Author Argues Israeli Strength, Not Concessions, Guarantees Peace

The author argues that Yasser Arafat's refusal to sign a permanent settlement in 2000 stemmed from a belief in the possibility of a world without American unipolarity, leading him to reject a deal that would have given the Palestinians 97% of the territories. This decision, the author posits, was a strategic error, as Arafat opted for a less certain outcome rather than consolidating gains.

The article contends that the Oslo Accords were a misguided, unilateral concession that only fueled Palestinian demands, suggesting that the ultimate goal is not a state but the "final solution to the Jewish question." The author criticizes some Israelis for blaming the right-wing for the failure of the "peace process," asserting that true peace can only be achieved through an "iron wall" of unwavering Israeli resolve and a rejection of territorial concessions.

Furthermore, the piece emphasizes the importance of Judaism in shaping Israeli strategy, arguing that the state's legal status is incomplete without religious context. It addresses concerns about a potential religious dictatorship, stating that democracy is paramount regardless of the governing ideology, but insists that the Middle Eastern conflict is fundamentally religious, masked as national.

The author explains that Islamic doctrine permits temporary peace with non-believers when Muslim forces are weak, citing historical examples like the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. However, this peace is contingent on Muslim weakness, and the ultimate goal remains conquest. The article concludes that only a decisive Israeli military advantage can ensure lasting peace with the Muslim world, and that a religious dialogue, acknowledging Israel's divine inheritance, offers a future possibility.