Thinking About Israel’s Appeasement Option

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
28 January '10

IDF brass recently re-launched a campaign with Israeli journalists promoting
withdrawal from the Golan in order to avoid the casualties the Jewish State
could expect to suffer should Syria attack.

Granted, there are people in the IDF who religiously believe (that’s
“believe” rather than “think” – because this is a matter of “faith” rather
than “logic”) that withdrawing from the Golan in and of itself would secure
Israel’s northern border since Syria would never attack if it had the Golan
back.

But is there a logic to withdrawal even if you recognize that there are
countless conceivable scenarios under which Syria would opt to strike Israel
even after a beautifully moving signing ceremony on the White House lawn
followed by a complete Israeli withdrawal from every last centimeter of the
Golan?

Here are some explanations:

There are gizmos on the drawing boards that would significantly reduce
Israel’s casualties in the event of a conflict with Syria. So it is best to
postpone conflict until the gizmos are deployed by leaving the Golan.

Israel would be in a considerably better diplomatic situation being attacked
by Syria after signing a peace agreement and handing over the Golan than if
Syria attacked in order to “liberate” the Golan.

Postponement of conflict in and of itself is worthwhile.

But there are problems with these arguments.

(Read full post)
.