Jerusalem Cloakroom #141

An American Perspective on Judea & Samaria

by Yoram Ettinger
yoramtex@netvision.net.il

December 19, 2003

President Bush (April 2001):

“At the narrowest point, it’s only 8 miles from the Mediterranean to the old Armistice line; That’s less than from the top to the bottom of DFW Airport. The whole of pre-1967 Israel is only 6 times the size of the King Ranch.”

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld (Aug. 6, 2002):

“A country that’s a sliver...and you can see 3 sides of it from a high hotel... you’ve got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it.”

American Generals on the West Bank

* Lt. General (ret.) Tom Kelly:

“I cannot defend this land (Israel) without that terrain (West Bank)...The West Bank mountains, and especially their five approaches, are the critical terrain. If an enemy secures those passes, Jerusalem and Israel become uncovered. Without the West Bank, Israel is only eight miles wide at its narrowest point. That makes it indefensible.”

• The late Admiral Bud Nance:

“No logical reason for Israel to give up one inch of the disputed areas. Quite to the contrary, I believe if Israel were to move out of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it would increase instability and the possibility of war, increase the necessity for Israel to preempt in war and the possibility that nuclear weapons would be used to prevent an Israeli loss, and increase the possibility that the US would have to become involved in a war.”

• The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Earl Wheeler:

The minimum required for Israel’s defense includes most of the West Bank and the whole of Gaza and the Golan Heights (a secret document submitted to the Secretary of Defense on June 29, 1967). Wheeler realized that in the Mideast peace is based on deterrence.

The Centrality of Ground Forces and Barriers

The Land Warfare Papers (US Army, Oct. 2003):

“During the Afghan campaign of 2002, precision air strikes were critical, but they neither annihilated nor finished the enemy...Only ground units can both destroy and occupy.”

The Impact of a Palestinian State on American Interests

Based on PLO’s track record since 1964 and PA’s since 1993, a Palestinian State would...

• Deal a death blow to Jordan’s Hashemite regime.
   

• Be a natural ally to rogue regimes (Iran, No. Korea, etc.).
   

• Expand the largest terrorist base ever, established by the PA.
   

• Advance Russia and Chinese interests at the expense of the US.
   

• Intensify corruption and repression of Christians in Bethlehem, Ramallah, etc.

A Palestinian State Would Undermine US-Israel Strategic Ties

• The 1967 War transformed Israel from a belligerence-inciting liability to a belligerence-deterring asset. A withdrawal to the 1967 Lines would demote Israel’s strategic status.
   

• Forcing Syrian withdrawal from Jordan (1970), elevated Israel’s strategic role. It was made possible by Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria.
   

• The bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor (1981), upgraded Israel’s strategic stature. Arab control of Judea&Samaria would have exposed each takeoff by Israel’s air force, and would’ve foiled the operation.