Three Exclusive Tips for Netanyahu

by Paul Findley

Advice to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s youthful new prime minister, is abundant and varied. Most of it is probably also unwelcome, especially from persistent critics of Israel, like myself.

Here are three steps he could take that would please most of his friends and ease tensions with his enemies.

1) Withdraw Israel’s military and political presence from southern Lebanon.

Israel’s military adventures in Lebanon have been consistently unsuccessful. Prime Minister Begin’s 1982 war in Lebanon was costly in both Israeli lives and prestige. It was a turning point for many Americans who, through the smoke and rubble of Beirut and the blood-soaked Palestinian camps, saw for the first time an ugly and imperial Israel. The failure prompted Begin’s retirement from public affairs.

Israel’s more recent military adventures there have been equally unsuccessful, especially the recent pre-election invasion ordered by Prime Minister Shimon Peres. The assaults laid to waste much of Lebanon and its infrastructure, caused heavy civilian losses, and created bad publicity worldwide. It has piled up new layers of anti-Israeli emotions, especially in Lebanon. Some observers believe it evoked so much protest at home that it spoiled his chance to remain as prime minister.

Many, if not most, of Israel’s problems in Lebanon arise from its long-time domination of southern Lebanon. It has kept control through a combination of Lebanese puppets and Israeli military forces. Its first puppet was a Lebanese colonel named Haddad. At that time, southern Lebanon was derisively called Haddadland.

Israel has tried to maintain the strip as a buffer against any and all violence against northern Israel. Predictably, the area has not served as a buffer at all. To the contrary, it has been an endless provocation that brought Hezbollah into being and nurtured its growth. It has also given Syria a solid reason to maintain its substantial military presence in Lebanon.

As they continue to carry out raids on Israeli military forces in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah leaders note, correctly, that the violence for which their forces are responsible is confined entirely to Lebanese territory that is illegally held by a foreign power.

Despite Israel’s assaults, the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon has gained strength. It is no longer simply a movement financed by Syrian and Iranian interests. It is now a major growing political element in Lebanon.

In short, it makes no sense for Israel to continue its occupation of Lebanese territory. Netanyahu should unilaterally order Israeli forces withdrawn. By doing so, he would:

please the people of Lebanon and all of Israel’s other neighbors
deny Syria its major justification for keeping military forces in Lebanon
strengthen its credibility in negotiating with Syria over the Golan Heights
cut military costs and spare Israeli soldiers from death and injury that inevitably will continue as long as they remain on Lebanese territory.

Refusal of aid would be consistent with Likud’s market-oriented philosophy.

There is no guarantee, of course, that after the withdrawal Israel’s northern border would be free of attacks from the north, but the Lebanese government, working with PLO leadership in the past, has kept the border completely free of violence for long periods. If attacks do occur after withdrawal, Israel would have international law and covenant on its side in undertaking reprisals. As it is, every new Israeli military operation in Lebanon reinforces the Jewish state’s reputation as a scofflaw and pariah.

2) Decline the annual $3 billion-plus gift from the U.S. Treasury, or at least a major part of it.

In terms of gross national product and per capita income, Israel is now one of the most advanced and prosperous industrial states. It is absurd for the U.S. government to keep Israel as its major foreign-aid beneficiary, even though much of it goes for interest and principal payments due on loans it received years ago from the United States.

Israel can afford to pay for its military equipment and service its debt to the U.S. government. Its fiscal position is far stronger than that of its chief benefactor.

This recommendation is supported by New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal, perhaps the most persistent and passionate among pro-Israel pundits in the American media. Recently, he repeated a proposal he made three years ago: the state of Israel should “volunteer to take less American economic aid, or none at all.”

Rosenthal first made the proposal three years ago to the Labor government of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, and believes it was dismissed as “a typical piece of trouble-making for Labor from a voice of the Right.” Now that the right is in power, Rosenthal feels the time is right.

Refusal of aid would be consistent with Likud’s market-oriented philosophy. When Likud first came to power in the seventies, as a market-oriented member of Congress myself, I rejoiced momentarily. I expected the new prime minister, Menachem Begin, to change Israel’s socialist structure, sell public land and industry, and let Israel prosper as a profit-based industrial power. Instead, Begin became caught up in military adventurism and economic reforms did not materialize.

If Netanyahu dismantles Israeli socialism and ends Israeli financial dependency on the U.S. Treasury, he will accomplish two things: tremendous gains in economic strength at home and wide applause worldwide, especially in the United States. While the $3 billion a year gift is only part of the financial support the United States extends to Israel, it is the largest and most prominent element. Most Americans have no concept of our government’s generosity to Israel. When they eventually learn the truth, the protest will be loud. But a timely action by Netanyahu could avert this. Meanwhile most members of Congress resent being whipped into supporting the Israeli aid by Israel’s U.S. lobby.

Rosenthal writes that declining U.S. aid would be a source of pride for Israel, “just fine for America and one more bond of respect between the two countries.”

3) Sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The world is finally waking up to the fact that nuclear warheads have no military value, and Israel should wake up too. At great embarrassment to the United States, which has long pressed for universal signing of the treaty, Israel is one of the few holdouts.

Like the Israeli troops in southern Lebanon, Israel’s 200 or so warheads are an irritant, a provocation, a handicap—not an asset.

The tragedy at the Soviet power plant in Chernoblyl has demonstrated how devastating nuclear fallout can be over a wide area. It is simply unthinkable that a government like that of Israel that places great importance on the safety of its citizens would imperil them all, even in extremity, by using a nuclear weapon against an invading force or a nearby state.

I believe the only credible nuclear threat to Israel or the United States, or any other governmentwould come from a fanatic acting independently, against whom a stockpile of nuclear warheads is no deterrent whatever.

By halting its nuclear weapons program and placing its warhead inventory under international control, Israel would extract a nagging thorn from its relations with Arab neighbors, remove an embarrassment to the United States, and improve its standing in the world community.