The question is whether peace is attainable, not desirable

By Robert Horenstein

article created on:

According to Israeli intelligence sources, the Gaza Strip is beginning to resemble southern Lebanon with Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups engaged in an unprecedented arms buildup. A full-scale war with Israel appears to be a real possibility, perhaps even before the end of the year.
In reaction to the latest developments, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said last month, "This is an absolutely crucial time in the Middle East?This isn't a time to stand still." Heeding those words, American Jews are already mobilizing. But the question is: How should we in the Jewish community react to the escalating situation in Gaza, i.e., what agenda should pro-Israel activists be pursuing?
Not surprisingly, there's disagreement over what messages we ought to be conveying to our elected officials. Should we, for example, urge President Bush to resurrect the defunct peace process, as some groups on the left advocate? Alternatively, should we take our cues from AIPAC and push for legislation on Capitol Hill that would toughen sanctions against the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority (PA)?
To be sure, most of us are frustrated with the lack of progress toward peace. Given the trouble looming in Gaza and the precarious ceasefire in Lebanon, it's hard to be optimistic about the future of the region. Still, frustration is one thing; allowing it to lead us to endorse a course of action that's out of step with reality—with potentially dangerous consequences for Israel—is another matter altogether.
That reality is nothing less than the consolidation of Gaza into a terrorist fortress where Palestinian militants are emulating Hezbollah's strategy against Israel. In fact, since the Israeli withdrawal in August 2005, the Palestinians have dug hundreds of tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border through which they've smuggled an estimated 20 tons of explosives, 15,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 1,000 rocket-propelled grenades, and smaller quantities of Katyusha rockets, and anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.

And all this in addition to the indigenous production of hundreds of Qassam rockets, which have rained continuously on the Negev town of Sderot for the past two years, making life a living hell for residents.
Despite this growing threat, some well-meaning Jewish groups are calling on the administration to pressure Israel to cease military incursions into Gaza, open the main crossings from Gaza into Israel, relax security at Israeli checkpoints, and enter into talks with a so-called Palestinian unity government, if one is ultimately established between Fatah and Hamas ("Focus on what the Palestinian government does, not what it says," reads the Web site of the left-wing Israel Policy Forum). These groups also oppose more stringent sanctions on the PA.
Each one of these points raises serious concerns. Cease military operations in Gaza? What did six years of restraint gain Israel, standing on the sidelines as Hezbollah armed itself with 13,000 missiles following the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000? The feverish pace at which the Palestinians are stockpiling arms in Gaza explains why Israeli military strategists believe they need to deal Hamas a punishing blow sooner rather than later, when Hamas could be in a position to bloody the Israeli army the way Hezbollah did last summer.
Keep open the crossings? Undeniably, a vibrant Palestinian economy is in Israel's best interests. But the Palestinians need to decide what's more important: Transporting their produce for export or smuggling explosives in order to carry out terrorist attacks inside Israel. If the attempt by Palestinian laborers to smuggle six kilos of TNT through the Karni Crossing in late October is any indication, ongoing security threats will force Israel to keep the crossings closed more often than not.
Ease security in the West Bank? The restrictions imposed on the Palestinians are regrettable, but let's not forget that Israeli checkpoints, roadblocks and curfews exist solely as a result of the Palestinian violence that erupted in September 2000. The cause of peace would be better served if we deplore the reason for Israel's last-resort security measures—not the measures themselves.
Return to the negotiating table? With whom? A unity government dominated by Hamas?
How is Israel supposed to engage in peace talks with a radical Islamist organization that regards recognition of the Jewish state as blasphemous?
How can anyone seriously think about progress toward a two-state solution when the openly declared goal of one side is the dismemberment of the other?
The Jewish groups that advocate ratcheting up the pressure on Israel to make these concessions portray themselves as "pro-peace." Predictably, they're critical of what they consider to be "right-wing" organizations that highlight Palestinian intransigence, incitement and violence in support of tightening the screws on Hamas. (That almost all of these very same organizations supported the Oslo peace process and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza evidently wasn't enough to avoid the right-wing label.)
The debate, however, isn't about whether peace is desirable. We all agree it is. The question is whether peace is attainable given that the Palestinians have put their government in the hands of terrorists.
Therefore, a firm American policy that makes clear to the Palestinians all that they stand to lose if they continue on their present path toward more bloodshed is the way to proceed—not dangerous Israeli concessions that facilitate the emergence of another South Lebanon.

Robert Horenstein is the staff director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland Community Relations Committee.