Weekly Commentary: Three major working assumptions clouding the policy
debate

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 22 April 2010

The first step towards effectively addressing dangerously faulty policy
recommendations is to understand the underlying assumptions that drive them.

Here is a quick review of some of the major assumptions.

Assumption #1. If Israel withdraws to the ’67 line the Arabs will no longer
have any claim against Israel and there will be peace for generations.

Ramifications: Israeli concerns regarding secure borders, enforcement of
the demilitarization of the Palestinian state and pretty much any other
security issue do not have to be seriously addressed since withdrawal will
in and of itself insure Israel’s security.

Assumption #2. The utopian peace derived from withdrawal to the ’67 is an
“all or nothing” proposition, with the resulting peace only observable after
complete withdrawal.

Ramification: Arab attitudes and activities prior to the completion of
Israel’s withdrawal to the ’67 lines are completely irrelevant for the
purposes of analyzing post withdrawal scenarios.

Assumption #3. The entire world shares a set of universal values that
coincides with “Western” values. All other value systems are no more than
cultural window dressing.

Ramification: No national leader would risk jeopardizing his regime, let
alone his nation’s survival, in order to achieve a faith based goal. This
assumption lies behind the consistent American refusal to entertain the
possibility that a nuclear Iran would, in defiance of the deterrent effect
of Israel’s second strike capabilities (“as reported in foreign press
reports”) actually nuke Israel. Instead the worse case scenario is that a
nuclear Iran spurs a nuclear arms race with the danger that terrorist third
parties ultimately get their hands on some nukes – a challenge that could be
met by coaxing Iran and other states that might obtain nuclear devices to
enforce stringent controls to prevent terrorists from acquiring nukes.

Yes, these are silly assumptions. But unfortunately they are held by many
policy makers and promoters.

And it is important to keep them in mind when considering their
recommendations.

Because when someone tells you that arrangement “X” meets Israel’s security
needs when that same person is convinced that Israel will have no security
needs there is every reason in the world to suspect their judgment.

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