Israel is often told it must yield some security to achieve peace. A wrong choice could leave it with neither.
Israel has existed for almost 60 years amidst nations, guerrilla forces, and terrorists dedicated to its destruction. As a result, it has become a regional military superpower, ruling millions of Arabs and deterring others. Now it is being told by friend and foe alike that it must yield some of its security to finally achieve peace with its neighbors. The dilemma for Israel is whether tampering with the uncomfortable status quo would leave it with neither peace nor security.
The birth of Israel in 1948, authorized by a United Nations vote the previous year, was met by attacks by the armies and irregular forces of its immediate neighbors. Israeli counterattacks left the new state in control of somewhat more land than had been included in the UN partition plan, but Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Transjordan (later Jordan) occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem. There was no recognition of Israel and guerrilla raids were regularly made from those Arab territiories. A Palestine Liberation Organization was established to regain the lands which now constituted the State of Israel.
An Egyptian act of war, the blockading of Israel's southern waterway in 1967, precipitated the Six Day War of that June, with Jordan and Syria supporting Egypt. Israel's victory brought the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Syrian Golan Heights under its control. When Israel almost immediately announced its willingness to negotiate the return of those territories, its Arab neighbors enunciated a "No negotiation, no recognition, no peace" policy.
President Sadat of Egypt broke ranks with his former allies to negotiate a 1979 treaty with Israel and, although he paid with his life for this initiative within two years to assassins' bullets, his country regained the Sinai and has not resumed hostilities with Israel. A negotiated agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993 has not had comparable success. Suicide bombings, driveby shootings, and other terrorist acts have been met by Israeli checkpoints, raids, and targeted assassinations.
A unilateral Israeli attempt in 2005 to break the long deadlock by evacuating the Gaza Strip has resulted in almost daily rocket and mortar attacks from that area. Shortly afterward, Palestinian legislative elections brought to power the Hamas party, avowedly committed to the replacement of Israel by an Arab state. Hamas fighters overthrew the security forces loyal to Palestinian President Abbas in Gaza last June. The divided Palestinian government now has a West Bank-based President attempting to negotiate for an independent state living alongside Israel and a Gaza-based parliamentary regime holding out for Israel's elimination. Meanwhile, the "cycle of violence" continues.
Against this confusing background, internationally-sponsored negotiations are aimed at the creation of an independent Palestinian state at peace with Israel. Since the negotiations understandably do not include the powerful parties which oppose the existence of Israel, there has been no public explanation of how the projected state would be able to maintain peace with Israel. The Gaza model on a larger scale could leave Israel with less security and no peace.
One wonders how the United States would respond to daily shelling from territories in Mexico controlled by forces dedicated to the recovery of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California from their loss during the 1846 North American war of aggression.
