Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Why does there need to be a Palestinian State? [Part Three] – It would be a calamity to Israel

The unfortunate sham of a Palestinian state has been the policy of the Bush administration and now is the goal of the new president. Soon to be Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has expressed the same policy on behalf of President-elect Barack Obama. As pointed out in Parts One and Two, there is no need for a separate Palestinian state because Arabs masquerading as “Palestinians” have no birthright to the land of Israel in contrast to the Jews, and the term “Palestinian” is a relatively recent contrivance for political purposes. The Arab countries surrounding Israel are responsible for the existence of poverty-stricken people in Gaza and the West Bank by inducing them to remain where they are and these countries should take them.

Despite the clear absence of any need for a Palestinian state such a fiasco would pose an insurmountable existential threat to Israel. Israel’s very existence would be jeopardized by creating an independent Arab state dedicated to the elimination of Israel and the Jewish people. A “Palestinian” state virtually in the midst of the Israel would pose an enormous military risk and serious strategic danger.

If a Palestinian state is established, there is no reason to expect that the terror and violence will dissipate, or that the Arab goal will not continue to be the elimination of the Jewish people. On the contrary, all the terrorism stemming from the Oslo Agreements will continue and become worse. Consider:

*A Palestinian state, from which the terrorist acts will originate, will have greater immunity against Israeli reprisals and disciplinary measures than Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have today.

*Arabs in a Palestinian state will be in a much better position to perpetrate terrorist acts against Israel. Terror could originate among some of its residents whether the state approves or not. Furthermore, if the Palestinian state enjoys greater immunity, it would have freedom to terrorize Israel.

*Since the IDF will not have any presence in the “state”, its ability to combat Palestinian terrorism and prevent it will diminish even further than it has already.

*With the establishment of the “state, many new terrorist threats which today seem unrealistic, might emerge. For example, the terrorist cooperation with Israeli Arabs may increase. The “safe passage” which is to be provided for the Palestinians according to Oslo II, will facilitate this activity.

If a Palestinian state is established not all of the Palestinian aspirations will have been realized (for example “the right of return” to areas within “the Green Line”, liberation of all of Palestine, etc). Therefore they will have an overriding interest in obtaining what they were unable to secure in negotiations (because the Palestinians will not be satisfied with anything less than total fulfillment of their national objectives, even if the process is a long one).

In addition, any “security arrangements” which will limit the Palestinians’ independence and sovereignty, will not be acceptable to the Palestinians, certainly in the long term. Even if they accept these limitations due to the exigencies of time, they will either erode or ignore them as soon as possible while conducting a campaign of violence and terrorism.

There is no reason to assume that the phenomenon of radicalism by Palestinians will disappear or become moderate with the advent of the “state” since the causes of this phenomenon are not tied exclusively to frustration resulting from the lack of independence. The fundamentalist Palestinian organizations themselves will continue to play a leading role in the terrorist campaign in cooperation with fundamentalist elements throughout Moslem countries.

The establishment of a Palestinian state will necessarily serve a dire blow to Israel’s national strength and deterrence capability, which have already been considerably eroded. National strength is not less important than military power because it includes national cohesion, motivation and morale, preparedness and determination to employ force, staying power, ideology of freedom and democracy, quality of leadership, etc.

Establishing a Palestinian state because of successful terrorism will send a message to Muslims everywhere that terrorism works. As Sheikh Yassin, one of the Hamas leaders, said “You indeed have lost the will to fight and this draws us nearer to our final victory”.

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas not only want to eradicate the Israelis from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in order to eliminate the Jewish presence in those regions; they also seek the destruction of the entire state of Israel. Even after Yasser Arafat’s death, the Palestinian Authority’s textbooks, media, and constitution continue to deny Israel’s right to exist. The Hamas and PLO charters to this day have not been amended to repudiate calls for “armed resistance” for the “liberation of Palestine,” and their television regularly incite children and adults to become “martyrs” (suicide bombers) for this cause. During Israeli withdrawal Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmed Qurei openly set their sights on Jerusalem, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad declared that their “resistance” efforts would persist in the wake of the “victory” in Gaza.

Without completely overhauling the culture of hate that currently pervades Palestinian Arab society (as evidenced by their textbooks and media), it would be foolish to think all attacks on Israel would cease overnight with the creation of a new state. Without first ensuring security and implanting the reforms necessary to create a liberal society, it would be suicidal for Israel to allow an elected Palestinian Arab government with an army to be created.

If the Palestinian Arabs had a sovereign state, Israel would have less right to reinvade after attacks, not more, as has been argued by the United Nations. The state would not be held more accountable for terrorism emanating from its borders. Rather, it would deny culpability and pay lip service to condemning the “acts of extremists,” probably adding, “on both sides”. It would make empty pledges of rooting out terrorists, but would do little more than is being done now to actually stop them. The new state would use its sovereign nation status to defend itself against Israeli incursions in the eyes of the world. The illusion of a “cycle of violence” would be easily recreated, and Israel would once again be viewed as the aggressor. Only this time it would be invading a sovereign state, not territory it legally controlled.

Israel would not be able to keep the area from becoming a terrorist state. The Jerusalem Post has already reported that terrorists from out of Israel are being invited to Gaza. With no Israeli force to counterbalance terrorists in a place like Gaza, these organizations would be allowed to operate freely and flourish. This was the stated reason for former Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s resignation. He contended that Israel’s intention to build the Arabs a seaport in Gaza would ensure unimpeded shipments of banned weapons into the territories. Giving up control of the Philadelphi Corridor to Egypt would only ensure more weapons and violence emanating from Gaza and this has been proven to be correct.

While proponents of an Israeli pullout from Gaza continue, the moral imperatives to create a Palestinian state simply do not exist. The Palestinian Arab right to a state is in reality the right to keep Jews out, to sanction hatred against Jews, to build an army, import weapons, have terror organizations operate freely, grow demographically, and ultimately carry out the Arab national vision—a Middle East without Israel. This is why a Palestinian Arab state is incompatible with an Israeli state. In the end, there are no easy outs. Terrorism is a problem that Israel must face head-on, even with a hostile world audience rooting against her.

No comments: