Needed: A US-Israel Defense Treaty

With a two-state solution supported by an American-Israeli defense treaty, there will be hope for the Middle East.

By BOB FEFERMAN
Defense treaty (do not publish again) (photo credit: Avi Katz)
Defense treaty (do not publish again)
(photo credit: Avi Katz)
One of the lessons I remember from my days as a political science student is the aphorism: “Where you stand depends upon where you sit.” If you are sitting in the office of the prime minister of Israel, here are your dilemmas: On the one hand, you understand the need for peace through the two-state solution that would require an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank; on the other hand, you see the recent unity agreement between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority. You ask, what will happen after an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank? Will Hamas take over? You face a difficult dilemma with seemingly no solution: How to make indefensible borders defensible in order to achieve peace?
It is important for Americans to understand that the experience of the Gaza withdrawal has left the Israeli public, and its leaders, with the legitimate fear that land-for-peace can too easily become land-for-rockets. Since Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, thousands of rockets have been launched by Hamas terrorists targeting Israeli civilians near Gaza. It is obvious to every Israeli that if rockets come flying out of a future Palestinian state in the West Bank, they could land on Ben-Gurion International Airport or in downtown Tel Aviv.
With Iran continuing to arm its proxies, Hamas and Hizballah, with thousands of rockets and missiles, as it races to arm itself with nuclear weapons, Israeli strategic planners already have their hands full. If that’s not enough, the current upheaval in the Middle East has given Israelis new reasons to be concerned about their eastern border. What if the monarchy in Jordan is overthrown and replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood? What if Iraq becomes radicalized? In addition, the uncertainty of the future of Egypt on its southern border only adds to the potential challenges now facing Israel.
These concerns are both real and serious. After all, an Israeli withdrawal to something approximating the 1967 borders would leave Israel as a country that is less than 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. Given the current reality of the Middle East, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is correct: the 1967 borders are indeed indefensible.
Yet there is a way to achieve peace without jeopardizing Israel’s security.
In his speech to the US Congress, Netanyahu called for a long-term Israeli presence along the Jordan River to face a potentially hostile eastern front. But although Israelis take great pride in defending themselves, Palestinian sensitivities would most likely preclude any continued Israeli presence deep within the West Bank. I suggest an alternative solution: An American military force could be stationed along the Jordan River to help guarantee the security of Israel’s eastern border through a mutual-defense treaty. Accordingly, any attack on this American force would be considered an attack on both the United States and Israel and could trigger joint US-Israel defense operations.
Most importantly, this treaty should clearly guarantee that any attack on Israel from the West Bank or Gaza would fully legitimize Israel’s right to self-defense, something that was jeopardized by the UN Human Rights Council’s Goldstone Report following the IDF operation in Gaza in 2008/9.
Withdrawal of the American security force from the Jordan River would be contingent upon political stability in both Jordan and the West Bank over time. Until that happens, the Palestinians in the Jordan valley would be free to run their lives as full citizens of a Palestinian state.
An American-Israeli mutual defense treaty, with an American force stationed along the Jordan River, would give Israel the confidence that in a rapidly changing Middle East it could withdraw from most of the West Bank without the risk of facing any potential future threats by itself. It would give Israel strategic depth it would otherwise lack.
Why would an American-Israeli mutual defense treaty be in the national interest of the United States? The former prime minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, said it best: “Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our over-dependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down,” he declared.
Beyond the threat of radical Islam, an American-Israeli alliance would send a strong message to the peoples of the Middle East that the three things they now hope for – freedom, democracy and prosperity – can be advanced through cooperation with freedom’s forward outpost, Israel. As Netanyahu said to Congress: “Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.”
In order to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the legitimate concerns of Israel regarding its security will need to be addressed with creative solutions. Through a two-state solution backed by an American-Israeli defense treaty we can create a better Middle East for all.
Bob Feferman lived in Israel for 11 years and served in the Israel Defense Forces. He now lives in northern Indiana and teaches history to middle school students.