|
 f, as widely
expected, Ariel Sharon is elected Israel's prime minister tomorrow,
there is a high probability the event will be marked by intensified
violence. The Palestinians have already declared they intend to
make election day in Israel a "day of
rage." In all likelihood, their rage will only grow in the weeks
that follow and be expressed with acts of terrorism and attacks
involving an array of anti-tank, anti-aircraft, and other powerful
weaponry smuggled into Gaza and the West Bank ever since the Oslo
peace accords were signed.
In the realm of Mideast possibilities, that would be the good news.
The bad news would be if, in addition to an intensified Intafada,
Israel's other foes — notably Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and
Libya — perhaps joined by her two "partners for peace," Egypt
and Jordan, were to use Sharon's election as a casus belli. No one
knows what such a regional conflict would look like; would weapons
of mass destruction be used and, if so, by whom and with what effect?
Suffice it to say, the bloodletting that would accompany the Middle
East's next round of Arab–Israeli hostilities would likely make
the previous wars pale in comparison.
The best hope for averting a renewed regional war is if Israel's
enemies perceive that Sharon's election signifies that the Jewish
State has found its footing again after years of irresolution and
drift. Everything possible should be done to dissipate the perception
fostered by Ehud Barak's reckless concessions and other acts of
appeasement — namely, that the Arab war option foreclosed since
1973 has once again become viable.
Of course, the principal responsibility for restoring Israel's credibility
so as to deter widespread aggression rests with the government and
people of Israel. Should a majority of the
| “…the
principal responsibility for restoring Israel's credibility
…rests with the government and people of Israel.” |
|
latter give Ariel Sharon a mandate, it will be a powerful signal
of strength and resolve — provided he does not immediately
adulterate that message by seeking a national unity government that
would assign key portfolios (such as defense and foreign affairs)
to failed Labor party figures like Barak and Shimon Peres.
There are, however, steps the United States can — and should
— take to reinforce with Arab and other audiences the folly
of believing that Israel can be attacked with impunity. Specifically,
as the new Bush administration congratulates the winner of Tuesday's
Israeli elections, it should also communicate the following messages
to those who wish him ill:
-
The United States is committed to the safety and security of the
State of Israel. An attack against the Jewish State would be regarded
as a hostile act against an American ally to which the U.S. would
respond appropriately.
- The
United States is determined to help maintain the qualitative edge
of Israel's military. It will also support Israel in retaining
physical control of territory necessary to assure its ability
to defend itself.
- In
keeping with its practice in every other nation with whom it has
diplomatic relations and an official presence, the United States
will place its embassy in Israel in the capital of the Jewish
State, Jerusalem.
- The
United States will scrupulously and honestly monitor evidence
that Arab nations and Iran persist in fomenting violence against
the Jewish State and her people — behavior that is incompatible
with peaceful coexistence between the parties and a durable and
just end to conflict in the region. Eligibility for U.S. military
assistance, financial support, and other benefits that flow from
cordial relations with the United States will be adjusted accordingly.
As a candidate and as president, George W. Bush has repeatedly made
clear his commitment to stand with Israel. The best way to ensure
that that commitment is not put to the test under very ominous circumstances
is to signal in these tangible ways that he means to stand with
Ariel Sharon's Israel, come what may.
|
