Learn golf tips today and update

Since the end of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the predominant line of thinking concerning Middle Eastern terrorism is that it was a result of Israeli “occupation.” Even as such terrorism had been occurring long before that war, the idea of “occupation” grew highly fashionable in international circles and drowned out all other explanations. It also offered a tantalyzingly easy approach to peace: Israel could trade land for peace.
The “Occupation Hypothesis” succeeded, in part, because the alternative of an existential struggle was far worse to consider. Such a fundamental basis of conflict is far more resistant to diplomacy. It requires nothing less than a change in long-held beliefs and attitudes. Recent events have all but doomed the Occupation Hypothesis. Instead, it has become ever more clear that Islamist rejectionisman unyielding rejection of Israel’s legitimacy and right to exist on what has been defined as religious groundsis what drives Middle Eastern terrorism.
“The next Middle East warIsrael against genocidal Islamismhas begun,” explained Yossi Klein Halevi, senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. He also warned, “There may be lulls in the fighting But those periods of calm will be mere respites.” The existential struggle will continue and Israel’s enemies will raise the banner of their radical interpretations of Islam and push ahead with their aims of building a new Middle East that excludes Israel. That’s the reality that is driving Middle Eastern terrorism, and it has little to do with “occupation.”
Israel’s complete withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and the Gaza Strip in 2005 provide the strongest evidence that rejectionism and not “occupation” is driving Israel’s enemies. If “occupation” were the cause of the terrorism, one would have expected Hezbollah to disappear in Lebanon and Qassam rocket attacks to cease from the Gaza Strip. Instead, Hezbollah used the next six years to obtain more powerful arms with a longer-range. From the Gaza Strip, Palestinian terrorists fired more than 500 Qassam rockets into Israel since October 2005. The so-called “occupation” was over, but the terrorism most certainly wasn’t.
An examination of the statements coming from the terrorist groups’ leaders, their actions, and the Hamas Charter vividly highlight the rejectionism that underpins these groups. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas nor their Syrian and Iranian patrons recognize Israel’s right to exist. Recent katyusha attacks on Haifa and Nahariya carried out by Hezbollah have been widely described as attacks on the “Haifa, Nahariya settlement.” Both cities lie within Israel’s 1948 borders and are not, in any way, post-’67 War settlements.
The Hamas Charter declares, “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that.” Furthermore, it states, “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion.” Immediately upon reaching an agreement with Fatah on a document drafted by Palestinian prisoners, Hamas’ leaders made great pains to express the organization’s continuing refusal to recognize Israel and rejection of Israel’s legitimacy. At the same time, in spite of an international assistance embargo, Hamas has consistently refused to seize the opportunity given to it by the Madrid Quartet (UN, EU, United States and Russia) to recognize Israel, honor existing agreements, and renounce violence.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described Israel as a “fake” state, pledged to “wipe Israel off the map” and repeatedly denied the Holocaust. On Tuesday, he made a cryptic statement that there would “soon” be “rejoicing” for the Middle East’s Muslims. Whether this statement concerns weapons Iran has supplied to Hezbollah with regard to Hezbollah’s possibly targeting Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, a new attack on some major Israeli target, or a coming breakthrough in Iran’s nuclear weapons program remains uncertain.
The educational curricula in numerous Arab countries deny Israel’s existence and legitimacy. The Palestinian education system describes all of the land encompassed by Israel as “occupied.” It also debunks the historic ties of the Jewish people to the land even as archaeological evidence provides indisputable evidence of just such a presence.
Nonetheless, criticism of Israel persists, particularly among the adherents of the Occupation Hypothesis. As a result of a mindset that is still anchored in “occupation,” Israel’s critics argue that an immediate ceasefire would suffice to resolve the events in Lebanon. “Business as usual” is not a viable option. The Hezbollah terrorist organization would merely use the ceasefire to rebuild for an even more dangerous battle in the future.
Others charge Israel with employing “disproportionate” action in its fight against Hezbollah. As the terrorism stems not from a dispute over borders, but from a bid to eliminate Israel by attrition, it is the terrorists’ aims and not Israel’s defensive military action that are truly disproportionate. The United Nations Charter declares, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Nonetheless, the terrorist organizations ranging from Hezbollah to Hamas openly seek nothing less than Israel’s elimination and by launching raids on Israeli soil, they are trying to shift the battleground into Israel itself.
The time has come for those charged with foreign policy to discard the Occupation Hypothesis. It explains little. Reliance on its guidance, particularly if Israel makes gratuitous concessions, would only send further signals of weakness that would invite new rounds of aggression against Israel and also larger Western interests in the Middle East. Instead, foreign policymakers need to come to grips with the reality of the rejectionism that drives Middle Eastern terrorism.
As such, the key to Middle East peace lies with delegitimizing the ideology of radical Islamist rejectionism that precludes peace in that region. Under such a new approach, Israel should be permitted to fully defend itself against those who threaten its existence; Iran should be barred from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons; terrorist organizations must be dismantled and a ceasefire in Lebanon should require a firm commitment by Lebanon’s Government to dismantle Hezbollah; and hard-nosed realism must take precedence over gestures of good will that would be exploited by the aggressors who seek Israel’s demise. Simultaneously, the international community needs to reach out to moderate Muslims who could become a firewall against the spread of the kind of radical Islamism that gives legitimacy to the rejectionism behind Middle Eastern terrorism. Moderate Muslims have as much or perhaps a greater stake in thwarting the radicals as does the outside world. Their religion is under threat of being redefined by the extremists.
Once the Occupation Hypothesis is discarded, the international community will take a big step forward in its pursuit of Middle East peace. Once the ideology of rejectionism is correctly identified and the institutions through which it is disseminated are reformed, the Middle Eastern environment will become ripe for settling the historic Israeli-Arab dispute. Only then will peace have a genuine chance to blossom in that blood-soaked region.
Don Sutherland has researched and written on a wide range of geopolitical issues.