Weekly Commentary: No to NATO deployment as an anti-Palestinian terror force

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 1 November 2007

"To the extent that the Palestinians find it difficult to establish an
effective security apparatus to end the terror activity, NATO will fill the
vacuum created."
Principles of Permanent Agreement - Yisrael Beiteinu party Chairman and
Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman

Would it really serve Israel's interests to inject NATO forces into the
equation?

Hardly.

Lieberman sees the mandate of such a NATO deployment as an anti-Palestinian
terror force, but the NATO members aren't from Mars. They are nations with
their own international (and for that matter domestic) interests and
concerns. As such, this force would be careful to avoid the "Israel's
Policeman" label.

Deployment of such a force would be predicated on significant and
substantial Israeli concessions that contributing countries could point to
in order to justify their participation to the Arab world.

The force would also not tolerate any Israeli security activity in areas
under its supervision.

By the same token that Israel weighs a constellation of considerations in
its security operations, this force would factor in parameters that go
beyond trying to assure 100% in a given situation.

For example:

- Roadblocks and other operations that impinge on movement: There
is constant pressure today to sacrifice security in favor of expedited
movement. The NATO force could be expected to opt to err in the favor of
movement over security.

- Operations against terrorists in sensitive locations: Schools,
hospitals, mosques, etc.

- Operations against terrorists aligned with the ruling authorities
and official Palestinian locations. Historically, many terrorist operations
are carried out by forces associated with the ruling Palestinian factions.
In fact, many of these gunmen also serve within the Palestinian security
forces as their day job while they moonlight as terrorists. Illegal weapons
have also been stored in official PA armories (for example the rockets and
other equipment that Hamas seized when it took control in Gaza). NATO ground
commanders would weigh operations against these terrorists against the
repercussions, in terms of its impact on relations with both their
Palestinian interlocutors and third parties (Arab world, etc.).

Deploying NATO forces across the road from Kfar Sava means stripping Israel
of the ability to act to protect itself from terror attacks.

At best the operational goals of the commanders on the ground would be to
try to prevent the launching of terror attacks during their tour of duty
while avoiding casualties (and bad press) to their own forces, an approach
that lends itself, at best, to the "hudna" concept that it is acceptable for
the terrorists to gain strength as long as they don't use it. Yet.

Even if all this wasn't the case, the suggestion that the Palestinians never
have to get their house in order constitutes a radical departure from Israel's
philosophy to date.

Not only is it a tremendous concession to make in a working paper rather
than after prolonged negotiations, it ignores the fundamental truth so often
ignored in Israeli policy discussions: that once a sovereign Palestinian
state is established, its sovereign status is not conditioned on continued
compliance with, or the functioning of, the agreement under which it was
created.

Simply put: a sovereign Palestinian state can send Mr. Lieberman's proposed
NATO force packing.

It might be appealing to suggest that someone else bear Israel's security
burden - but it won't work.

Raising such phantom solutions only serves to further confuse the policy
debate.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il