“If the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were a territorial compromise within Mandatory Palestine, I have no doubt we would have reached this long ago” said General Yaalon. “Instead, from the dawn of Zionism to the present day, the Palestinian leadership has rejected every partition plan proposed, and has reacted violently to all political initiatives seeking a settlement along those lines”. The woeful fact is indeed, that attempts by Israel at peace through territorial concession have been met, again and again, with violence by Palestinians.

Another misconception in Western understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict relates to the economy. The illusion, that a prosperous Palestinian economy would eventually neutralize extreme nationalism and religious fanaticism. But although the PA has received no less than $7 billion from donors in recent years, neither Arafat nor Abbas has managed to improve the basic living conditions of the Palestinian people in any significant way. On the contrary, the Palestinian economic situation has continued to deteriorate constantly, not under the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, but in the Fatah controlled, quite peaceful West Bank.

Another misconception concerns the paradigm of the “two-state solution” within the boundaries of former Mandatory Palestine. Under the present status quo such an idea is both irrelevant and dangerous. In fact, there is no Palestinian partner who would be brave enough and willing to accept it as a final settlement.

General Yaalon, who apart from having been chief of staff, also headed the IDF Intelligence Branch, recently presented some of his ideas for new strategy in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In his view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the core of the Middle East’s instability. The Iranian regime is the main destabilizing force in the Middle East today, Yaalon warns. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been exporting the ideology behind the rise of Islamic Jihadism, and it remains the base and center of gravity for worldwide Jihadism. “We cannot afford to avoid confronting the Iranian regime. Until it is defeated, there will be no stability in Iraq , Lebanon , the Palestinian Authority, or any other nation in the Middle East”, General Yaalon states, ” at present they feel, in Teheran, like they are winning, as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon and Hamas is strengthening its grip in Gaza” .

But, the general reminds that the government of the Ayatollahs is not a natural one in Iran , nor does it enjoy wide popular support. In his view, it will not last forever. Economic sanctions are the best tool to encourage those, who are considered to be 70 percent of the Iranian population, who sofar silently, rejects the ayatollahs’ way. Western weakness and lack of determination could discourage these elements from taking action. Indeed, those western nations, who try to avoid economic sanctions, because of their particular economic interests, actually enhance the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran- Yaalon warns.

Some determined action by the West, must however become indispensable, according to Yaalon. The Iranians, the Syrians, and their proxies must be punished by the international community for funding terror and challenging the international order. They have been allowed to nurture international terrorism, develop WMD. Moreover, in light of the ongoing conflict between Sunnis and Shiites throughout our region, Israel and the West can and must find common interests with moderate Muslims.

General Moshe Yaalon concludes: “The struggle against Islamic Jihadism is, in many ways, a contest of wills. As our values and way of life are challenged by Islamic Jihadists, and our legitimacy as a Jewish state is challenged by Arab nationalists, we in Israel must consolidate our belief in our path and its righteousness”.

The “Barak Doctrine” also aims to finalize Israel’s northern border, neutralize the Syrian threat, and disconnect Damascus from Hezbollah via negotiations and an agreement on the Golan that is acceptable to Israel. At the same time, Ehud Barak wants to “manage the Palestinian conflict,” in the aim of preventing a Hamas takeover in the West Bank.

Both Olmert and Barak regard the Iranian threat as the most critical future problem. If not handled energetically in time it could have existential implications to the survival of the Jewish State. Barak believes that the IDF should prepare various strike options, but refrain from utilizing them as long as there is no concrete and substantial threat. His main objective at this time is in building up the military options with sufficient means, including highly sophisticated measures under development.

Prime minister contender, Zipi Livni’s doctrine, which is not completely clear at this time, seems apparently a combination of the three doctrines and have a common denominator: The aspiration to maintain a solid Jewish majority in the State of Israel and maintain America’s unqualified support for Israel’s security is her main and ultimate goal.

Most analysts, predicting a future conflict with Hezbollah and Syria, warn, that Israel’s retaliation against a massive rocket offensive will next time not spare civilian targets in Lebanon, Syria and certainly not in Gaza. In a recent interview Major General Gadi Eisenkot, commander Territorial Command North warned: “We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. This isn’t a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized.” ( Haaretz October 11, 2008) Whether this is Israel’s new strategy or not, remains to be seen- but the warning should be dead serious.

Next: The Issue is not territory but Ideology