Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 01:57:40 +0200

X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)

Subject: Preliminary Reflections on Wye

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

 I am very grateful to Murray Kahl’s and Aaron Lerner’s for their critical analyses of the Wye Memorandum (WM). Perhaps the major flaw in WM is that supervision of Arab compliance will hereafter depend onthe US. WM is a indeed flimsy agreement. It does Netanyahu little credit, to put it kindly. Nevertheless, let’s take another look.

To begin to understand the Wye Memorandum, we have to recall that back in December 1997, the cabinet, by a unanimous vote of 16-0 (two NRP abstentions), decided against any further withdrawal until complete PLO compliance. In Israel, however, such decisions have no solidity. Soon there was talk about "phased" compliance. In any event, the mere fact that Bibi went to Wye meant he would come back with something far less than full compliance. Nevertheless, he could argue, and did, that unlike the Rabin-Peres agreements, compliance will involve US supervision.

Of course, the US may not serve as a reliable supervisor. But to fault Bibi by saying Wye transfers supervised Arab compliance from Israel to the US is a bit misleading; for there was no Arab compliance prior to Wye. True, Israel is now further committed to withdrawal, which Bibi stalled since Hebron. But as I shall argue later, the present situation is untenable. Besides, US supervision does not preclude Israel from acting on its own judgment -- unless one assumes, to begin with, that the government consists of cravens. But if the government consists of cravens, better to have the US involved in supervising compliance!

Unfortunately, US supervision means Israel will remain tied to the US as by an umbilical chord. This facilitates "American pressure." But contrary to conventional wisdom, Israel invites that pressure. It seems to me Israeli governments simply lack the intellectual-moral power and/or the institutional solidity to solve the Arab problem, so that Israel actually presses the US into its service to "solve" that problem. The "pressure" follows, but it's largely of Israel's own making.

Anyway, Bibi’s emphasis on "reciprocity" was misconceived or just plain PR, for the Israel can only give, while the Arabs can only take. And anyone who believes that Arafat and his Arab terrorists are going to become flower children, and that the US is going to ensure Arab compliance, is living in the world of Alice.

I may be mistaken, but I do not think Wye is a disaster. As stated above, the situation in Judea-Samaria is not tenable: the Arabs are not going to leave, and no government of Israel is going to make them. Therefore, the only way to terminate the Oslo process, which has been demoralizing and killing us, is by means of a Palestinian state!!!

I warned against this end result before Camp David. Indeed, shortly after the March 26, 1979 treaty with Egypt, I was called into the Foreign Office and asked "How do we save Judea and Samaria?"!!! The Likud’s "autonomy" plan meant statehood. So Labor went all the way with Oslo. Hateful though Oslo is, one has to admit that, on its face, Oslo is a "solution" to the Arab problem. We just happen to know that the Arabs, with a PLO state, will not give Israel peace. Nevertheless, only such a state can possibly terminate Oslo and present Israel with an opportunity to pursue, what it has never quite pursued, namely, a Jewish agenda.

I am assuming, of course, that Israel will NOT permit foreign Arab forces to enter that state. (How a large influx of Arab refugees will affect the economy and stablity of that state is another problem.) The key question is: What will the Government do in that part of Judea-Samaria that remains under Israel’s control? Will it extend sovereignty over this area and proceed to populate it by means of a homestead act and foreign investments? Will it move some of its ministries there (as it should have done after the Six Day War)? Such steps might serve to deter the Arabs; such steps may also produce a salutary effect on the Jews, especially the Left.

Of course the settlements and Jerusalem remain on Arafat’s agenda. The Arabs will scream if we expand the settlements, and the US will support the Arabs. The Arabs will press for eastern Jerusalem, and here Washington will not be too vocal. But again, if Arafat declares a Palestinian state on May 4 or soon thereafter, this will give Israel an opportunity to break out of the Oslovian syndrome.

This country has long been mesmerized by security. Indeed, Israel’s preoccupation with security is the basic cause of its insecurity! This induces Israel to react, react, and react. It hardly ever takes the initiative. And that’s because it doesn’t have a Jew agenda, a distinctively Jewish goal.

So we limp from crisis to crisis, and and think we can solve our problems by electing a new prime minister. But the truth is that Israel’s entire system of government is inept and corrupt and needs to be drastically overhauled.

Oslo and Wye are not merely the products of flawed politicians or of diminished Zionist idealism. What politicians do and are unable to do are also affected by political institutions. This is why I have designed a Constitution for the State of Israel and have shown, at great length, how district elections and a higher electoral threshold would very like improve the behavior of our politicians and the effectiveness of our government.

One last word. two decades of criticism of the "peace process" have not stopped Israel’s retreat. While such criticism is necessary, unrelieved criticism becomes counterproductive, especially when it obscures positive ideas. Israel needs a positive idea -- a Jewish idea -- to compete with the "peace process." District elections, where citizens have their own chosen representatives, is actually a Jewish idea! POWER TO THE PEOPLE! This should be the slogan of those who want to create a New Israel.