JERUSALEM -- A few days ago, in a big ad in Israeli newspapers, dozens of retired Israeli generals and colonels called upon the government of Israel to accept the Saudi Peace Initiative. The retired officers are members of the Council for Peace and Security, a well-respected, nonpartisan body that believes, according to its credo, that "peace is a necessary component of the Israeli National Security.''
I believe in this as well and I also belong to the same Council, and still, I didn't sign that open letter. Why not? After all, the Saudi initiative, which is based on the Beirut Declaration of 2002, calls for a comprehensive peace with Israel within the pre-1967 borders. Isn't that what Israel has dreamt of for four decades since the Six Day War?
Refugees flooding Israel
Indeed, except that this is not so simple. Go one step behind the facade of peace, and there lies the catch: The original Beirut Declaration rejects ''any proposals aimed at settling the refugees anywhere else than in their original homes.'' In other words, with the millions of Palestinian refugees flooding Israel, that would be the end of the Jewish state.
My fellow generals and colonels were not blind to that. ''While we don't endorse all the elements of the Saudi Initiative,'' they wrote, ''it could still serve as a basis for negotiation.'' This is exactly what my wife has been telling me all along. ''Forget about what people were saying before,'' she says. ''You just sit down at the table and talk, and then you see what happens next.'' She really means it, despite the doubts she sometimes has about the wisdom of men.
Battle against terror
Yet the people who signed the open letter are the finest men of Israel. I look at the list with respect and admiration. Here a division commander, there an admiral, some fellow airmen -- all of them, who have seen bloody battles and lost many dear comrades, can surely appreciate the value of peace.
Peace between states, they believe, will facilitate the common battle against terror. Therefore, these people, who have given their best years in the service of their country, are now advocating a daring peace move. I still think it's risky, but I can't remain indifferent to the wealth of experience and good judgment that springs out of this magnificent list.
Not that they all have suddenly become soft. Last summer, the same people supported the war in Lebanon. If they were critical, it was not of the war itself, but of the way it was handled. They supported the war because they thought it was an act of self-defense, but at the same time they voiced their opposition to the exaggerated reliance on air power and technology and to the flaws in strategy and tactics. However, their criticism was measured and their tone was always mellow.
What a far cry, it seems, from the voices coming from the American veterans. Ever since the ''Revolt of the Generals'' erupted a year ago, retired high-ranking officers have been leveling accusations at the administration that, even by the standards of cut-throat Israeli discourse, were mind-boggling.
I remember reading an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times in which Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who had helped train the Iraqi Army, charged that his former boss, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, ''has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world.'' That is nothing, however, compared to retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who accused the administration of ''negligence and irresponsibility.'' And, listen to this: ''lying, incompetence and corruption,'' and even ''true dereliction,'' which sent me scrambling to my dictionary, suspecting that this might not be a great compliment either.
Meaning of victory
Tone aside, I wouldn't brush off these remarks only as the grumblings of frustrated have-beens or people who desperately want to promote their books. When you can't decide whether your troops in Iraq are fighting ''insurgents'' or ''terrorists,'' and you can't define the meaning of victory, you're dooming your military to a sure failure.
We should listen to retired generals, then, because it seems that they know what they are talking about.
So next time the Council for Peace and Security plans on running an open letter, I want to read the text carefully. I'm not signing anything yet. I'll just sit down and read it, and then I'll see what happens next.
This article was first published in The Miami Herald on April 13, 2007.
http://www.miami.com
The opinions expressed herein are the author's own personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Israel Democracy Institute.