I have the impression that even the most consistent members of the
Israeli peace camp suffer from a conditioned reflex when it comes
to Lebanon. This syndrome, it will be recalled, was discovered in
the well-known experiment by the Russian physiologist Pavlov. Over
a long period he accustomed his dog to eat a regular meat meal to
the sight, shortly before the food was served, of a light flashing
or to the sound of a bell ringing. While chewing the meat, the dog
would instinctively begin to salivate. When the scientist
subsequently flashed the light or rang the bell without always
providing a meal, the dog continued to salivate. This shows that
with dogs, or other living creatures, psychological processes may
be at work, stemming automatically from previous life experience
and habits.
The Israeli peace camp is not immune to conditioned reflexes. For
over 30 years, we have been conducting a vigorous political and
informational struggle on behalf of the need for a continuous
Israeli peace initiative. The main slogan of this campaign is that
Israel should openly declare its readiness to relinquish the
territories won in the Six-Day War of 1967, in return for
contractual peace agreements with our Arab neighbors: the
Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. It was according to
this concept that in 1979 (too late) a peace agreement with Egypt
was signed, in exchange for the withdrawal by Israel from the whole
Sinai Peninsula in return for peace and demilitarization.
Only the adoption of this concept can assure stable peace between
Israel and the Palestinian people: it demands the evacuation by
Israel of most of the territories of the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip (including a clear section of East Jerusalem and the Jordan
Valley) in return for peace, with an independent Palestinian state
in the West Bank and Gaza, which will perhaps agree in the future
to establish federative relations with Jordan.
It was only because the Oslo agreement of 1993 for the first time
opened a real process of Israeli withdrawal from the territories,
that a feasible prospect emerged for a genuine and honorable peace
between Palestinian sovereignty and Israel. It was only in the wake
of such an Oslo process that Jordan could permit itself to sign a
peace treaty with Israel, a year later in 1994.
On the other hand, it was only because of the crushing and
destruction, by the Israeli government since 1996, of the process
of withdrawal from the West Bank and Jerusalem that Israel once
again has entered into an atmosphere of military nervousness. This
is being expressed in tense relations with the Palestinian National
Authority and in mutually rash deeds in South Lebanon, as well as
by the superfluous Israeli squawking in the winter of 1998 over the
Iraqi crisis.
It was in this tense atmosphere that a public and open call was
recently heard for the State of Israel to withdraw at once and
unconditionally from the "security zone" in South Lebanon. Some of
those involved, like the "Four Mothers" movement, meant well, like
most do-gooders; whereas others, like the Third Way party, which is
mainly concerned with retaining the Golan Heights, and Ariel
Sharon, were pursuing their own political interests.
It is hoped that this voluntary Israeli evacuation would pacify
Hizbullah and put an end to terror and guerilla activities by it
and by its partners in South Lebanon against the Israeli army
presence there and against the State of Israel. Thus tranquility
would be restored to the northern border between Israel and Lebanon
like in the old days between 1948 and 1964. The "Four Mothers" is
perhaps a naive organization which believes that withdrawing our
soldiers from South Lebanon would put an end to the shedding of the
blood of our sons in the "security zone." There is, however, no
doubt that the Third Way, which has an obsession over Israel's
holding on to the Golan Heights, is only crying for withdrawal from
South Lebanon in order to divert public opinion from the really
difficult dispute over the Golan Heights.
But what is the real situation? The present" Lebanese
administration is today, to a large extent, under Syrian patronage.
This development started in 1975 in the wake of the outbreak of the
civil war in Lebanon after the Maronite president Suleiman
Franjiyeh invited the Syrian army to help him suppress the Sunni
Muslim and Palestinian elements. The Syrian patronage over Lebanon
was increasingly strengthened and consolidated following the
disastrous Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the not too
dignified retreat of the Israeli army to the security zone in
1985.
All organizations fighting against Israel in South Lebanon are
under clear Syrian patronage, while Iranian assistance can only
reach these organizations through Syria. The Islamic-religious
ideological slogans of most of these groups center around the
"liberation" of Jerusalem (al-Quds, the Holy City). It is, however,
clear that Syrian support for the terrorist actions of Hizbullah
and its partners is mainly intended to exert consistent and
constant pressure upon Israel, so that the latter will consent to
withdraw from the Golan Heights in return for peace with Syria.
This has been the Syrian policy ever since the Gulf War of 1991 and
since the breakup of the U.S.S.R
There is, therefore, no prospect that a unilateral withdrawal of
the Israeli army from the security zone in South Lebanon will bring
quiet and security to our border with Lebanon. Without organized
political peace and without the security zone, the terror will
trickle over to the Israeli border itself, with our former allies
from the Southern Lebanese Army (SLA) joining Hizbullah against an
Israel which leaves the SLA to its fate.
So, what must Israeli policy be toward our Arab neighbors in the
north? The decisive center of gravity should be Syria and,
therefore, the Israeli government must first, publicly and openly,
propose to Syria a full contractual peace agreement with Israel, in
return for Israel's readiness to withdraw from the Golan Heights up
to the old (1923) international border. The conditions would be
identical with those determined by Israel and Egypt in 1979 in
return for withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.
Parallel to a peace agreement with Syria, or immediately following
it, a full contractual peace agreement must be signed with Lebanon,
with the support of Syria, to also include Israeli withdrawal from
South Lebanon, plus Syrian-Lebanese guarantees against the Islamic
terrorist groups all over Lebanon, and appropriate arrangements for
disbanding the SLA. Only in the wake of two peace agreements, with
Syria and afterward with Lebanon, can Israel extricate its army
from the Lebanese mud. Every Israeli government initiating this
positive process will be worthy of the praise and will win the
glory.