders agreement is not possible
without the kind of ironclad security guarantees
Israel will need to redeploy its forces with
confidence. Similarly an agreement on security
arrangements is impossible as long as the territorial
dispute regarding the adjustment to the 1967 Green
Line are formulated, agreed upon, and implemented.
However, despite the considerable challenges to such
an agreement, the ideas (as outlined above) provide
an achievable solution to these contentious issues
that respect Palestinian aspirations for a state with
territorial integrity while meeting Israel's short and
long-term legitimate national security imperatives.
A noted journalist and author, Dr. Alon Ben-Meir
is professor of international relations and Middle
East studies at the Center for Global Affairs at New
York University. Ben-Meir holds a masters degree in
philosophy and a doctorate in international relations
from Oxford University.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments