The Institute for Policy and Strategy

The Institute for Policy and Strategy

in cooperation with the

Atlantic Forum of Israel

is pleased to invite you to a symposium on

THE ATLANTIC COMMUNITY AND ISRAEL:

ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF RADICAL ISLAM AND

WMD PROLIFERATION

Main Points:

Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, President, IDC Herzliya

• For Israel, the best deterrence against the Iranian threat is an alliance with the family of democratic nations -- NATO.
• If Israel were to join NATO, the tension between Israel and the Arab world would be lessened.
• Israel would not be able to join NATO alone; it may be accepted along with other Arab countriessuch as Jordan and Lebanon, who are the least non/anti–democratic amongst the Arab states.

Dr. Daniel Pipes, Director, Middle East Forum

• The Palestinian elections legitimated Hamas as a political actor.
• The policy that the new Israeli government should pursue regarding Hamas is not dialogue and inclusion, but rejection and exclusion, since Hamas will not change.
• This view is based on three aspects: the nature of Hamas, the war on terror and radical Islam, and the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
• Hamas is an element of the worldwide movement of radical Islam that has a totalitarian vision of how to change society. Itseeks to create a new political order in which the government rules all aspects of life. Therefore, even if the Hamas changes itstactics (terrorism), it should not be accepted by the West.
• Terrorism is merely one way ofadvancing Hamas's goals. It is not just what they do, but what they think. Radical Islam derives from Islam, but unlike it, it is anti-modern, anti-western, misogynist, suicidal, Jihadi, and anti-Semitic. Along with radical Islam comes hatredof the West, intolerance towards non-Muslims, tyrannical rule of subjects, repression and arms proliferation.There is every reason to assume that when Hamas takes power, results will be similar.
• Only if one side gives up its goals can there be a resolution. Israel's goal has been to win the acceptance of it neighbours, while the Arab goal has been to eliminate Israel. A resolution to the conflict will only come when one side gives up.Unilateral steps by Israel and/or a compromise cannot achieve this.
• Hamas clearly needs to be rejected until it accepts the existence of a Jewish state. There should be no negotiations and no treaties until there isacceptance of Israel,that is, after the Palestinians have a change of heart. Hamas is the enemy of Israel and the West, and the goal should be its destruction, not its legitimation, much less its courtship.

Maj. Gen. (res.) MK Matan Vilnai, Former Minister of Science & Technology

• Radical Islam has become a real threat to the free world. Israel is on the front of this battlefield, but the threat is shared by Israel, NATO, and the whole free world.
• Building democracy in Muslim countries can be a dangerous phenomenon, asnon-democraticradical movements came to power through democratic means
• The whole free world should join forces with Israel against Hamas, recognizing it as a terrorist organization, and not as a political movement. Hamas must recognize Israel and disarm itself. The way to fight it is not in the battlefield, but diplomatically.

H.E. Michael Žantovský, Ambassador of the CzechRepublic to Israel and NATO Contact Point Ambassador in Israel

• Great expectations revolved around the Secretary-General of NATO’s visit to Israela year ago, but most of them have not materialized.
• There have beensome achievements, such as joint search and rescue exercises andActive Endeavour, but the Action Plan is still being discussed, and participation in NATO's committeeshas not yet materialized.
• On the question of membership or affiliation of IsraelwithNATO, there have been some contradictory statements in NATO. The Israeli government has to make a strategic decision in this regard.
• The modest results are due to the Mediterranean Dialogue format, in which the pace of the process is determined by the "slowest turtle", while some of the turtles do not move at all.
• Israelhas shown more willingnessformultilateral cooperation. This is not due to a change in itsbelief in self-reliance, but rather stems from the awareness that some countries in Europe face the same threats, and that one country cannot deal with them by itself, i.e. Iran.

There have been two recent implementations of the concepts of collective security and collective defence:Alliance for Freedomspeaks of a common enemy and threat, and Alliance of Civilizationspeaks of misunderstandings and a way to find a common language. In an alliance of collective security, Israel would probably be in the group of Western European and Others. In collective defence,Israel belongs together with Australia, Japanand other democratic countries to prevent risks and threats from becoming reality.

Prof. Uzi Arad, Head, Institute for Policy and Strategy, IDC Herzliya

• Unconditionalwithdrawal, such as thedisengagement,is notin fact unilateral. Israelneeded the cooperation of many actors, and when they failed to cooperate, we hadto bear the burden. It was unilateral only in that it demanded no reciprocity.
• Israel is facing two threats: the rapid nuclearization of Iran, and the rise of a radical Islamist state, manifested in the rise of Hamas.I do not see how disengagement from some of the Palestinian areas will reduce those threats. There is no alternative but to fight and struggle.
• Due to thesheer scope of the threats- global terrorism, radical Islam, WMD proliferation - which threaten the entire Atlantic community, this is Israel's natural alliance.
• Though some in the West have realized this, we find failure of imagination both on the Israeli side and on the Alliance side.
• If Israeljoined an alliancethis wouldrestrict its freedom of actionand ability to act alone.
• To catapult this into real action, a number of conditions must be met: first, an understandingof the situation and the challenges. Second,Churchillian qualities of leadership, such as those demonstrated inthe report by Prime Minister Aznar calling for the transformation of NATO.

------

Full Proceedings:

Greetings:

Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, President, IDC Herzliya

The subject of this symposium is close to many Israelis' hearts for two reasons: the first reason is the wish to join the family of democratic countries. Although theIsraeli political scene is divisive, there is a general agreement that Israel does not want to be an island in a sea of hostile andundemocratic states. This wish is common to the political right and left: to be part of the family of democratic nations.

We at the IDC have adopted a pro-European strategy of emphasizing European languages, European studies, and European matters.

The second reason is a sense of anxiety, especially from threats from Iran. The best deterrence is not just a strong army, but an alliance with the family of democratic nations. If Israel were to join NATO, the tension between Israel and the Arab world would be lessened. This was the case in regards to Greece and Turkey and also to Western and Eastern Europe.

Israel would not be able to join NATO alone.Itcould be accepted along with another Arab country – Jordanand/orLebanon. Today these countries seem to be a part of the modern world - though they are not fully democratic, they are the least non- and anti-democratic countries in the Middle East. Perhaps Israel could also be accepted together with Cyprus.

I hope that with the help of personalities such as Prime Minister Aznar, joining NATO will not be so far away. Any tie with this family of nations is of major importance to Israel–among other reasons, also psychologically.

Speakers:

Dr. Daniel Pipes, Director, Middle East Forum

I will address the question ofHamas: what is to be done aboutit?

The Palestinian elections legitimated Hamas:it is now a legitimate political actor and no longer a simple terrorist organisation. This is the result of mistakes made by the US and Israeli governments.

What policy should the new Israeli governmentpursue?There are two choices: first, dialogue and inclusion, and second, rejection and exclusion. The first assumes that Hamas can be ameliorated, and the second that it cannot change. I will argue for the latter.

I do so on three grounds: the nature of Hamas, the war on terror, and the specific Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

First, Hamas is an element of the worldwide movement of radical Islam that has a totalitarianvision of how to changesociety, a vision of how the world should be. Hamasseeks to create a new political order in which the government rules all aspects of life, as in Sudan, Afghanistanunder the Taliban, Iran,and other countries. It is the nature of Hamas, not just the means it uses, that is problematic. It is ultimately a radical organization that happens to use terror. Had Al-Qaeda or the Nazis given up on using violence, would theyhave been accepted? No, because of their goals. It is the same regarding Hamas.

The US would like to ignore Hamas’s goals and concentrate on it giving up its means. President Bush saw elections as a way to diminish terrorism. Secretary of State Ricealso thought that running for office on a moderate platform, with its emphasis on mundane topics, would temper Hamas. I am sceptical.History shows us a different picture. Fixing roads and building schools does not mean thatHamas has changed or will change.It does thisas a meansto be able to rule society, to get it on their side for their utopian vision.Hitler, Mussolini and Castroall did those things without giving up their radical vision.Irandoes as well -look at what the Iranians are doing these days, andit has no intention to change.

Hamas may be improving its image, but not its intentions. President Bush thinks engagement with Hamas will moderate it. However,Western states should not accept a change of tactics as legitimating this political organisation.My first argument is that even if the Hamas changes itstactics, it should not be accepted by the West.

Second,regarding the war on terror, or on radical Islam:terror ismerely one way of advancing goals. Prime Minister Blairrealized this after the terror attacks in London - this is a battle of ideas;a battle of hearts and minds in which evilshould be defeated. It is not just what they do, but what they think. Radical Islam is a program, a body of ideas, a movement in which Hamas is one element.

Radical Islam is based on the Shariaa, andrequires complete adaptation to this law. This is a transformation of faith into totalitarianism;a transformation of personal faith into radical ideology. Radical Islam derives from Islam, but unlike it, it is anti-modern, anti-western, misogynist, suicidal, Jihadi, and anti-Semitic. This is not the traditional Islam; it isconverting from Islam to Islamism.It premises the use of the state for radical,coercive purposes. Islam is the solution to everything, from family and domestic issues to declaring war. Radical Islam is influenced by Marxism and Communism, byLenin and others. Inherent in radical Islam is the idea of dividing the world in two: Islamists and everyone else. Whoeverdoes not accept this vision is the enemy, and the Muslims that do not accept this vision are the first victims of radical Islam. This is what happens in Darfur these days - most of the victims areMuslims being attacked by the government of Sudan.Along with radical Islam comes hatredof the West,intolerance towards non-Muslims, tyrannical rule of subjects, repression and arms proliferation. There is every reason to assume that when Hamastakes power, results will be similar.

Third is the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no Palestinian partner, and we are therefore looking for ways to manage the conflict without resolving it. Examples of thisarehopes for improved Palestinian leadership,the unilateral withdrawal, the fence, transfer, international troops, international trusteeship, and the Marshall Plan. All of these schemes hope to manage the problem. I donot believe this is possible. I believe that war ends only when one side gives up. If both sides believe they can win, they will go to war. Only if one side gives up can there be a resolution. For example, in 1918 the Germans lost the war, but felt it was their leadership's fault, and hence tried again in 1938. In 1945 they accepted theirdefeat and moved on. The US lost in Vietnam not because it was weak, but because it no longer believed in the goals that originally took it to war. That was also the case with apartheid in South Africa and the fall of the Soviet Union.

When this is applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel's goal has been to winthe acceptance of itsneighbours, while the Arab goal has beento eliminate Israel. A resolution will only come when one side gives up - if the Israelis said that the Zionist experiment was a failure–let's leave, or if the Palestinians accepted that they cannot eliminateIsrael. Once this happens, other Arabs and Muslims will also come around. Closure requires that one side give up its goals. Clearly, winning battles is not enough.I do not believe that unilateral steps by Israel and/or a compromise can achieve this. The only thing that can resolve the issue is thedefeat of one side.I hope the Palestinians will give up their goals and accept Israel.

I believe that the goal of civilized people everywhere is to encourage the Palestinians and especially Hamas to accept 1948 – the existence of a Jewish state. They must see their historic goals as defunct. How is this to be achieved? By making it clear to Hamas in a variety of ways that its goals cannot be achieved –there can be no negotiations,no pieces of paper, no treaties until there is acceptance of Israel. Oslo is sensible, but only after the Palestinians have a change of heart. Hamas clearly needs to be rejected. If we talk to them, it means accepting that the rejection of Israel is an acceptable goal. Hamas is an enemy of Israel and of the West, and the goal should be its destruction, not its legitimation, much less its courtship.

Maj. Gen. (res.) MK Matan Vilnai, Former Minister of Science & Technology

I served in the IDF for 36 years, during which I took part in all the wars. I am familiar withall the threats that Israel and the free world are exposed to. Since the creation of the state, we have faceddaily three circles of threats: terrorism, the modern battlefield, and missiles from beyond the horizon launched hundreds of miles from Israel. Exploding buses are only part of the problem. Those three circles are the day-to-day reality of the security forces.

Israelhas faced the first circle of threats - terroristattacks -since its establishment:fedayeen along the borders of Egypt andJordan until 1956, and since 1967 all over Israel. Terror has become a strategic threat because it can stop the important peace-process in the Middle East.

Second is the modern battlefield – tanks, artillery, infantry, aircraft, attack helicopters, etc. - as we saw in the twoGulf wars. We must be ready for this war, although in light of the peace agreement with Jordan and Egypt this threat is only emanating from Syria.

Third, missiles from beyond the horizon have become the most important threatbesides terror. We must be prepared for missiles coming from Iran,1300 km away.They can use these to launch both conventional and unconventional warheads.

These three circles are the threats that Israel faces every day.

Today, I believe that NATO and the free worldare facing similar threats. There is no Soviet threat anymore, but the threat of radical Islam. The aim of the NATO alliance against the Soviet threat was to not only secure borders and defend against Soviet ground attack, but also to protect the values and principles of Western civilization. 15 years after the end of the Cold War, and since 9/11, the origin of the threats is emanating from the extreme Islam. Weare exposed to a new front, not a clear one. Radical Islam has become a real threat to the free world. Israel is on the front of this battlefield. The transformation of the enemy and of the battlefield is shared by Israel, NATO, and the whole free world.

The phenomenon ofthe return of Islam was depicted by Bernard Lewis in the 1980s. Europe has to ask itself how it is getting ready to face this threat, given the spread of Muslims in all European countries.

I agree with every word inPrime Minister Aznar's report, and I hope it is taken into account by European decision makers.

The days that Israel stood alone in facing this threat are over. Israel being a "nation that dwells alone" is no longer the case.We must stand together to fight radical Islam all over the world.

I would like to emphasize that part of the free world that tries to fight terror also tries to build democracy in Muslim countries.This is a very dangerous phenomenon.Non-democraticmovements came to power through democratic meansin Algeria and in the PalestinianAuthority with theHamas; President Mubarak postponed elections in Egypt because he understood the danger of this phenomenon. Democracy is not just elections. The whole free world should join forces with Israel against Hamas, recognizing it as a terrorist organization, and not as a political movement.Ifthe Hamas rules out terror and disarmsits forces, and recognizesIsrael, they can build a government.Hamas has to recognize Israel, and disarm itself. The way to fight itis not in the battlefield, but diplomatically. Europe is part of this fight. The US is providing the umbrella for this. We must share this mission and cooperate with NATOin order to face the threat of radical Islam. The example of the E-3 bringing the Iranian issue to the UN Security Council is one example.