IsraPundit

WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to www.israpundit.com. Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

February 24, 2003

Why one should oppose a second Palestinian-Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza - Part 22 of 23

This piece continues a series of which the first 21 parts were posted on September 8, 9, 11, 17, 20, 22, 23; October 7, 24, 28, 29; November 6, 26; December 5, 13, 2002; January 7, 10, 21, 27; February 6 and 18, 2003. (Alternatively, the previous articles may be found in the IsraPundit archives as follows: September 8, 9, 11, 17, 20, 22, 23; October 7, 24, 28, 29; November 6, 26; December 5, 13, 2002; January 7, 10, 21, 27; February 6 and 18, 2003). The object of the series is to provide a resource that is not only reliable and well-documented but also one for which documents are easily accessible, preferably from the web. The term "second Palestinian-Arab state" is used in order to underscore that one Palestinian-Arab state already exists: Jordan, which is located in the part of eastern Palestine that was originally to have been part of the Jewish National Home.

Recapitulation: The first nine parts of this series dealt with arguments based on fundamentals and principles: the historical right of the Jewish people to a home in their ancestral land, a land that has had a Jewish population continuously for millennia; the international acceptance of the Balfour declaration and the British Mandate designed to ensure the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine; the fact that Israel is in possession of Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza) as a consequence of a defensive war; the argument that the current Arab population of Palestine consists largely of non-Jewish immigrants who came to Palestine as a consequence of the development brought about by the Jewish pioneers since the 1880's; and the fact that the Arabs of Palestine have rejected numerous opportunities to establish a state by peaceful means, indicating that their real objective is to destroy Israel.

The second group of nine parts dealt with arguments based on Middle East realities. The points made include the assessment: that a sovereign Palestinian State would obviate Israel’s ability to defend herself; that such a state, by the admission of the Palestinian Arabs themselves, would not solve their grievances; that violence within and among Arab states has a long history, and adding another Arab state will not pacify the region; and that the economic base of Yesha, as well as the water resources in the area, do not permit the creation of an additional, viable state.

The present Part 22 continues the third group of five articles, which deal with such issues as the disputed territories, Jerusalem, the Palestinian-Arab refugees, appeasing terrorism, and alternatives to Palestinian-Arab sovereignty. These issues are intrinsically linked with the arguments against the creation of a sovereign “Palestine”.


22. Creating a second Palestinian Arab state will reward terrorism, and in this respect, is a blow to all Western democracies. The very talk about a second Palestinian Arab state encourages terrorism, giving terrorists hope that if they persist, they will be vindicated ultimately. The proposed state reeks of appeasement, reminiscent of Munich, 1938.

Human Behaviour is controlled, governed and determined by rewards and penalties. From this observation follows the conclusion that to reward terrorism is to encourage terrorism.

Parts 1 to 9 of this series have argued that the Palestinian-Arabs have no right or justification to demand a sovereign state in western Palestine; additionally, Parts 10 to 18 contended that Middle East realities too should lead one to oppose such a state. In fact, supporting the creation of a sovereign Palestinian-Arab state is equivalent to having supported the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938-1939: Peace in Our Time. Indeed, in the very vein of Peace in Our Time, some argue or imply that the “Arab street” will become quiescent if only the second Palestinian-Arab state were to become a reality.

Part 10 of this series has documented that the Palestinian Arabs, by their own admission, consider a sovereign territory in western Palestine as a stepping stone towards the utter destruction of Israel. Far from spreading tranquility, such a state would be a source of perpetual war, based on Arab irridentism. Since one picture is worth a thousand words, suffice it to observe the maps used by the PA as representing their future state: it comprises the entire area of western Palestine, including Israel. Relevant examples include the emblems of the PA “Ministry Of Industry” and “Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs”. Arafat’s own organization,Fatah, also displays in its emblem the entire territory of western Palestine. A state in the entire area of western Palestine is similarly used by the PA “educational system” to transmit a clear message to its students via school books; CMIP (The Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace), a monitoring body, has displayed examples on the Web.

The plan to destroy Israel is not confined to the PA leadership, it is indeed the view of the “Palestinian-Arab street”. This was documented, for example, in a Daniel Pipes article, posted on the web on February 18, 2003 by Global Exchange, under the title, What to do about Palestinian aspirations:

In a spring 2002 poll of residents in the West Bank and Gaza conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, a Palestinian organization, 43 percent of respondents called for a Palestinian state only in the West Bank and Gaza and 51 percent insisted on the state in "all of historic Palestine," a code-word for the destruction of Israel.

Thus, Palestinian rejectionism flourishes. But the outside world averts its collective eyes from this fact.

Appeasement, rewarding aggression and caving in to terrorism have cost the world dearly. “The mother of all appeasements”, Munich 1938, where Britain and France delivered the democratic republic of Czechoslovakia into Hitler’s hands, is only one of a series of such acts of Western cowardice. Hitler did not start out with demanding the Sudetenland; rather, in the face of Western inaction and appeasement, he proceeded from annexing the Saarland and enacting conscription (prohibited by the Versailles peace treaty) in March 1935, to marching into the Rhineland in March 1936, to annexing Austria in March 1938, to destroying Czechoslovakia in March 1939. In the same vein, appeasing, rewarding and caving in to threats delivered Abyssinia (Ethiopia) into Mussolini’s hands in 1935-1936, and Albania in April 1939; China was delivered into Japan’s hands piecemeal in 1931-1939. In the end, the Western democracies had to confront the three Axis powers in spite of sacrificing four nations: monsters are never sated.

As of 1968, when Palestinian terrorists hijacked the first plane, the western democracies have been faced with a wave of terrorist acts, eventually leading to 9-11. In practically every case, the western democracies failed to act forcefully, and in most cases they preferred inaction and retreat. A typical example is Hizbullah’s terrorism against the US Marines in Lebanon, October, 1983, after which Ronald Reagan withdrew the US troops. In his recent book, Alan Dershowitz suggests:

Global terrorism is thus a phenomenon largely of our own making. The international community - primarily the European governments and the United Nations, but also, at times, our own government - made it all but inevitable that we would experience a horrendous day like September 11, 2001. We are reaping what we sowed... It is we who must change our failed approach to terrorism if the world is not to become swept up in a whirlwind of violence and destruction.
(Quoted from p. 2 of

Dershowitz, Alan, M. Why Terrorism Works. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.)

To corroborate his statement, Dershowitz ( op. cit., p. 24) quotes as follows:
Listen to the words of Zehdi Labib Terzi, the Palestine Liberation Organization's chief observer at the United Nations: "The first several hijackings aroused the consciousness of the world and awakened the media and the world opinion much more--and more effectively than twenty years of pleading at the United Nations." If this is true - and the Palestinians surely believe it is - then it should come as no surprise that hijackings and other forms of terrorism increased dramatically after the Palestinians were rewarded for their initial terrorism by increased world attention to its "root causes"...
Next, Dershowitz (op. cit., pp. 57-78) lists the terrorist acts committed against the West (including Israel), none of which precipitated any serious action on the part of the western democracies, with the exception of Israel. These acts include (in addition to the aforementioned 1983 assault on the Marines), the 1973 murder of Cleo Noel (US ambassador to Sudan), the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut (63 dead, 120 wounded), the 1984 kidnapping and murder of CIA agent, William Buckley, in Beirut, the 1985 hijacking of Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, and the 1997 shooting of tourists at the observation deck of the Empire State Building.

The Israeli government too has had more than one bitter experience with rewarding terrorists; suffice it to note here the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and the Oslo Accords, both of which increased terrorism. Joseph Farah commented on the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon as follows:

When the Israelis unilaterally withdrew their military forces from a thin corridor of Lebanon along its northern border two years ago, the terrorist world took notice.

Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Islamic terrorists backed by both Syria and Iran, quickly took credit for the retreat by Israel. Hezbollah had waged a war of attrition against Israeli military forces and civilians in southern Lebanon who looked to the Jewish state for protection.
....
Arafat saw the Israeli withdrawal as a sign of weakness – a cave-in to one of the most militant and ruthless terrorist organizations in the world. It's quite plausible that Osama bin Laden, too, was inspired by his ally's victory over the Israelis in Lebanon. The lesson other terrorists learned from Israel's Lebanon experience was that a campaign of relentless guerrilla actions will ultimately pay dividends – the more audacious the actions, the better.

Arafat quickly stepped up the violence in his budding Intifada campaign. Bin Laden attacked New York and the Pentagon in a coordinated suicide hijacking effort. Arafat's forces adopted the suicide bombing strategy as their own.
...
The lesson is clear: You cannot win by appeasing terrorism. You can't impress terrorists with kindness. You can't win terrorists over with concessions. You can't negotiate with terrorists and you can't give them any quarter.

Israel made the mistake in 2000. Will the West learn the lesson?
About the case of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon I can add a personal note. A few months ago, I engaged in an e-discussion with one, Prof. Amr Sabry; the last part of the discussion was posted at Dawson Speaks and IsraPundit on December 15, 2003. Prof. Sabry’s last words were these:
As you can see the discussion is going nowhere... In summary, Hizbullah figured it out a while back: discussions with such people are useless; armed resistance did kick them out.
Which is to say that your typical supporter of Palestinian-Arab terrorism expects that appeasing, rewarding and caving in to terrorism will come their way.

The same fundamental assessment is also incorporated in the comprehensive article on the Arab-Israeli conflict, written by

http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/feb03/peace.html

Salomon Benzimra:

Arabs and other groups seeking political advantage should be clearly shown the negative effects that any recourse to violence against civilians will have on their own cause. Rewarding Palestinian terrorism, especially in diplomatic negotiations, would be a scandalous precedent. Conscious of their achievements through terror, the "Palestinians" will not hesitate to start another campaign of violence, with the quasi certitude of gaining further concessions through a new round of "peace negotiations". This western "Munich mentality" must end: it is politically disastrous and morally reprehensible.

Creating a second Palestinian-Arab state would be the biggest reward of all, and inevitably will constitute an introduction to the destruction of Israel. It will also invite more terrorism directed against the West in general. Reports indicate that most Israelis understand this fundamental truth. For example, a press release posted on the ZOA site, 22 October, 2002, states:

A June 2002 poll by Israel's leading polling firm, the Hanoch Smith Institute, found 80% of Israeli Jews oppose the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state along the 1967 borders. A November 2001 poll by the Smith Institute found 68% of Israeli Jews believe that "regardless of the size or strength of a Palestinian state, if one is established it will constitute a threat to the State of Israel." In May 2002, Israel's Likud Party passed a resolution stating that "No Palestinian state will be established west of the Jordan River."

Unfortunately, it seems that the Quartet steamroller is proceedings - over the bodies of the people of Israel.

As this is being written, the West faces the danger of WMD in North Korea. There is little doubt in my mind that the Korean dictatorship has learnt from the current appeasement-laden policies and tendencies in the West, as exemplified by the issues of Iraq and the Quartet. This point was underscored in an article by the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, Karen Elliott House, on January 3, 2003:

What Pyongyang offers the world is a clear picture of the consequences of appeasement. Apologists for Saddam should see in North Korea the proof that, contrary to their wishful thinking, cajoling dictators doesn't make the world safer, but rather more dangerous. Indeed, Pyongyang's possession of plutonium with which to make bombs--and perhaps the bombs themselves--is the result of more than a decade of diplomatic duplicity between North Korea and the U.S.

Thus the dangers resulting from appeasing, rewarding and caving in to terrorism are not problems for the future, they are problems facing us today. And yet the West refuses to learn.

At this point it would be useful to recall the Quartet-related events since 9-11.

Soon after the 9-11 tragedy, on October 2, 2001, Bush made public the drastic shift in US policy, a shift that saw Bush explicitly and publicly endorse the creation of a Palestinian-Arab state. The BBC site reported on October 2, 2001:

The idea of a Palestinian state has always been a part of a vision, so long as the right of Israel to exist is respected," Mr Bush told reporters after a meeting with congressional leaders.
(The transcript of the news conference in which this statement was made is available at the official White House site The following day, October 3, 2001, Joseph Farah commented in an article aptly entitled, Bin Laden Has Won:
I didn't think it was possible that U.S. Mideast policy could get any worse than it was under former President Clinton.

I was wrong.

It just got worse – a lot worse.

In fact, viewed through the eyes of the Islamic world, President Bush's announcement that he favors the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive Middle East peace initiative can only be seen as a huge strategic victory for terrorism.

I don't know how it can be interpreted any other way.

The message is loud and clear: Keep up the violence, intensify it, keep raising the stakes, make the U.S. pay a price and your demands will be met – eventually.

I'm sick to my stomach over the U.S. sellout of Israel...

This is worse than negotiating with terrorists. This is unconditional surrender to them. ..

For 30 years of hijackings, Olympics murders, execution of U.S. diplomats, suicide bombings, torture of dissident Arabs, the cold-blooded killings of Israelis and more, the reward for Arafat is the presidency of his own state.

This is a war on terrorism?
But much worse was yet to come. On June 24, 2002, this policy was made even more explicit, and not in a news conference but in a major Bush policy statement. The official White House site archived the full text of the speech which included these lines:

And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East.

As so often happens, the conditions and qualifications were soon lost, and only words “the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state” have survived as an operational reality. The fact is that on a weekly basis, the ZOA has documented the implementation of the Bush reform conditions, and on a weekly basis the ZOA has shown that nothing of consequence has been done (the most recent report for Week 34, 11-17 February 2003, may be found at the aforementioned ZOA site). Summarizing the data, Morton A. Klein (of ZOA) wrote in an article published on November 22, 2002, in Our Jerusalem:

The PA has not disarmed or outlawed terrorist groups; it has not seized their tens of thousands of illegal weapons or shut down their bomb factories; it has not honored any of Israel's 45 requests for the extradition of terrorists. It has not closed down the terrorist's training camps. It has rewarded with terrorists with jobs in the PA police force. In short, the PA has actively collaborated with and sheltered the terrorists. It has also created an entire culture of anti-Jewish hatred in its official media, schools, summer camps, sermons by PA-appointed clergy, and speeches by PA representatives.

A Palestinian Arab state would be a mini-Iraq, sharing a long border with Israel, flanking the areas that contain 70% of Israel's population, including Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa - plenty of tempting targets for cross-border attacks. The attackers could then slip back into "Palestinian," where they would find refuge behind the protective border of a sovereign state.

The last word goes to Gary Bauer and Morton A. Klein whose succinct statement concludes their article, Rewarding terrorism. Published in the Washington Times, December 29, 2002, the authors opine:

Terrorists, whether led by Osama bin Laden or Yasser Arafat, should be fought and defeated, not appeased with offers of their own state. To offer the Palestinian Arabs a state after two years in which they have murdered nearly 700 Jews, sends a message that terrorism pays. And that is the worst possible message to send at a time when terrorists are threatening America, Israel and the entire Free World.
Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland. This piece is cross-posted on IsraPundit and Dawson Speaks.