 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
 |
2002.07.14 Prof. Louis Rene Beres, Dept. Political Science, Purdue Univ.
– “In recent years, with precious few exceptions, the leading academic strategists in Israel have offered little scholarship of any real merit or importance. Moreover, much of their scholarship has been altogether injurious, notably the dreadful thinking that spawned and sustained Oslo’s Trojan horse. Remarkably, on issues that deal with mass destruction threats to Israel, the country’s leading strategists remain mired in the outdated ‘wisdom’ of 1950s America…”
“Israel's policy of ‘opacity’ or ‘deliberate ambiguity’ on nuclear weapons is now faintly ridiculous. In essence, Shimon Peres already undermined Israel's longstanding commitment to keeping the bomb in the ‘basement’ only weeks after he succeeded Yitzkhaq Rabin as Prime Minister. At that time, speaking with a group of Israeli newspaper and magazine editors, Peres advanced the idea of unilateral denuclearization in exchange for ‘peace.’
“Aside from the inherent foolishness of Peres's offer (Israel's relinquishment of nuclear weapons would assuredly invite genocidal war by several enemy states), the proposal was extended apart from any coherent strategic doctrine…”
“Israeli strategists need to recognize the advantages of private as opposed to collective academic thought… In matters concerning Israeli security, one may discover greater intellectual value in the private musings of certain unaffiliated single individuals than in the sum total of collaborative efforts spawned by professional centers of strategic studies.”
“Although it would be convenient for Israel to oblige the President on this matter, the American vision fails to understand an especially ominous consequence of another dictatorial Arab state: A Palestinian state – flanking the areas that contain 70% of Israel's population – would greatly heighten the prospect of catastrophic nuclear war in the Middle East.
“A Palestinian state would utterly eliminate Israel's remaining strategic depth, giving the Israelis virtually no viable capacity to defend an already fragile land. Faced with a new enemy state resolutely committed to Israel's annihilation, Israel's leaders would have to undertake even more stringent methods of counter-terrorism and self-defense against aggression. Various new forms of preemption, known under international law as anticipatory self-defense, would be unavoidable.
“Because the creation of a state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel would raise the risk of regional nuclear war considerably, this newest enemy state should be viewed with real apprehension. Indeed, its creation could likely be a final step to bring an Islamic "Final Solution" to the region. After all, every Arab map of the Middle East already excludes Israel. Cartographically, Israel has already been expunged.
“Even if it were able to resist takeover by one of the other Islamic states in the region, a takeover accomplished either directly or by insurgent surrogates, Palestine would surely become a favored launching-point for unconventional terrorism against Israel. Various promises notwithstanding, Islamic insurgents would continue to celebrate frenzied violence against Israel's women and children as the essence of ‘national liberation’…
“Recognizing an ‘improved’ configuration of forces vis-à-vis Israel, a larger number of Islamic enemy states would calculate that they now confront a smaller, more beleaguered adversary. Further, they would understand that a coordinated effort by certain countries that possess or are in the process of acquiring pertinent ballistic missiles could possibly endanger Israel's very survival. Taken together with the fact that global support for Israel is always fickle, especially in perilous times like these, and that individual or combined chemical/biological/nuclear warfare capabilities could bring enormous harm to Israel, the creation of Palestine would tip the balance of power in the Middle East decisively. It is unlikely that Israel could physically survive next to a Palestinian state, a state that always defines itself as extending ‘from the Sea to the River.’”
“…such a state, looking first very much like Lebanon, could wind up as Armageddon.”
 |
|
 |