by Emanuel Shilo, Besheva, translated by Hillel Fendel
The first lesson that Israel must learn from the out-of-control American withdrawal from Afghanistan is sharp and clear: Israel must always be able to defend itself with its own forces.
We must never be dependent upon American military aid, meaning that we may not converge behind borders that are indefensible without such help. Reliance upon a foreign element, no matter how friendly, has proven more than once throughout history to be a dependence on a broken reed.
Over the past 20 years, the Afghans allowed the Americans to fight for them – and now they have been tossed aside like dirty rags to the extremist Islamic rule of the Taliban. The reason is that the Americans did not send their soldiers there in order to protect the Afghans. Rather, the U.S. conquered Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban government because of its sponsorship of Al-Qaeda, the terror organization responsible for thousands of American deaths during the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center et al. But now, 20 years later, the Americans have different interests, and what happens to the Afghans no longer interests them. The U.S. got its soldiers out, its civilians out (some of them, anyway), and its diplomats out, while the many Afghans who cooperated with them over the years were left to what is expected to be a bitter fate.
Of course, the United States' relations with Israel are deeper than those it had with Afghanistan, but this depth can never replace the main component of such relations: interests. Not always is what is important to Israel of value to Uncle Sam. We experienced this most painfully back during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when the Americans used our dependency on their weapons to prevent us from carrying out military moves that would have ended the war with a decisive Israeli victory. They also forced upon us diplomatic concessions.
A contemporary example of utmost severity is the tolerance shown by our great friend towards Iran as it races towards military nuclear capabilities. The Ayatollahs' regime makes no secret of its burning hatred for Israel, nor of its desire to destroy us. If it truly wanted to, the U.S. could long ago have put an end to this Iranian venture. But the Americans in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, have a different approach. They are willing to be flexible and take chances in their dealings with Iran, as long as it is not America that is liable to suffer the consequences, but rather Israel and its very existence.
The Democratic administrations are happy to flirt with the Iranians and try to reach "understandings" with them; even the friendly Trump administration sought to tame Iran only economically, but not militarily. Not only do the Americans not do the work for us, but they have even acted more than once to prevent Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear project on its own.
If we wish to continue to enjoy our national existence, we must act independently, and not deposit our fate in the hands of the United States. This is true not only regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, but also regarding the dangers of a Palestinian state. Building an enemy state in the heart of our homeland is a grave security danger, and it cannot be remedied by relying on Uncle Sam. U.S. financial aid is an important component in Israel's security policies, as well as in American diplomatic policies – but we dare not allow it to turn into Israeli dependency.
Israel vis-à-vis Lebanon and Others
Israel would be well advised not to adopt America's cold and interests-based attitude towards its allies. Unfortunately, we have somewhat failed in this in the past, regarding Arabs who collaborated with us in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as well as in Lebanon. Many of the former were abandoned to the hands of the terrorists of the PA regime, and too many fighters of the Southern Lebanese Army and their families were similarly left behind. It is still too early to tell what price the U.S. will pay for abandoning its friends in Afghanistan, but it will not be immediate; the dangers are far away. This is not the case with Israel, and when we are not loyal to those who help us, their wrath can come quickly, as they live practically in our midst.
In light of its mistakes in the past, Israel must formulate a long-range plan to rebuild its trustworthiness and prove that the deals it makes are long-lasting. If we do so, we will find not a few elements in the Middle East that will be happy to once again cooperate with us.
Another Lesson: Don't be Naïve
We must also learn from Taliban's re-conquest of Afghanistan that America is quite naïve in believing that world peace can be achieved simply by bringing democracy to all. We must all recognize that there are quite a few nations and cultures for which the democratic model simply does not apply – at least not at this point in history.
The thought that everyone in the world is simply longing to have their choice of ruler as their overall goal is simply not true. We saw during the period of the Arab Spring that even when given the choice, Islamic voters invariably chose extremist regimes very distant from liberal values. And there are actually quite a few places in the Middle East where it is precisely dictatorial regimes that manage to keep the peace and provide comfortably for their citizens.
Consider Egypt, for instance. It enjoyed decades of quiet and stability under Hosni Mubarak, until the Arab Spring erupted there ten years ago. The democratic elections that followed brought to power Mohammed Morsi of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood movement – and the stability of the entire region was endangered. Only when a counter-revolution brought back to power a military regime did quiet return to Egypt – and good relations with Israel, to boot.
Jordan and Saudi Arabia too have enjoyed decades of stability under a monarchy passed down from father to son. The residents do not rise up against this, because in their culture, democracy is not the guarantor of happiness. They live quite well even without the opportunity of choosing their leaders, and they willingly give up on what we call "liberal values."
So too the Arabs of the Land of Israel who call themselves Palestinians. Their terrorist leader, Yasser Arafat, promised to establish a "democratic secular" state – and did nothing to actualize it. His successor, Mahmoud Abbas, was elected in democratic elections to head the PA for a four-year term – but these four years passed well over 12 years ago, and he's still in power, with no revolution in the offing.
In general, the Arabs living under the Palestinian Authority, as many of their brethren, don't really regard very highly the concept of democracy. Rather, as many in the world seek to grant them self-rule and even a state, their only goal remains not democracy, free speech, and the like – but the destruction of Israel. It is too bad that there are many naïve people who don't understand this simple reality.