http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=10308

“Will there be an Israel in 2020?” This question wasn’t posed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but by Peter Osnos, a well-known and influential American journalist, publisher and pundit. He was responding to another columnist, Richard Cohen, who wrote that Israel’s establishment in 1948 was a well-intentioned mistake, “creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims.” Cohen urged Israel to adopt a low profile and rely on diplomacy, rather than force, to preserve its remaining international legitimacy.

These myths notwithstanding, Israel became a sovereign state because Jews realized that there was no alternative in the fight for national survival. (In November 1947, the United Nations gave Israel some welcome moral support, but not much more.) And the same drive will preserve Israel as a sovereign Jewish state, equal in status to Muslim, Christian, Hindu and other nations.

In 1947, the pundits predicted that Israel would be crushed by a massive Arab demographic advantage, hostile armies and a hopelessly small economy. Six decades later, Israel’s Jewish population has grown by a factor of ten, to more than six million, while the shekel is stronger than the U.S. dollar and the Israeli military is dominant, despite some limitations.

At the same time, Osmos has finally recognized the obvious ­ that Arab violence is not the result of a territorial dispute for which a negotiated solution can be found, but from the fact that “hundreds of millions are taught to despise.” He goes on to note that the “rage of the Middle East is intractable as other world conflicts are not… it is no different now than it was at the time Israel was created in 1948.” But this rage only succeeds when it is left unanswered. In Egypt, the price of war and the fear of total destruction led to mutual

deterrence (what some call “cold peace”), and eventually the same will happen in Syria, Lebanon and even Iran. The leaders of these countries are violent, but they’re not suicidal.

In this context, it’s important to counter the misleading pessimism about Israel’s future that grew out of images from Lebanon, and the conclusions that Israel met its match in the form

of Hezbollah fighters armed by Iran. Despite some operational errors (found in every military force) and the current leadership crisis, Israel ended the war with far fewer casualties than were expected, and with a more favourable strategic relationship with Hezbollah. Osnos’ assertion that “nothing works anymore for Israel” is facile and wrong ­ more proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Instead, his question about survival should be pointed elsewhere ­ toward Europe and the West. Will London, Birmingham, Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam, etc. become satellites orbiting around a dominant Muslim empire ­ in other words, part of Eurabia?

Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and the wider global jihad movement proclaim their goal of rebuilding the Islamic empire during its glory days, up to Spain (Andalusia) and beyond. The terror attacks of 9/11 and the terror attacks in London, Madrid, Paris and elsewhere were not motivated by events in Israel or the plight of the Palestinians. It’s not only Israel that, to quote Osmos again, is “surrounded by countries and movements that at worst are sworn to its destruction and at best merely despise it.”

After 2000 years of stateless exile, persecution and mass murder, the Jewish people have no options other than to use force in self defence ­ and the Arabs generally understand this. Occasionally, they need to be reminded that Israel is prepared to use what has been called “disproportionate power.” Osmos realizes the difficult facts of life — “when security and dominance of its borders are at stake, Israel suspends the pleasantries. The image of Israel in the rest of the world focuses on that ferocity.”

In contrast, the dominant western response to Islamic terror is compromise, dialogue, apology and calls for understanding. This form of political correctness won’t work against the violence of mass terror and calls for global jihad. The question for Osmos, Cohen and other pundits is whether the West will recognize the need for a more ferocious response in time for it to survive.