(1) Affirming Existence
and Providing the Element of Time
The Israeli Concept of Security and its
Aims:
Israelis often draw a connection between
borders and security, demanding "safe borders", i.e., borders which will
guarantee their safety and well-being.
It is well-known that any state comprises three basic elements: a
geographical region, a people, and a political system. Moreover, the
purpose served by national security is to ensure the preservation of
these elements. National security for a given state is known to mean
defense and protection against internal or external dangers, such as the
fall of the state under the control of a foreign government or military
power as a result of some weakness or internal breakdown, or due to
external pressures. However, the Israeli theory of security goes beyond
such definitions and limitations. As Ben Gurion states, "the security of
the state is not a matter of protecting autonomy, territority, borders
or sovereignty. Rather, it is a matter of survival, of remaining alive."
In other words, the Israeli concept of security means the survival of
Israel and of the Jewish people as a whole. Hence we find that the
expression "security" has come to form a basis and justification for
many Israeli activities and principles, while the development of the
concept of security from the Israeli point of view is based on two
principle factors (1):
The first of these two factors grows out of the Israeli mentality
itself, since this mentality was formed within a religious milieu which
derives its basic components from the Torah and the Talmud, both of
which are filled with hopes for security, whether in the form of the
doctrine of "salvation" or in the form of stories which speak of the
sovereignty of the children of Israel over other nations and crushing
these other nations beneath their feet, as it were. In addition to the
religious milieu, we have the social context in which the Jews lived
over long periods of time, suffering persecution and isolation which led
to the instillment of constant fear and anxiety in Jewish souls.
From the time the Jews were scattered throughout the world to be
persecuted by the societies in which they had come live, their lives
came to be distinguished by a profound sense of instability. After all,
they now lived their lives in closed societies, or "ghettos", trying to
find their security in the formation of units to protect ghetto
neighborhoods and in organizing internal sources of power vested with
the authority to maintain security.
As for the second factor referred to above, it grows out of the means by
which the state of Israel was established and the circumstances
surrounding this event. Israel as a state was planted in the region of
Palestine against the will of those already residing there. As such, it
represents a kind of foreign body in the Arab organism, which labors
constantly to expel it. Moreover, the establishment of Israel was based
upon the two foundations of external support and armed force. With the
beginning of the execution of the practical side of Zionism, that is,
"settlement", the attainment of Israeli security took the following
forms:
* Self-protection and
security:
This may be seen in the Israelis' manner of defending the Jewish
settlements or colonies, i.e., by setting up well-fortified settlements
and providing for ways of guarding these settlements and other military
elements.
* Lending an air of
legitimacy to colonial settlement:
Israel seeks to achieve this by working to ensure international
acceptance and endorsement for its settlement activity in Palestine.
We can thus see that the demand for
security is considered an individual demand on the part of the Jews, as
well as a collective demand on the level of the state to ensure its
survival as a foreign body which has been planted forcibly in the
region.
The aims of Israeli national security seen from the Israeli point of
view may be defined as: insurance of the existence and survival of the
state of Israel; bending the Arab will to accept the Israeli presence;
and creating circumstances conducive to the achievement of the goal of
Zionism, namely, the establishment of a state which embraces most of the
Jews in the world within the geographical area referred to as the
historical boundaries of the land of Palestine.
Top
Israel's
Policy for the Achievement of Security:
Israel's policy to achieve security is determined on the basis of
several factors, including the following (2):
1. particular characteristics of the
Israeli mentality, a mentality in which violence occupies a place of
great importance.
2. the manner in which the state of Israel was established, given that
its establishment took place with foreign support and by the
reinforcement of the status quo, particularly by the use of force.
3. the Arabs' refusal to accept the Israeli presence.
4. peculiar characteristics of Israel as a state, a state which suffers
from numerous weak points politically, socially, economically and
humanly, in addition to the nature of Israel as a military state.
5. Israeli aspirations and ambitions to bring to completion Zionist
plans and the aims for which such plans were laid, taking into
consideration the fact that the fulfillment of such aims requires the
creation of circumstances conducive to such fulfillment, especially with
regard to what is called "the sphere of vital operations", as well as in
areas involving Israeli human resources.
The various Israeli approaches to
achieving security may be summarized as follows:
a) placing the primary burden of
achieving security aims on Israeli military policy.
b) searching for a "super power" ally capable of guaranteeing Israel's
security and providing it with political, economic and military support.
c) working toward developing Israel's economic capabilities,
particularly in the area of industry, and supporting the Israeli
technological base and supporting economic ties [with other nations].
d) bringing about a steady increase in Jewish immigration to Israel.
e) establishing and supporting a bridge head which would connect Israel
to developing nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
f) weakening Arab power, particularly military power, and disturbing
Arab solidarity.
g) taking advantage of any opportunity which might lead to direct
contact with Arab nations.
h) expanding regionally by gaining control over international lines of
communication and important waterways in the area, taking over strategic
lines representing defensive strongholds in the region, and taking
possession of natural resources and fertile lands (3).
Hence, it appears that the essence of
Israeli security has been colored by military values and concepts in
such a way that from the time Israel was established until the time when
it finds acceptance as an integral part of the region, "security" has
been and will continue to be seen from the Israeli point of view as
nothing other than military security.
Top
Fundamental Principles of Israeli
Security
The basic principles of military security
in the Israeli view may be summed up as follows (4):
* Attempting to provide Israeli military
superiority over Arab states while weakening the Arabs and fragmenting
their power.
* Adopting a preemptive military policy
vis-a-vis the Arab military threat both internally and externally, as
well as working to prevent Arab forces from crossing [Israeli borders]
or penetrating deeply into Israeli territory.
* Adopting an offensive military policy
toward the Arab states in order to create circumstances and situations
which would help toward the achievement of Israeli political goals.
* Calling for geographical guarantees and
military-geographical security by working to provide borders suited to
the requirements of military operations (whether defensive or
offensive).
In summary, it may be said that the
fundamental Israeli understanding of security depends first and foremost
upon military controls and concepts. Moreover, this understanding has
resulted in the appearance of a number of military terms to refer to
Israel's borders, such as: "safe borders", "defensible borders",
"preemptive, or deterrent borders", etc., all of which are merely
synonyms expressing a single meaning, namely, military borders
consistent with the requirements of [Israeli] military activity.
One of the primary buttresses of the Zionist media is the image of
"Israel struggling for its life". This particular image is in fact a
recently developed support for Zionist aims, and is used to justify
virtually all Israel's acts of aggression against the Arabs. Whatever
Israel does is justified so long as it is fighting for its life, or for
what is termed "survival". Israel continually portrays itself as
threatened by the Arabs as it struggles to maintain its existence.
Hence, Israel's wars are justified as being "preemptive" or "defensive"
wars. Even the strike launched on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in June,
1981 was portrayed as having taken place for security reasons, since
[according to this argument], the reactor was a threat to Israel's
existence. Within this same pretext one can discern the Israeli theory
of security. After all, Israel confiscates Arab lands and builds
settlements on occupied territories for "security reasons". And despite
the fact that Israel possesses a military force with first-strike
capabilities in the Middle East and even nuclear weapons, it
nevertheless goes on putting forward the same old claims: weak Israel
struggling for its life in a sea of hostile Arabs who are superior to
Israel both in numbers and war materiel.
Moreover, as an extension of this claim, this Israel "struggling for its
life" is in need of international guarantees to ensure its ongoing
existence. At the same time - as Jewish leaders have affirmed repeatedly
- it wants to be able to do without such guarantees in order to depend
on its own resources to protect itself (5).
It bears noting here that the Zionist media do not put forward their
theory of security when addressing international public opinion, since
to do so would promote the image of Israel as an expansionist state or
as a super power. For this reason, the Zionist media avoid discussing
this particular topic. Every practice or action inspired by Israel's
theory of security falls under the rubric of "Israel fighting for its
life". Hence, any aggression or expansionist moves undertaken by Israel
are simply to ensure its survival. As a claim intended for public
consumption, it is clever indeed, since it can inspire sympathy and
rally support despite all of the hostile and expansionist practices and
all the "preemptive" wars which Israel happens to wage.
(2) Expansionist Ambitions and
Borders of the State
Jewish beliefs rest upon the conviction
that they are the chosen people of God, and that God has given them the
"promised land" and pledged them dominion over the world. Moreover, the
base from which this dominion is to expand is the "promised land"
itself, while the prophecies [concerning the Jews] will only be
fulfilled when power is given to the Jews on Jewish land. Jewish
aspirations of this nature are summarized in the teaching of the Talmud
as follows:
*The entire Earth is the Jews'
inheritance.
*Any law other than the religious law of the Jews is corrupt.
*All authority on earth other than that of the Jews has been usurped
from its rightful holders.
*The Lord has forbidden the Jews to show compassion or mercy (6).
Among the most frequently employed
arguments of Zionism on the part of its proponents, and in particular
since the establishment of the Zionist state, is that of "little
Israel", that is, Israel which occupies only a tiny area of land in
comparison with the vast areas in which the Arabs make their homes,
extending as they do from the Mediterranean to the [Arab] Gulf.
According to Zionist logic as it addresses the West, one must ask: Why
shouldn't the Arabs give up this small piece of land to the poor Jews
who survived the Nazi concentration camps? Moreover, in keeping with the
same logic they ask: As long as all the Arabs are Arabs, then why don't
they solve the Arab refugee problem by absorbing them [the Palestinian
refugees] into these huge Arab nations?? (7)
Top
Israel's Borders from the Point
of View of the Jewish Religion:
Religious considerations have been among the primary arguments appealed
to by the Jews in their claims to the land of Palestine, claims which
have been associated with what is called "divine promises" to the Jews
that they should possess the holy land in their capacity as the chosen
people. The Torah and the Talmud are the sources for Jewish doctrine, in
which one of the most important themes is that of "salvation and
return".
Perhaps one of the most noteworthy illustrations of the importance
placed on religious beliefs related to the land is the statement made in
June, 1967 by Israeli Rabbi Moshe Gurion, the Israeli Defense Rabbi at
that time. He stated, "The three wars fought by Israel against the Arabs
in 1948, 1956 and 1967 have all been holy wars. The first one took place
to liberate the land of Israel; the second broke out to reinforce the
pillars upholding the state of Israel; and the third was waged in order
to fulfill the words of the prophets of Israel." (8)
In their claim to be the rightful occupants of various Arab lands, the
Jews appeal to certain texts found in the Torah. As they see it, such
texts contain divine laws and promises which grant them the eternal
right to possess such lands, including promises in the book of Genesis
given to the prophet Abraham as well as the prophets Isaac and Jacob.
Upon examination of the Biblical texts having to do with divine promises
regarding the land which the Jews claim that God promised them, one
notes the absence of any fixed boundaries to the land in question. In
fact, there are numerous inconsistencies within these texts regarding
the size of the land; in one place we read that the promised land is
nothing but a small part of the Nablus region, whereas elsewhere we read
that the land includes all the territory extending from the Euphrates to
"the river of Egypt" .
It bears noting here that the Talmud is considered to be one of the most
important Jewish sources of commentaries and legislation relating to
Israel's borders. It is likewise worthy of note that the commentaries
and explanations related to the borders of Israel increased
significantly during the period prior to the appearance of the Zionist
movement as well as during the movement's development (9).
In the religious sphere, we find that the Talmud has attempted to define
the area which the Jews claim to be the land of Israel, allowing for a
great deal of flexibility in Jewish land claims, since such flexibility
reflects Israelis' expansionist thinking. The Talmud draws a strong
connection between the matter of the size of the piece of land to be
seized, and the human resources possessed by Israel. In addition, it
points to the necessity of engaging in regional expansion on a gradual
basis in accordance with Jewish population growth. In this context, the
Talmud likens the borders of Israel to the skin of a deer, which
possesses the elasticity needed to accommodate the animal's flesh and
bones as it grows. Based on relevant passages in the Torah, Talmudic
commentaries and those of certain clergymen and laymen, we find that the
borders of the land with which the Jews are concerned do not have a
single, fixed definition. Even so, it may be said that there are certain
inner and outer limits, while the movement between them is determined by
a number of factors, some religious and others material, which in turn
are determined by the degree to which the Jews are obedient to the
commands of God, developments in the Jews' human situation, and similar
developments in the situation of the original inhabitants of the land to
be taken possession of.
The inner limits of the Israeli borders as seen from the Jewish
religious perspective include the region extending from Dan in the north
to Beersheva in the south. The region also includes both banks of the
Jordan river, being bounded to the east by the Syrian desert (badiyat
al-sham), and to the west by the Mediterranean Sea. Jewish sources
indicate that this region includes the land of Canaan defined in the
peace treaty signed between Ramses II and the Hittites in the year 1270
BC (10), the lands upon which stress is laid in most of the
divine promises, and all of the lands mentioned in the Torah as
belonging to the tribes of Israel. Hence, one may say that the inner
limit to the borders from the Jewish religious perspective includes the
region bounded to the north by Sidon on the Mediterranean Sea, and from
there to Dan at the headwaters of the Jordan River; whereas to the
northeast it includes the area from the Golan Heights as far as the
hills of Damascus; to the east it includes the Arab Desert as far as the
Jordan River (in the center of the Dead Sea), and to the south it
encompasses Beersheva and the Negev Desert while to the west it is
bounded by the Mediterranean.
As for the outer limit to these borders, it includes the area bounded on
the west by the Mediterranean, to the southwest by Wadi al-Arish and the
Sinai Desert, to the south by the Gulf of Aqabah, and to the east by
Wadi Arabah. Then, beginning from the Jordan River, the borders extend
toward the north and northeast from the Arab Desert (east Jordan) to the
Euphrates, and [in the northwest], as far as Sidon on the Mediterranean.
The borders envisioned for Israel from the Jewish religious point of
view may thus be summarized as follows (11):
*The western borders:
In the west, [the borders extend to] the Mediterranean Sea, and in the
southwest, to Wadi al-Arish. However, some commentaries attributed to
pious Jews indicate that this limit is in fact the Nile River. This is
based on Genesis 15, according to which the western border is "the river
of Egypt". Nevertheless, the prevailing interpretation holds that the
western border is Wadi al-Arish.
*The eastern borders:
There is no disagreement over the eastern border of the region
considered to be the promised land, since the region is agreed by the
Jews to include eastern Jordan as far as Badiyat al-Sham.
*The northern borders:
There are essentially two limits to the northern borders. The first,
being the inner limit, includes the Golan Heights, Jabal al-Shaikh and
the Lebanon Heights as far as Sidon. As for the outer limit, it reaches
as far as the Euphrates River.
*The southern borders:
The southern borders likewise have two limits associated with them; the
inner limit reaches Beersheva and the Negev, while the outer limit
extends as far as the Gulf of Aqabah.
Some of the most noteworthy points in the
legislation and directives found in the Torah with regard to taking
possession of the land and exercising control over it are those places
in which the Israelites are urged to take possession of the land in
stages, affirming the necessity of casting out the land's original
inhabitants and not signing any sort of agreement with them. Similarly,
Jewish teachings indicate the necessity of making the Jews' rule over
the land a permanent one such that it would be forbidden to resell the
land to non-Jews. (See Exodus 22:29-32.)
When the Jews speak of "the historic right" and "historic boundaries",
they are referring to the restoration of the kingdom of David and
Solomon. Hence the Israeli concept of "historic boundaries" refers to
the boundaries of the Davidic and Solomonic kingdom.
Some have divided the kingdom of David and Solomon into two parts
(12):
(a) Historic boundaries:
These are the borders of the territories which were under the direct
authority of Israel during the reign of David and Solomon. This
territory includes the region between Sidon on the Mediterranean and
extending as far as southern Damascus. Its eastern border extends in a
line through south Damascus/east Amman/east Ma'aan/east Aqabah on the
Gulf of Aqabah, while its western border follows the line extending from
south of the Negev Cape on the Gulf of Aqabah to the eastern part of the
city of al-Arish.
(b) Ideal boundaries:
These borders encompass the land of Canaan and other regions which were
subdued by David and Solomon, including the area from the Euphrates to
Wadi al-Arish.
Zionism and the Boundaries of the Jewish
State
Political Zionism has aimed to revive the
Jews as a people with a sense of nationalism, then to establish the
Jewish state in order that it might exercise its sovereignty over the
Jewish homeland and the Jewish people. In other words, it was the aim of
Zionism from the beginning to establish a Jewish state regardless of
whether the Jews were presently suffering persecution or not. The
persecution which they had in fact been suffering was in this sense
merely a "winning card" as it were which political Zionism made use of
in promoting its cause.
And not only was the Zionist movement
influenced by colonialism as a policy to be emulated. In its various
stages of development, it actually sought to bring its activities into
the service of colonialism and to find common interests between it and
the colonial powers in hopes of obtaining their approval and support.
In its evolution with regard to the matter of borders, Zionist thought
was influenced by several factors, the most important of which are as
follows:
* the goal of the Zionist movement.
* the human and economic dimensions affecting Zionist settlement
activity in the region or area to be taken over.
* the extent to which the religious dimension related to the land was
influencing the progress of the Zionist movement.
* the nature of economic and political ties between the Zionist movement
and the colonial powers, as well as the extent to which there were
common interests between them.
* the relative effectiveness of Arab resistance to Zionist settlement
and colonization.
The political Zionist movement rested
upon the belief that Judaism is not merely a religion, but more
fundamentally, a secular movement. Moreover, it was considered to be the
answer to the Islamic current in Palestine, as well as to the call to be
assimilated. It also held the view that the Jews form a distinctive
element by virtue of their race, their culture and their history,
because of which they are a people with the right to form a state.
Top
Zionist Thought with Regard to the
Borders of the State, 1898-1922
Upon examination of the activity of the
leaders of Zionist thought during the period between 1898-1922, whether
in the area of Zionist political activism or the ideas which were being
spread with regard to Zionist regional demands and Zionist aspirations
concerning the borders of the hoped-for Jewish state, we find that at
the heart of Zionist thought were the demands of the Orthodox religious
wing within the Zionist movement, which aspired to the "ideal borders"
referred to in the Bible, namely, "from the river of Egypt to the
Euphrates". The secularist wing, by contrast, demanded only the smaller
historical area extending "from Dan to Beersheva", although to this
smaller area they added areas which would provide the Jewish state with
modern economic foundations and the required elements of military
defense (13).
For this reason they attempted to annex
desert areas in the south and in the east due to their having been bases
of operation for raids launched against neighboring countries in the
past. Moreover, security considerations led them to look toward the
Beqaa' Valley in the north since it represented an entry point into
Palestine between the Lebanese mountain slopes and Mt. Harmoun. In
addition, military necessity dictated that they annex Houran and the
Yarmouk Valley, since in the past these areas had facilitated the entry
of raiders into the northern plains of Palestine (the plains of Akka, or
the Meadow of Bani Amir), thereby causing the Jewish state to be divided
in two and separating Galilee from the Jewish area.
In the period between 1917-1921, leaders of the Zionist movement
demanded that the [Jewish] territories be bounded on the west by the
Mediterranean Sea, by the slopes of Lebanon, the headwaters of the
Jordan and the peak of Mt. Harmoun to the north, and by Badiyat al-Sham
to the east. In the south they wanted to reach as far as the Gulf of
Aqabah, and they expected likewise to reach a friendly agreement with
Britain to annex the Arish region in the Sinai peninsula.
Yet despite the multiplicity of and the disparity among Zionist demands
with regard to the boundaries of the proposed state, one may say that
the primary demand upon which Zionist leaders focused was based upon
military, economic, political and strategic considerations. In
accordance with such considerations, the following borders may be
defined:
* The northern border would be the line
extending from Sidon on the Mediterranean Sea as far as south Damascus,
approximately 20 km.
* The eastern border would extend along the same line as the Hijazi
railroad ("from the eastern borders of the Jordan Valley as far as
Aqabah").
* The southern limit would be at the Gulf of Aqabah.
* To the west, the border would extend in a line between the area to the
east of al-Arish as far as the Gulf of Aqabah.
However, in view of the regional and
international political conditions [prevailing at the time], Zionist
leaders began to adopt the principle of "expansion in stages", while
recognizing the necessity of keeping their final goal in view. Perhaps
one of the most prominent believers in this principle during this period
was Hayim Weizman , for from the scheme devised by Herzel and Weizman
one may derive the principle: "Take whatever you can get without giving
up any of your goals", or "Work with the idea of benefiting from
everything you obtain in order to achieve your goals, both short-term
and long-term."
Zionist Thought
Regarding the Borders of the Jewish State, 1939-1948
Despite the relative scarcity of
declarations on the part of Zionist leaders during this period as
regards the matter of boundaries, the statement made by Baltimore in
1942 is considered to be the first official, candid indication of
Zionist demands for the establishment of a Jewish state. One notes
during this period that Zionist leaders on several occasions had made
both direct and indirect reference to the borders of the state which
they desired. The Zionist claim to a Jewish state in Palestine
encompassing both eastern and western Jordan, the Lebanon Heights and
the Syrian Heights may be summarized as follows: in the west, the
Mediterranean Sea; in the southwest, the line extending from Rafah to
the Gulf of Aqabah; in the south, the Gulf of Aqabah; in the east, the
Arab Desert (east of the Hijazi railway); and in the north, the line
running directly from Sidon to south Damascus (the hills overlooking
Damascus) (14).
The period between 1939-1949 was
distinguished by the fact that Zionist leaders followed a flexible
policy on the matter of the borders. In other words, they worked toward
establishing a political entity in the form of a Jewish state regardless
of what its size might be. The important thing at this point was for
such an entity to be recognized internationally, with the possibility of
expanding its boundaries later on. This is evident from statements made
by Zionist officials and the positions taken by the Zionist movement on
the UN partition resolution.
The Zionist movement focused during this
period on obtaining the largest possible area longitudinally speaking,
such that it would include the various geographical regions of Palestine
(from the headwaters of the Jordan River to the Negev). At the same
time, settlement activity focused on the confiscation of water resources
and fertile land areas, in addition to strategic centers with both
military importance and control over the Palestinian economy.
Top
Israeli Thought
With Regard to the Borders, 1950-1953
Israeli thought on the subject of the
borders of the Jewish state during this period may be summarized in the
following points:
* the expression by religious Jews within
Israel of their vision concerning the Israeli borders, namely, borders
which encompass the area extending from the Euphrates to the Nile.
* statements made by Israeli officials to
the effect that although Israeli military activity as it related to the
borders might suggest that the state of Israel had designs on what are
referred to as the "historic borders", neither Zionism nor Israel had
ambitions to reach the Euphrates or the Nile, while the establishment of
the state of Israel bore no necessary connection to such borders.
(Rather, interest at this time was focused upon the northern borders,
especially the headwaters of the Litani River and the east bank of the
Jordan.)
* Israel's consideration of the truce lines to be tantamount to Israeli
borders during this period, and treating the partition resolution as if
it were null and void.
* Israel's interest in taking over the demilitarized zones toward the
Egyptian and Syrian fronts, and following an approach of imposing the
status quo on those areas which had already been taken over.
* Indications that the Jewish state must be large enough to accommodate
all the Jews in the world.
Israeli Thought Regarding the Borders,
1954-1956
On the basis of Israeli activity in
numerous areas, whether political, economic or military, and its attempt
to draw a connection between these activities on one hand, and Israel's
ideas related to the matter of the borders on the other, we may note the
following (15):
1) a focus on supporting the borders
along the truce lines, whether politically or militarily.
2) taking over the demilitarized zones and holding onto them.
3) working to lend an international stamp to its decision to make
Jerusalem the Israeli capital by moving the Israeli Foreign Ministry
there.
4) numerous declarations indicating the difficulties created by the
present borders of Israel as a result of its small area and the length
of the borders which exposed Israel to confrontation with other nations,
as well as the security and military difficulties resulting therefrom.
5) the refusal of Israeli officials to accept any political activity
which might lead to a discussion of the matter of the 1947 partition
resolution.
6) an increase in Israeli ambitions to take control of the waters in the
direction of the northern borders, and in particular, the headwaters of
the Jordan River, the control of water resources being one of Israel's
national aims.
7) beginning interest in the Negev due to its strategic importance
politically, economically and militarily; likewise, the appearance of
Israeli statements concerning increased interest in southward expansion
in order to open up navigation in the Gulf of Aqabah.
8) Israel's affirmation of its claims to the Gaza Strip and the West
Bank of the Jordan.
9) repeated expressions of the claim to the "historic borders" of
Israel, including the east bank of the Jordan.
10) Israeli interest in establishing common economic interests, in
particular with regard to water use, and the establishment of a bridge
which might make it possible to extend Israeli influence and activity in
the direction of water resources (the Jordan and Litani rivers).
11) Israel's pointing out the difficulties posed by the presence of Arab
communities within Israel.
Top
Israeli Thought on the State Borders,
June 1966-June 1967
From the Israeli point of view, this
period of time witnessed a number of difficulties which are certain to
have had a major impact on overall Israeli political trends. They
likewise had an indirect impact on ideas related to the borders. From
the beginning of this period Israel was suffering economic decline. Then
came the end to the German Compensations Agreement to increase the
difficulty of the Israeli situation. The poor economic conditions in
Israel a rise in the unemployment rate led to a decrease in Jewish
immigration into Israel and an increase in Jewish emigration out of
Israel. In addition to other difficulties being faced by Israeli society
at that time, the interaction of these various factors played a major
role in leading the Israeli leadership to search for a way out of the
economic crisis which would increase the flow of capital into Israel,
whether by means of Jewish immigration or foreign aid. The escape hatch
which the Israeli leadership ultimately agreed upon was to wage the war
of June 1967, a war which brought an end to this phase and the beginning
of another.
With regard to Israeli activity as
it related to thoughts on the border issue during this period, Ben
Gurion indicates that when he traveled to France on June 13, 1966 and
met with General DeGaulle, the latter asked him about his dreams for the
Israeli borders, adding the reassurance that he would say nothing to
anyone of what Ben Gurion had told him. Ben Gurion replied, saying, "If
you had asked me this question 25 years ago, I would have said that I
wanted the Israeli state to extend along both banks of the Jordan River
as far as the Litani River in Lebanon. But now, I'm simply interested in
immigration and peace. We are content with our present borders. We do
not want to expose our people to danger; all we want is more immigrants"
(16).
Top
Israeli Thought on the Borders of the
State, 1967-1973
The Israeli aggression against Egypt,
Syria and Jordan on June 5, 1967 was the beginning of a new phase for
which Israel had been planning for quite some time. The period from June
1967 to October 5, 1973 is considered to be one of the most important
periods for the study of Israeli thought as it relates to the borders,
since it provides a kind of "dictionary" of Zionist and Talmudic terms
and concepts relevant to the borders of the Jewish state.
This period was replete with ideas,
events and activities aimed at defining the Israeli borders. And despite
the divergences in Israeli ideas and opinions on the matter, there were
nevertheless two matters about which there was virtually unanimous
agreement within Israel. The first of these was the necessity of
expanding the borders of the state beyond what they were prior to the
war of June, 1967.
As for the second matter, it was the
necessity of establishing the status quo in those areas about which it
was agreed that they were to be included in Israeli territory. The means
to achieve this was to continue taking bold steps toward settling these
areas. In other words, there was an almost unanimously agreed-upon
minimum as to the area of land to be taken over. As for the maximum area
and the manner of discussing it as well as the means of solving other
problems, these were the subject of controversy among the Israeli
population.
It bears note here that the ideas which
were proposed during this period concerning the best means of dealing
with the Israeli-Arab conflict in general, and with the matter of the
borders in particular, were connected to developments which had occurred
in the general situation both politically and militarily.
We may summarize the basic features of
Israeli thought on the border issue during this phase as follows (17):
1) There was unanimous agreement in Israel that there should be no
return to the pre-June 1967 borders.
2) There were differing Israeli points of view on regional claims and
the areas to be annexed. However, there was agreement on the following:
a) that the areas sought after should not be revealed publicly, and that
lands already in Israel's possession should be used as a means of
applying pressure for a settlement to the Middle East problem.
b) that the basic areas to be held onto included the West Bank of the
Jordan, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, Sharm al-Shaikh, a coastal
area extending from Sharm al-Shaikh to Eilat, and Jerusalem (with the
possibility of giving the Muslims the right to manage Islamic religious
sites).
c) that the outer limit to the areas sought after should not be revealed
in order that their size might be determined based on specific
circumstances.
d) that Israel should adopt a policy of establishing the status quo by
means of Israeli settlement in occupied areas, yet without taking any
legal or political measures related to annexation of areas still sought
after.
3) The size of the Arab communities on the West Bank and in Gaza
presented difficulties for Israel in realizing such annexations, since
Israel did not want to annex these areas immediately for fear of having
to deal with troublesome demographic factors. At the same time, it did
not consider it wise to engage in a rapid, mass expulsion of the
inhabitants of these areas for fear of [international] reactions to such
a measure.
4) The primary point of disagreement among differing Israeli points of
view lay in the manner by which Israel was to assimilate the areas still
to be taken over, especially the West Bank and Gaza. The prevailing
point of view was that Israel should carry out a plan comprising a
mixture of the "Jalili" document, the Alon project and the ideas of
[Moshe] Dayan.
With these points in mind we may conclude that Israeli thought during
this period was characterized by the following:
1) work toward isolation of the West Bank by setting up a human barrier,
as well as a barrier composed of Jewish settlements.
2) isolating the Gaza Strip from Egypt by setting up a series of Jewish
settlements in the Rafah area.
3) isolating the western part of the Golan Heights by building a strip
of settlements in the elevated areas overlooking the western plains of
the Golan.
4) connecting these areas by means of a network of Israeli services.
5) forbidding the return of any refugees to these areas.
6) developing the economic potentials of these areas and giving a degree
of economic freedom to their inhabitants on condition that this be
within the framework of Israel's overall economic plan.
7) giving these areas a degree of autonomy in social and administrative
affairs.
8) refraining from immediate annexation of these areas and focusing on
forming friendly relations with the Arabs while creating work
opportunities for them in such a way that they could be more easily
assimilated in future.
9) showing concern to bring about a rapid increase in Jewish immigration
into Israel in order to create favorable demographic conditions which
would enable Israel to annex the land areas still sought after, giving
special care to Soviet Jews.
10) giving prominence to talk about "safe borders", "defensive borders",
"defensible borders", as well as what are referred to as "preemptive, or
deterrent borders"; in other words, establishing a direct connection
between the matter of the borders and military requirements.
Despite Israel's focus during this period on the areas occupied during
the June 1967 war, it had not forgotten its interest in the east bank of
the Jordan. This is apparent in the ideas expressed by Israeli officials
in the area of aspiring toward the establishment of federate and
confederate associations with Jordan.
Hence, it may be noted that the Israeli conception of the borders during
this period was developing in the following manner:
1. The western border was the
Mediterranean Sea.
2. The eastern border was parallel with the elevated areas of the Golan
Heights, running approximately from Jabal al-Shaikh as far as east Fayq
and from there to the Yarmouk River; then extending the length of the
Jordan River through the Dead Sea, Wadi Arabah, and Eilat.
3. The southwest border extended in a line from east of al-Arish as far
as the Negev Cape, and from there to the Gulf of Aqabah.
4. The southern border extended from the Gulf of Aqabah through a
coastal sector in Eilat, then to Sharm al-Shaikh.
5. In the north there was no change in the existing lines along the
Lebanese borders.
Top
Israeli Thought on the Borders of the
State, October 1973-August 1975
We may summarize Israeli thought on the
border issue during this period, and during which Israeli expansion
reached its present limits, in the following manner (18):
a) the appearance of relative flexibility in regard to withdrawal
(within the framework of the peace agreements) by comparison with the
previous period.
b) the appearance of relative flexibility with regard to willingness to
withdraw partially from the Sinai and Golan (with a focus of attention
on the western plains of the Golan Heights and the areas which in the
past had been demilitarized zones).
c) continued interest in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with the
appearance of the following:
* continued work on isolating the Gaza strip from Sinai and cordoning
off the West Bank by means of a line of Jewish settlements in the
lowlying (Ghour) area of Jordan.
* refraining from taking any practical steps toward annexing the Gaza
strip or the West Bank.
* interest in developing the potentials of the Gaza strip with respect
to absorbing refugees.
* interest in developing the economic potential in the Gaza strip and
the West Bank, and linking their economies with the Israeli economy.
* Israel's once more posing the idea of a federal union with the West
Bank of Jordan while rejecting the notion of an independent Palestinian
state.
d) the occurrence of a relative change in the proposed method of gaining
control over Sharm al-Shaikh in comparison with that of the previous
period.
e) Israel's continuing to hold onto what were seen as "safe borders" and
a refusal to return to the pre-1967 borders.
As we conclude our discussion of Israeli
thought with regard to the borders of the Jewish state, we find that the
issue of the Israeli borders continues to be enveloped in mystery. This
is a result of the great care taken by the Israelis to maintain secrecy
concerning their goal lest they meet with reactions which could have a
negative impact upon their activities aimed at achieving their regional
ends and objectives. We likewise find that Zionism and Israel have
formed their concepts of the region and the borders which they seek in a
way which remains consistent with their aspirations to occupy a place of
prominence and to play a leading role in the Middle East.
Zionism and Israel have also set a
long-range political plan to reach the borders which will provide them
with the lands to which they make claim. Such a plan will be executed by
means of a strategy based on successive stages, a strategy based on
keeping in constant view the final goal, which is to reach these borders
while exercising the greatest possible degree of tactical flexibility,
and in a manner which is compatible with the nature of the situation
during the various phases of the process so as to achieve the greatest
possible gains in land area at the least cost.
Moreover, in order to achieve its end
goals with regard to the borders of the Jewish state, Israel has
presented us with numerous justifications and arguments which it
believes will enable it to obtain international approval of its claim to
the region to which it aspires. In doing so, it has repeatedly appealed
to religious bases for its territorial and historical claims regarding
what it terms "the land of the forefathers". In addition, there are
colonialist and economic justifications the features of which have been
determined within the framework of the territorial claims put forward by
political Zionism; and lastly, there are military justifications which
Israel terms, "security claims" or what are referred to as "safe
borders." It is worthy of note in this regard that the content of all
these territorial claims, be they religious, historical or military, are
similar to lights by which one may distinguish the piece of land which
Israel wishes to take possession of and the borders which it hopes to
claim for itself in the future, while refusing at the present time to
define them for others. All it has to say on the matter is, "from the
time it was established, [Israel] has had no borders" (19).
Meanwhile, Israel makes use of the
occupied territories as a means of applying pressure in the arena in
which the Arab-Israeli conflict continues to rage.
Top
(3) The Economic Base
Zionist Talmudism aims to achieve international
hegemony by taking possession of the resources and capabilities of the
nations of the world. Usury is considered to be its initial "way in",
and in fact, it has proved to be the portal leading to Zionist, Talmudic
control over the worlds of capitalism and communism. The gold which the
Jews monopolize is the most powerful weapon possible to rouse public
opinion, to corrupt societies and to destroy consciences, religions,
nationalistic loyalties and the family system. By means of money, the
Jews exercise control over the media and thought itself, and in many
places throughout the West (Europe and America), the Jews own commercial
establishments and entire markets, having powerful influence over the
press and television. Some of the most notable proponents of Capitalism
(Adam Smith, for example) have been Jews, as have been the proponents of
Communist Marxism (Marx himself was a Jew) (20).
Due to their rejection of manual labor, the Jews have played the role of
the merchant and the mediating usurer throughout history, this being the
mission to which they have devoted themselves for the sake of exercising
control over gold and economic dealings. This appears to be their
greatest ambition, and nearly all of their plans and projects are
directed to the service of this end.
And given that usury has been the natural preliminary step on the way to
execution of such a scheme, heavy emphasis has been laid on opening the
door to the allure of usury through wasteful spending and borrowing. In
order to persuade the peoples of the world to engage in such practices,
it was necessary to justify these concepts and to seduce nations and
peoples by means of them. Talmudic Judaism has indeed succeeded in
hemming in and gaining supremacy over Western society, drawing it away
from the concepts of Christianity, which forbids usury, war and
corruption, and deep into the world of colonial hegemony, mass
annihilation, the murder of innocents and seizure of control over the
potentials of the nations of the world in the manner which has been
witnessed in the history of relations between the West and the world of
Islam over the past two centuries. And it is Talmudism which has
corrupted the interpretations of religion and secular thought, "Judaizing"
Western culture as it pertains to wars, colonialism and usury. It is the
tireless efforts of Talmudism which have managed to propagate its
concepts and ideology: shaping thought and society, funding the spread
of particular doctrines and ideologies, and using their proponents and
followers to gain power over the leadership of nations and the entire
world (21).
Top
References
-
Adel
Mahmoud Riyad, Israeli Thought and the Borders of the State, Institute
for Arab Research and Studies, the Arab League and Dar al-Nahdat al-Arabiyyah
[The Arab Renaissance Publishing House], (Beirut) 1989, p. 263.
-
Ibid.,
p. 265.
-
Ibid.,
pp. 266-267.
-
Ibid.,
p. 267.
-
Mahmoud al-Labadi, Basic Points of Departure in Zionist Media-Related
Thought, Media Studies, 1982, pp. 43-44.
-
Anwar
al-Jundi, op. cit., p. 62.
-
al-Labadi,
op. cit., p. 35.
-
Adel
Mahmoud Riyad, op. cit., pp. 19-25.
-
Ibid.
-
Ibid.,
quoting from The Encyclopedia of Judaism, Part II, p. 112.
-
Ibid.,
quoting from The Encyclopedia of Judaism, 1972, Part IX, p. 112.
-
Ibid.
-
Ibid.,
p. 85.
-
Ibid.,
p. 117.
-
Ibid.,
p. 129.
-
Ibid.,
p. 152, quoting from Michael Barzohar, The Armed Prophet: A Biography
of Ben Gurion, London, p. 144.
-
Ibid.,
p. 156.
-
Ibid.,
p. 259.
-
Ibid.,
pp. 287-289.
-
al-Jundi,
op. cit., p. 141.
-
Ibid.,
p. 113.
Top
