Symposium: Road Map to What?

  Is the new Mid-East "Road Map" really a map toward peace? Some critics allege that the plan is far from that, arguing that the drafters of the "Road Map" did not learn much from the failure of Oslo. Some observers even contend that the "Road Map" is intrinsically a threat to Israel. Are these charges legitimate? If they are, what alternatives do we have? If there is no "Road Map" at all, then how is it that peace will ever be achieved? To discuss these and other questions with Frontpage Symposium today, we are joined by: Binyamin Elon, an Israeli Cabinet Minister; Norman Spector, a former Chief of Staff to former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, former Publisher of the Jerusalem Post and former Ambassador of Canada to Israel. He is currently a columnist for The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir; and Stephen Plaut, a professor at the University of Haifa and the author of The Scout (Gefen Publishing House).

Interlocutor: Gentlemen, welcome to Frontpage Symposium. Let's begin with a general question. Is the "Road Map" a map to peace or is it -- as some are saying -- actually a threat to Israel's security?

Plaut: The "Road Map" will fail because it is based on a total misunderstanding of the Middle East conflict and because it does not even begin to address the true underlying causes of that war. The true underlying cause of the Middle East War is Arab aggression and imperialism, Arab refusal to accept Israeli existence in ANY set of borders whatsoever. It is the Arab view that ALL land controlled by Israel ANYWHERE, including Tel Aviv and Haifa, represents illegal "occupation" that must be corrected through exterminating Israel and its population.

All that the Road Map will accomplish will be to encourage Arab irredentism and to discourage any Arab willingness for compromise. It rewards decades of Arab aggression and years of Palestinian atrocities. It hands the Palestinians payoffs for a decade of post-Oslo violations of every single punctuation mark in every single agreement to which the PLO agreed. It rewards Palestinian savagery and encourages more of it. It forces Israel to relinquish lands and withdraw to indefensible borders. At their narrowest they will be as wide as the length of the San Francisco Bay Bridge with its on-ramps.

These are borders that invite yet further Arab aggression. When Israel held no "occupied territories" and ruled no Palestinians, the Arabs repeatedly attacked Israel and attempted to annihilate it and its population, including in 1967. Why should anyone believe the Arabs would behave differently now if the world recreates the situation that existed before 1967?

Spector: I don't know whether the Road Map is a threat to Israel's security. Prime Minister Sharon, who supports a Palestinian state, said in Aqaba that self-government could actually enhance the security of Israelis. And statehood has become an explicit element of US policy under President Bush-a lesson happily learned from the failed Oslo process.

I think, but am not sure, however, whether a more important lesson has been learned; viz., that the root of the Mideast conflict is the unwillingness of Israel's neighbours to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the region. Though President Bush made reference to a Jewish state at Aqaba, it's not clear yet at what stage of the process Palestinians will have to drop the demand for refugees and their descendants to have the right to live in Israel. It's also not clear yet whether the US will be uncompromising on sidelining Yasser Arafat , dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and ending incitement. What is already clear, is that the other members of the Quartet are unlikely to be, and would be perfectly comfortable with the idea of imposing a terrorist harbouring state on Israel's borders.

Elon: Surely I agree with Professor Plaut. However, in the final analysis, the issue is not who gains from the plan and who pays the price, but rather, will the problem be solved, and will we be reaching the end of the conflict.

The road map does not touch the real problems at all. It does not solve the issue of the refugees, not those in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and not those who are scattered around the world. It gives the Palestinians again the illusion called: "a Palestinian State". Why is it an illusion? - Since it would be a pseudo-state, without economic viability and real sovereignty.

Rather than solving the Palestinian problem, this "State" will make things worse: On one side of the border a modern state with a developed economy (Israel), and on the other side, a poor protectorate, unable to provide for its citizens, who will remain bitter and frustrated.

This is the danger: Any plan leading to an independent Palestinian State west of the Jordan river would only service those who are interested in perpetuating the conflict. The only results of such a plan would be the granting of a far wider and more dangerous basis for terror threats on Israel and for increased attempts to destroy it.

Plaut: I think that the matter has to be stated in clearer language. The Arabs control 22 states and territory larger than the continental US stretching from the Atlas mountains to Central Asia. The framers of the "Road Map" think that if the Arabs are allowed to set up a 23rd state inside the "occupied territories" that are themselves the size of Queens, this will make a significant impact on the behavior of Arab Islamofascism and the aggression of the Arab states. Without Queens, war, and with Queens, peace? Come on!

Let us stop the doubletalk. There is one and only one use the Arabs have for any "Palestinian state" and that is to serve as a launch pad to attack and destroy Israel. The raison d'etre of ANY Palestinian state will be war and terror.

Economic viability is NOT the issue. Singapore and Hong Kong are economically viable, although any Palestinian state will be nothing more than a Third World kleptocracy.

The solution is DeNazification. The US has begun this in Iraq. Let it follow its own logic with the rest of the Arab fascist world. No Palestinian political autonomy without DeNazification.

Spector: Minister Elon's religiously-based rejectionist ideology is the mirror image of forces in the Arab world that Professor Plaut describes so well. Oslo, a step-by-step process, failed in part because it was hostage to such deeply-held beliefs-a lesson not learned by the authors of the Road Map.

The bold stroke for President Bush would be to invite Palestinian and Israeli leaders, along with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak--to Jerusalem. They should enter the ancient walled city through the Damascus Gate, proceed along the Villa Dolorosa and stop at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for prayers, before visiting Judaism's holiest site, the Wailing Wall. There, they would pray together and perhaps place a note, as is tradition, between the cracks of the ancient stones.

The leaders should next proceed to the mosques atop Haram al-Sharif/the Temple Mount for additional prayers. Israeli and Palestinian leaders should be asked to sign a declaration recognizing the other people's historical link to the site. The entire ceremony should be televised internationally, including in Hebrew, Farsi and in Arabic throughout the Mideast and Arabian Gulf.

Next, the leaders should travel northward to Tzippori in the Galilee. There, the Sanhedrin -- the supreme Jewish body in Roman Palestine -- sat for a few years after the destruction of the second temple. It was then called Sepphoris.

At the end of the 16th century, notwithstanding Israel's founding myth that Zionism was the return of a people without a land to a land without a people, it was reborn as the Arab village of Saffuriyya; by 1947, it was home to more than 4,000 people. Through the trees, you can still see its ruins. On the next hilltop, stand the white concrete houses of Tzippori, an Israeli moshav (co -- operative settlement) that is today home to many American immigrants.

There could be no more fitting location for the leaders to sign a joint declaration in support of two states-one for the Jewish people and one for the Palestinian-within which each could exercise its right to national self-determination. Then, true negotiations over the border between Israel and Palestine could begin. And the United States would have served a vital lesson in tolerance and mutual accommodation to both its friends and enemies in the region.

Elon: I don't know what kind of movie Mr. Spector is trying to concoct here. It is very romantic and can probably compete with the best that Hollywood can offer, but it is also extremely superficial. Mr. Spector follows the mistake of many people with goodwill, who think that what we have here is some trivial conflict between two peoples. He believes that once they decide to kiss and make up, years of conflict will miraculously evaporate. These well meaning people are forgetting the main, basic issues.

The basic question is simple: Has the Arab World accepted the existence of Israel as a Jewish State?

What we have here is a historical drama of a people that has returned to its land after many hundreds of years and finds it, on one hand, sparsely populated and undeveloped, and on the other hand, in the middle of an Islamic-Arab world. The Arabs relinquished nothing, since they never had sovereignty in this region to begin with. All they had to do was to accept that the Jews will have a state on the miniscule area Israel controls today, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, an area which is less than half of "Palestine" which the League of Nations allocated as a homeland for the Jewish people (which included today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). This acceptance never happened, thus the Palestinian problem has become a "weapon" in this struggle.

This is why the refugees of '48 were never resettled, rehabilitated or made citizens of any country. During the same period, a larger number of Jewish refugees fled from the Arab states to Israel. These refugees had only one address - Israel - which rehabilitated them and accepted them as citizens. Arab refugees had many addresses - twenty Arab states - but they were never fully accepted by any of them, thus the results, as everyone knows, is the fourth generation of the 'Palestinian refugees problem'. These refugees are hostages, they are tools for Israel's de-legitimacy. Until this issue is faced, until a strong international campaign for immediate and full rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees begins - no peace will arrive to the Middle East, no matter how touching and exciting the ceremonies will be.

Spector: I agree with much of what Minister Elon says, but would simply add that he and his ilk are the other half of the problem.

Intelocutor: One second Mr. Spector, before we move on. When you say that Mr. Elon and "his ilk" are the other "half of the problem" it implies that there is a problem that has two equal halves and that both are equally responsible. Are you implying that this is a conflict of moral equivalency where both sides are equally to blame?

Spector: I would put it this way:

The root of the Mideast conflict is the non-acceptance of the legitimacy of a Jewish state, in whatever borders, in the region. The solution to the Mideast conflict is, as it was in 1947 when the UN adopted Resolution 181, partition of the land between the river and the sea into two states, with an economic union. President Bush is the first US president since Harry Truman to champion that solution publicly and aggressively, and both Israel and the Palestinian authority "officially" accept his vision TODAY. ("Officially" because there are huge disclaimers, caveats and asterisks on the positions of both sides; TODAY, because that has not always been the case since 1947, when Israel alone did accept the partition plan.)

Still, not all of their people accept President Bush's vision-some for religious, some for political/nationalistic reasons. Ideologically, one can identify rejectionists on one side who are the equivalent of those on the other-though in most cases I would not make the same argument about their tactics, nor about the degree of responsibility for the conflict. But it's quite clear from the e-mail exchange so far that Minister Elon does not accept President Bush's vision as a solution. To that extent, he and others of his ilk are the other half of the problem-and it would be dishonest to conduct this exchange as if Palestinians bore 100% of the blame.

Plaut: Spector is living in a Peres-like fantasy world, where people just have to get together and male-bond and share a beer or two and then there is peace. Ten years of Oslo atrocities have not enlightened him about such nonsense and about the delusion called the "two-state solution". He is still trying to solve the conflict with wishful thinking and the Jimminy Cricket method = just wish harder on your wishing star and you will have peace.

The simple fact of the matter is that when Arabs speak about a "Two-State Solution" or "Two States for Two Peoples', the two "peoples" that they have in mind are the Jordanian and Palestinian "peoples", neither of whom is in fact a "people".

The solution to the Mideast conflict is not in any "Two-State Solution" but in a "23 State Solution", the 22 existing Arab states and one Jewish state.

To put it another way, the Road Map will fail because the Arab fascists and Islamist terrorists will reject any solution that does not involve the annihilation of Israel. That being the case, there is only one solution to the conflict, the only one that has not been attempted yet. That is the Victory Solution, a complete and unambiguous military victory by Israel over its tormentors, followed by a decades long program of DeNazification.

Elon: Mr. Spector agrees that the root of the problem is the non-acceptance by the Arabs of a Jewish State in the Middle East. His solution is to bring about acceptance by partition. My questions are: How will partition solve the problem? Will a smaller Jewish State be more legitimate? Will the constant and intolerable friction along the "Green Line" weaken the will to destroy the State of Israel or rather, re-enforce it?

Any solution must be based on the full acceptance of the existence of Israel as a Jewish State. Not a partial acceptance but a full one. This is a basic assumption.

Additionally, and unrelated to the question of Israel's legitimacy, there is a Palestinian problem which has to be solved. It makes no sense to try and solve it at the expense of Israel, specifically in the small area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea that cannot be logically divided. We must exit this quagmire and use a larger perspective. We need to view the whole Middle East; the Arab Nation and the Jewish Nation. At the least, we have to look at Mandatory Palestine, which originally included both sides of the Jordan River as a homeland for the Jewish people. The Jews are much more connected to the western part of this area. On the eastern part there is already a sovereign Arab state, with a Palestinian majority. There is nothing fairer, simpler, more logical or more sustainable than to set the border along the line of the Jordan River.

In order to finish the conflict in the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, we need not only to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, but also to rehabilitate the refugees. This will serve as a tool for neutralizing the bomb that threatens the peace in this region and at the same time will fulfill a major humanitarian commitment. The status of the rest of the Palestinians west of the Jordan River will be determined by negotiating with the Kingdom of Jordan, after the latter restores the citizenship it denied them in 1988.

Indeed, two states for two peoples is a bold and logical vision and we accept it - but only when it refers to two viable states. In Judea, Samaria and Gaza one can only create, at best, a dummy state, small and fractured, with a founding ethos of terror and vengeance. This is not a state - this is a time bomb. It will never have economic independence, it will not give pride to its citizens, nor will it solve the problem of millions of Palestinians in their Diaspora - everyone will agree to that. Therefore, two states for two people is the solution, but only on both sides of the Jordan River.

Spector: The record will show that I've been very critical of Peres in my recent book, Chronicle of a War Foretold: How Mideast Peace Became America's Fight. Rabin and Barak, on the other hand-now joined by Sharon-argued that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river would be in Israel's national interest and enhance its security.

Elon and Plaut do not share that view; as Israelis, they have a say at the ballot box and can try to persuade a majority of their countrymen. But the Bush train has left the station on the way to a two state solution, with the support of the elected government of Israel. Those interested in a true peace should be making every effort to avoid the mistakes of the past.

This means ending incitement and ensuring full recognition by the Arabs of the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Mideast; nullification of the demand that Palestinian refugees and millions of their descendants have the right to live in Israel; and dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure, including disarmament and arrest of terrorists. And it means not leaving the most difficult issues to the end, but demanding reciprocal concessions along the way as Israel is asked to make tangible concessions of land.

Interlocutor: Gentlemen, let's just get to the heart of the problem: peace is next to impossible because the Arabs will never be able to sleep peacefully at night as long as a Jewish state is in their midst. It is simply too painful a reminder to them of the failure of Arab and Islamic civilization -- and the success of Jewish civilization.

Let's be serious here: do we really believe that Middle Eastern Arabs spend such an inordinate amount of their daily life hating a nation that takes up 1% of land in the Middle East because of something to do with the Palestinians?

The main issue here is that if you take all the Jews out of Israel right now, take everything away from them, and throw them into an African desert, within two decades you will find skyscrapers, highways, a democratic parliament, theatres, shopping centres, art galleries and, overall, a modern industrial society.

For the Arabs to stop hating Jews and wishing for their annihilation, means that they would first have to reconcile themselves with the reality that their culture has yet to produce one prosperous, functional and democratic society. Yet right in their midst they see a people who have accomplished exactly that - in a tiny piece of land that was a desert fifty years ago. Yes, the Jews have built the most powerful economy and the only industrial and democratic nation in the entire Middle East.

So the truth of the matter: the Arabs cannot co-exist with Israel without a constant sense of humiliation and embarrassment, which explains their desire to annihilate the Jewish state. So if a Palestinian state is created right next to Israel, let's face it: Arab and Islamic culture will obviously serve as the foundation to the social, political, economic culture of the new society, which means that we are going to find an extenuation of the same problem: like the Arabs, the Palestinians will find themselves living in a medieval society and will, simultaneously, have no choice but to experience the agonizing and excruciating reality of observing the success and bountiful riches of the Israeli state right beside them. Instead of recognizing the pathology in their own culture and religion which creates their backwardness, the citizens of the new Palestinian state will continue to seek a simpler solution: the solution Adolph Hitler figured out more than a half century ago.

There is, therefore, very little hope for a genuine peace. The best peace is simply for Israel to keep itself armed to the hilt and to strike back furiously every time it is hit. Better yet, the ideal would be a joint American-Israeli operation to take the offensive and simply start annihilating Hamas, Hezbollah and all other terrorist groups that seek the extinction of Israel.

I am correct in these observations, right?

Spector: Jamie, which of the two political parties in the United States do you see adopting the policy you recommend? The short answer is: none. And certainly not George W. Bush, or any of the leading Democratic candidates.

Thus, what you are suggesting is an escapist fantasy-and a dangerous one at that. It is dangerous for Israel: As Rabin understood, it is in the Jewish state's interest to resolve the conflict before any of her neighbours acquires nuclear weapons. And it is dangerous for the US, which above all needs friends and allies in the Mideast and Persian Gulf to help defeat its enemies.

While military action is necessary and to be commended, it is not sufficient to resolve what essentially is an ideological struggle within Arab Islam, and between its extremists and the West. That can only come by demonstrating the benefits of coexistence and peace to all peoples in the region. Acceptance of the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state is one important element of a US victory over the perpetrators of 9/11. It will not be easy and may take many years, but not to try is the riskier strategy-for both Israel and the US.

Plaut: Well, Jamie, you are correct in part. It may be bizarre for you to watch me to take on the role of defense attorney for Arab civilization, but let us not forget that Arab society was not always a cesspool of xenophobia, conspiracy paranoia, totalitarianism, and indiscriminate violence.

For hundreds of years the Arab world in particular and the Moslem world in general was the most advanced, tolerant and humanistic civilization on earth. It led the world in science and architecture and poetry. It placed Christendom to shame through its literary, artistic and legal accomplishments. When even the Kings and aristocrats in Christian Europe were by and large superstitious illiterates, the Islamic world was the center of scholarship, and multicultural tolerance unknown elsewhere on the planet. Much of ancient Greek civilization survived and was "inherited" by Christian Europe by way of Arab translations and scholarship.

The early scholars of Oxford and the Sorbonne came to Moslem Spain and other Arab countries to learn the European classics. Unfortunately, that picture of advanced civilization has been kidnapped and usurped by the Jihadists, the Islamofascists, with their the genocidal hatred of Jews and the rantings against Christian "Crusaders", by intolerance, fanaticism and endless violence. But the savagery is something that developed in the twentieth century and does not characterize all of historic Arab civilization, certainly not all of Arab culture since the advent of Islam. Hence let us not dismiss the possibility that at some point in the future, civilization will defeat barbarism even in the Middle East, and Abraham's genes will reassert themselves among the children of Ishmael.

While envy of Israel's economic and political achievements and prosperity may play some role in Arab aggression and xenophobia, it is doubtful that they would be replaced with tolerance if Israel were simply poor and underdeveloped.

As for strategic choices for Israel, the one thing Israel has not really attempted since the outbreak of Palestinian savagery is the Victory Option, achieving peace through unambiguous overwhelming victory. It is worth a try.

Elon: Jamie, what you are actually saying is that Israel has to continue living by its sword forever. Your statements are hard to refute, especially since the harsh reality keeps proving them true again and again. However, life by the sword can take two forms: The first form is that of constant fighting. It costs a horrible price of life, inhibiting normalcy and growth. This is the course Israel has taken in the last couple of years. Fearing a decisive victory and chasing an illusive peace has brought about a constant conflict. The second form is that of deterrence. When a country is strong, and everyone knows that that it is, there is no point of enemies taking it on. In such case, there is an official state of war, but both sides can live in relative quiet, enjoying growth and development, since no active combat is going on.

My conclusion is that the most important factor for stability in the region is Israel's policy of deterrence. This deterrence has been eroded each and every time Israel has given in to its enemies. We can be generous, but not weak or over conciliatory. This should be a basic principle in any plan meant to solve the complex situation in the Middle East.

We are still left with the problem of the Arab population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, a hostile population in a state of constant friction with the citizens of Israel. For this purpose I have offered a comprehensive peace plan based on three key principles. The first key is the eradication of evil by the dissolution of the destructive Palestinian Authority and the uprooting of the Palestinian terror infrastructure. This will be combined with the dismantling of refugee camps and the rehabilitation of the refugees in the Arab world, with the assistance of the International Community. The second key is the recognition of Jordan as the Palestinian State, restoring Jordanian citizenship to the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the building of a comprehensive development plan that will rehabilitate Jordan's economy and will strengthen its current government. The third key is the assertion of Israel's sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, granting the Arab residents self-rule, coordinated with their own state - Jordan.

This plan (www.therightroadtopeace.com) implements the abovementioned principle of deterrence as well as the historical justice embedded in Zionism - the return of the Jewish people to its ancient homeland. The plan also provides a humane solution to the problem of the refugees, people who have been held hostage for ages by unabashed Arab politicians who have deprived them of citizenship, dignity and proper living conditions.

Spector: The democratically-elected prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, has abandoned the "Jordan is Palestine" option Minister Elon favours. More recently, he's concluded that there is no military solution to the conflict-what Professor Plaut terms the Victory Option. He has embarked on President Bush's road map, and I wish him Godspeed-as I watch for signs that they and their advisers have drawn the appropriate lessons from the failed Oslo process.

Interlocutor: So gentlemen, tomorrow Bush and Sharon phone you on a conference call and ask you for your advice on what to do next. They want to know what you think their short-term and long-term objectives should be in terms of the "Road Map." What advice do you give?

Spector: Gaza, where the Palestinian security apparatus is essentially intact, should be a test-bed of Prime Minister Abbas' intentions. Now that Israel has withdrawn, the US should pour in massive aid to supplant Hamas' social service network. Pressure should be increased on Saudi Arabia and the EU--particularly on France--to dry up its funding as a terrorist group. Within weeks, the Palestinian Authority should be required to proceed with arrests, the decommissioning of weapons, and the ending of incitement in the mosques. While all this is going on, the US should back the decision of Israeli police to permit Jews to visit the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. Illegal outposts should continue to be dismantled and a settlement freeze instituted in the West Bank.

Plaut: Abu Mazen has ALREADY flunked!

The solution is now to adopt at long last true reciprocity, mutuality and equality. This means that for every incident in which the Palestinians fire a rocket or missile at Jews, set off a bomb, snipe at Israeli soldiers, or otherwise attack Israelis - Israel should build a new Jewish settlement some place in the Land of Israel in the so-called West Bank or Gaza Strip and implement Israeli martial law over the rest of the "Palestinian" territories.

Now that there is supposed to be a ceasefire and true Middle East reciprocity, every single act of savagery and violence by the Palestinians must be met with massive Israeli retaliation, firepower and reprisals. The US and EU must endorse Israel's right to resist Arab aggression and Islamofascism. The United States must insist that the Palestinians from this point on bear a price for each and every act of barbarism they perpetrate. No more games and make-pretend posturings about the Palestinians "really really trying to stop the terror". The US must insist it will not tolerate a situation where the "HUDNA" ceasefire is shorthand for Who Dunnit.

Elon: Despite the energy invested to date by the US administration on the road map, we must stop and rethink. We have to redraw the map of the new Middle East, a Middle East that is not a ticking bomb. To achieve this, we would respectfully advice the US to stop toying with "moderate" Palestinian leaders who openly negotiate with terror, to give Israel a "green light" for a thorough cleanup operation in Gaza, as was successfully done in Judea and Samaria, and to set goals for the rehabilitation of refugees and the stabilization of Jordan as a Palestinian state, in line with the vision of President Bush.

In our opinion, any other plan is simply impractical. A Palestinian State, west of the Jordan River, will completely blow out the process. It will bring about the horrible sights we have seen before, and at the end of a very long, bloody road, we will only come back to the solution that we suggest today.

Interlocutor: Gentlemen, we are out of time. Thank you for joining us today. We will see you again soon.