           The Long Range goals of the Peace Process
                      an Honest Assessment
                                
                     by Gary M. Cooperberg
  May 1994                                           Iyar 5754
                                
                                 
     Shimon Peres considers himself a modern visionary who will lead the Middle East and
the entire world into a new era of peace.  He suggests that some risks are necessary in order to
achieve peace with our Arab neighbors.  The question he poses is, "If we give them Gaza and
Jericho, what are we really giving up?  All we are losing is a hotbed of Arab hatred and terror. 
If the PLO is kept busy trying to keep law and order there, it will quiet things down for us,
relieve our army from patrolling these areas, and keep the PLO busy with their own affairs.  In
fact, we will be ridding ourselves of a big headache.  It is a simple test with very little risk.  If
things work out then we can talk about pulling out of the rest of the territories for real peace. 
If not, we can always put things back in order with our superior military might."
     The concept expressed here may, on the surface seem courageous and utopian, but,
when examined a bit closer, any normal sixth grader can see that it deceitful, self destructive
and just plain dishonest.
     Peres is convinced that things will work out and that we can eventually have full peace
with a PLO state sitting in the heartland of Israel.  After all, goes the new proverb, it is only
with enemies whom we can make peace.
     There is one tiny factor, however, which Shimon and his cohorts consistently ignore. 
A minor detail which is better left ignored and dealt with at a later time.  If the goal of your
enemy is to destroy you, how do you propose to make peace with him without getting him to
first change his goal?  
     The first and most basic requirement for sitting down and negotiating a peace
agreement, is a reasonable assumption that both parties have shared goals and aspirations. 
History teaches that peace negotiations only take place after a war when one party is the clear
victor and the other is the clear loser.  In effect, whether or not it is the ideal way, peace is
achieved only by war.  After a war everyone knows who is the winner and who is the loser. 
Rather than continuing a war which cannot be won, the loser expresses his willingness to
accept terms of surrender.  The extent of the victory determines whether the surrender will be
unconditional or subject to negotiated terms.  Never, in the history of nations, has a victor
called upon a loser to dictate terms of peace to it.  This is where Shimon has shown his
"vision".  What Shimon has failed to recognize is the fact that once you invite others to dictate
to you, you have defined yourself as a loser.  The further this process goes on, the more both
parties come to believe this convoluted definition.  
     Although it is, indeed, a noble concept to reach out to one's enemies and make them your
friends, this cannot be accomplished simply by giving your hand to a mass murderer.  Worse, it
appears that no one has even considered the dire consequences of recognizing the PLO and
Palestine as legitimate entities.
     Just this seemingly innocent act of recognition is a death warrant to the Jewish State. 
How does one explain to any rational thinker the logic of a leader of a sovereign state willingly
recognizing the legitimacy of a fraudulent entity to liberate that state from its sovereignty?  By
implication, Rabin and Peres, merely by recognizing the PLO, have actually recognized the
justness of its cause to liberate all of "Palestine" from Israeli "occupation".  As such they have
become partners in the goal to dismantle the Jewish State!!!!
     This goes far beyond removing a few settlements and making the Gaza Strip an Arab
ghetto.  It is the acceptance of the concept that Israel is the illegitimate occupier of Arab land. 
How does one explain the absurdity of a Jewish government apologizing for its very existence? 
This self destructive stance gives Israeli government sanction to every act of terror perpetrated
against Israeli soldiers and civilians alike.  After all, if we are illegitimately occupying Arab land
how can we blame the Arabs for fighting to regain it?  The only logical step to be taken now is for
our government to immediately draw up plans for the complete evacuation of Israel's Jewish
inhabitants to friendly nations who agree to offer them shelter.  This is the peace which Arafat,
and all Arab leaders seek.  Indeed, I would not be surprised to learn that Syria and Libya, among
other nations, would offer to accept Jewish refugees into their countries in order to help the peace
process along.
     All that is left to negotiate now is the method and timetable for our self destruction.  What
could more clearly indicate this fact than the definition of the present agreement as "Gaza and
Jericho first"?  Can one truly expect a proud Arab people to accept a partial nation?  They may be
willing to accept a staged withdrawal, but the final arrangement will have to be complete Arab
sovereignty over the entire land of Israel.  If Gaza, Jericho, Hebron and Jerusalem are not ours,
upon what can we base a claim to Haifa and Tel Aviv?
     While Rabin and Peres, like Begin before them, might actually believe that they have taken
bold steps for peace, the fact is that they have painted themselves into a corner from which there
is no way out.  They don't want to destroy the Jewish nation.  But they have no idea how to go
about maintaining it.  One needn't be a prophet or a genius to predict what will happen.  Rabin
will continue to negotiate until he realizes that he has nothing left to negotiate.  When that
realization occurs, we will have a terrible war initiated by our Arab "partners in peace".  The only
unknown factor is how long will it take for Rabin, or any Jewish government, to realize that one
does not negotiate his existence... he fights for it.