does Israel need the West Bank?
Guys, I posted this on the other site, here it is for you. A lot of the ARGUMENT over Israely keeping the West Bank territories is based on strategic considerations. So what does the smartet military thinker in Israel say?
I take the Forward, a jewish paper printed in the US, because I'm not convinced by most of the mainstream media's coverage on the middle east, and especially the Israeli-Palestinian mess. As a special treat, Martin van Creeveld, the military history/science genius occasionally writes a column. As he did in this week's issue. So here is his argument:
van Creeveld points out that in 1967 Israel was surrounded by hostile neighbors, all of whom attacked simultaneously. And were crushed by IDF.
At this time, the only actively hostile neighbor is Syria, which doesn't seem anxious for a rematch. Lebanon got mauled the last go-round and is very quiet. Hamas took a terrible beating in the last fight in Gaza and has not been encouraging rocket or mortar attackes, let alone any incursion in force. The wall seems to be working, keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
Does Israel need the strategic depth provided by control over the West Bank? Van Creeveld says no, because there are no more mechanized armies threatening. And if there were, the West Bank, with Israeli territory on 3 sides, would make a great place to trap and exterminate them.
The threat, such as it is, is from Iranian, and to much smaller degree, Syrian ballistic missiles. Controlling the West Bank doesn't provide any protection against that threat. But the occupation does provide cover and legitimacy for the enemies of Israel, who are looking for an excuse.
The occupation is a poison pill for Israel. Even worse would be permanently incorporating the West bank and its people into Israel. In that case, the only way to maintain the Jewish state would be through some form of apartheid. Van Creeveld recommends negotiating a withdrawal, but if that is not possible, then doing a unilateral withdrawal as was done by Sharon in Gaza.
here's a link:
Martin van Creveld: Israel Doesn’t Need the West Bank To Be Secure – Forward.com
I can't find any holes in his logic, except for the assumption that Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon will continue to honor their peace agreements with Israel. As for Iran, i pity any country that threatens to annihilate Israel - a country with 200+ atomic bombs and a few H-bombs. What would have happened to Iraq during the Gulf War, if Israel had reasonable intelligence that those Scuds they were firing had nuclear warheads?
jn
