הצטרף: 15 אוג' 2007
|פורסם: שלישי 30.10.07 12:34 נושא ההודעה: Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine - Revised Second Edition
TWELVE BAD ARGUMENTS FOR A STATE OF PALESTINE
REVISED SECOND EDITION
A TIME TO SPEAK (Ecclesiastes 3:7) –
MESSAGES ABOUT ISRAEL
A Time to Speak is a periodic Message from Israel. Each issue centers on a theme that relates to Israel and the Middle East past and present. The contents include history, background, current events, analysis and comment, and excerpts from published writings.
For past issues see: www.israel.net/timetospeak
For complimentary subscriptions to future issues, send request to:firstname.lastname@example.org
Readers of this and other issues may quote, reproduce, re-circulate, or post material therein. They are requested not to alter wording, and to give attribution to the source.
In December 2002, A Time To Speak produced and distributed "Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine." It is now distributing herewith a Revised Second Edition.
In view of the present international rush for the creation of such a state, it is most urgent to prevent this most ill-advised and dangerous step. Those who wish to resist this rush can do so with approaches to elected representatives in their governments, editorials and other writings, petitions, lawful demonstrations, lectures and speeches, letters to news media, and other means.
This article is sent both as e-mail text below and as an attachment, so readers can choose the format they prefer.
A TIME TO SPEAK
October 2007 – Tishri-Heshvan 5768
TWELVE BAD ARGUMENTS FOR A STATE OF PALESTINE
In 1991, during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, the Government of the United States officially pledged to the Government of Israel:
In accordance with the United States' traditional policy, we do not support the creation of an independent Palestinian state. [. . . .] Moreover, it is not the United States' aim to bring the PLO into the [peacemaking] process or to make Israel enter a dialogue or negotiations with the PLO.
A decade later, President George W. Bush announced his administration's "vision" of establishing an Arab State of Palestine west of the Jordan River. The vision was quickly ensconced in a U.N. Security Council Resolution.
This reversal of policy is based the supposition that the pesky Israel-Palestine-Arab problem can be solved via The Two-State Solution. Actually, it would be a Three-State Solution, because Jordan as well as Israel is within Mandate Palestine, the region designated to be the Jewish National Home. The necessity of an additional division of that small area is promoted with arguments that have become a kind of mantra.
 Israel's Occupation of Palestinian Territory is the cause of an Islamic jihad that spreads much discomfiture across several continents. Only the end of Occupation and the proclamation of a State of Palestine can relieve the world of this discomfiture.
On the contrary: There is no Israeli Occupation and no Palestinian Territory. Rather, there is Israeli administration of a section of Mandate Palestine that still has no assigned sovereignty. The right to this land may be debated, but it should not be dictated with a foregone conclusion based on faulty assumptions.
The sliver of land viewed as issue of prime and urgent global importance is hard to find it on a map of the world without a magnifying glass. Israel knows it by its biblical name of Judea-Samaria. Jordan dubbed it the West Bank. It is not the crux of the Palestine Problem and its growing international repercussions, and transforming it into a State of Palestine will exacerbate not solve that problem.
A realistic policy has to be based on understanding the Muslim belief that the world is divided into two sections: Dar al-Islam [House of Islam] and Dar al-Harb [House of War]. Any land once acquired by Dar al-Islam must remain with it forever and ever. If it is lost -- as in Spain -- it must one day be regained. Dar al-Harb will eventually be conquered by jihad, military or otherwise.
Until 1918, "Palestine" had for several centuries been a province of the Ottoman Turkish Caliphate, and thus Dar al-Islam. It must never be yielded to any infidel, least of all to Jews, those despised and downtrodden dhimmis, the "sons of apes and pigs". Israel's existence as a sovereign nation is intolerable, and will be so wherever its borders are set. The goal, whether declared or disguised, is the total obliteration of Israel.
The current half-and-half approach to the Palestine Problem is futile. It will not satisfy Israel's foes, and will not lead them toward genuine peace. Rather, it will dilute Israel's ability to defend itself against those foes and thus encourage them to go to war. Policymakers who grasp the real issue have two options:
[A] Facilitate the destruction of Israel, in hopes that it will mollify Dar al-Islam and deter jihad against Dar al-Harb.
[B] Strengthen, not weaken, Israel because it is the frontline of defense against jihad, and if the jihadis can overcome so staunch a nation they will be emboldened to move on to other prey.
 The United States will benefit from establishing a State of Palestine, and win Arab support for its War on Terror.
On the contrary: A Palestine-Arab State will be a foe of the United States, not a friend or ally. The "vision" of a State of Palestine that is a democracy, has leaders untainted by terror, and wants to live peacefully side-by-side with Israel is not a vision but an hallucination. Under the Oslo Accords Israel put much of Judea-Samaria under the control of the Palestine Authority, and it quickly became a terrorist entity.
In advance of Israel's abandonment of Gaza, President Bush stated: "I can understand why people think this decision is one that will create a vacuum into which terrorism will flow. [….]I think this will create an opportunity for democracy to emerge. And democracies are peaceful." The Fatah/Hamas regime in Gaza quickly demonstrated that terrorism flows and democracy does not emerge.
The "Palestinians" for whom the U.S. administration evinces much sympathy are fiercely anti-American. They admire and side with every enemy of the United States: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda. They rejoice at events that bring pain and loss to the American people, and celebrate them with cheering, singing, dancing, and distributing sweets. The official religious leaders of the Palestine Authority curse America and pray for its destruction.
Israel is strongly and sincerely pro-American, and shares its values, many of them rooted in a shared biblical heritage. The American people sense this affinity, and strongly oppose the notion of a State of Palestine imposed on the Land of Israel. If the Administration compulsively pursues its vision, it will create a dysfunctional entity that is both a mean enemy to the United States and a perpetual dependent of the American taxpayers who have already been made to waste billions of ill-spent dollars on the Palestinian experiment.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated, "There can be no peace without a Palestinian state." That forecast can be corrected by cutting a mere three letters: "There can be no peace with a Palestinian state."
 It Will Rectify an Historic Injustice to the Palestine-Arabs
On the contrary: Of all that Arabs have demanded for themselves since the end of World War I, they have been given 99.5 percent. They were given 22 states, with a combined area of 6,145,389 square miles. Israel has 8,000 square miles of sovereign territory and 2,000 square miles of disputed territory.
Judea was conquered by Rome 2000 years ago, and renamed "Palastina." It was not again a nation or sovereign state until 1948. In the interval it was a province of one foreign empire or another, usually a backward, neglected, and misgoverned province. In recent centuries Western travelers to the Holy Land found the Land of Milk and Honey now desolate, barren, decayed, uncultivated, and almost empty of population.
From the late 19th century onward, Jewish pioneers began to come to restore the land of their fathers, bringing it back to life by clearing rocks, draining swamps, carrying water, planting crops, and building villages and towns.
After World War I, Great Britain replaced the Ottoman Turks as ruler, with a temporary mandate from the League of Nations. The terms of the mandate repeated those of Britain's own Balfour Declaration: Palestine was to be developed as a Jewish National Home, open to "close Jewish settlement". If Britain had honored these terms, there might never have been a Palestine Problem.
It began the Mandatory Regime by detaching all the land east of the Jordan River, more than three-quarters of Mandate Palestine, to provide a kingdom for a protégé Arab emir. There was no historic name suitable for this kingdom so it was called after a river: First Trans-Jordan and later Jordan.
In the remaining land west of the Jordan River, Jewish immigration and settlement were progressively restricted and then banned. There was a ruthless blockade against Jews trying to escape the hell-fires of Nazi Europe, that consigned an incalculable number of them to death.
At the same time, Great Britain allowed massive immigration of Arabs into Mandatory Palestine, filled up the empty places meant for but denied to the Jews. The offspring of these recent Arabs migrants and those who had preceded them by a few decades are today's "Palestinians" who claim the Land of Israel as their ancient ancestral heritage. Neither the name nor the claim predate the year 1967. Until then, Arab spokesmen and scholars insisted that there was not and never had been any such place as Palestine -- only Southern Syria.
In 1948, the United Nations undertook a second partition of the Jewish National Home to create a second Arab state therein. Had the Arabs accepted the offer, they would have had 83 percent of Mandate Palestine. Instead, they went to war to get 100 percent of it. The series of wars that the Arab states launched were for the destruction of Israel and for their own aggrandizement. There was no interest in a state for the Palestine-Arabs.
The magnitude of Israel's victory in the Six-Day-War of 1967 led to a revision in Arab rhetoric. The fight against Israel would continue, but it would win more sympathy if it were fought in the cause of "Falastin." This name is an Arabic mispronunciation of the Greco-Roman Palastina. The would-be-nation that claims to have held this land since the dawn of history has no name of its own. The ploy was so successful, that soon most of the world's governments, media, and academics adopted with precipitate enthusiasm the fabrication of a Palestine unjustly stolen and unlawfully occupied by the Jews.
It is not unjust that the Arab world should have to make do with 22 states instead of 23. It is not unjust that there should be only one Arab state in Mandate Palestine instead of two. The injustice would be to deprive Israel of the heartland of its historic homeland, an erstwhile wilderness that it toiled to rebuild and restore.
 It Will Satisfy the Demands of the Palestine-Arabs, Who Will Give Up Terrorism And War and Settle Down to Building a Society
On the contrary: The charters of Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah define their goal as the total destruction of Israel. This is the common purpose of Fatah and Hamas even if they contest with one another for control of the areas that Israel gives up.
Hamas does not disguise its bloody intentions. Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas/Abu Mazen, speaks literally in two tongues: In English he professes a willingness to recognize Israel and co-exist with it; in Arabic he promises to continue terrorism and war until it is annihilated. Abbas is a lifelong terrorist, former second-in-command to Yasser Arafat, but if he says the right word in at least one language, Western policymakers can embrace him without violating their own rule of not of not dealing with terrorists, and demand that Israel jeopardize its own welfare to strengthen him in the interests of the Peace Process.
A plurality of the Palestine-Arab population has demonstrated through both election polls and opinion polls that it prefers the Hamas line, approves of suicide bombings and murder of Israelis, and believes that a prospective State of Palestine should keep up such attacks until Israel disappears.
Where the Palestine Authority is in power, maps show Palestine as an all-Arab entity with Israel obliterated. In the year 2006 it is declared that the Israeli Occupation has been going on for 58 years -- dating it back to Israel's Declaration of Independence in 1948, not the Arab loss of territory in 1967. In schools and summer camps, children are taught to aspire to martyrdom by killing Jews. None of this suggests that Palestine-Arabs plan ever to co-exist with Israel on any terms.
There have been many statements by PA leaders that confirm this. Amongst them, is a summary by PLO Minister Faisel al-Husseini: "Whatever we get now, cannot make us forget this supreme truth. If we agree to declare our state over . . . the West Bank and Gaza, our ultimate goal is the liberation of all historic Palestine from the River [Jordan] to the Sea [Mediterranean]."
 It Will Bring Peace and Stability to the Middle East
On the contrary: It will establish a national base terrorism and jihad. This can be deduced from the evidence of experience.
Every area from which Israel withdrewn its administration and security patrols is now a base for terrorists and/or preparation for military attack: In Ramallah and other Fatah enclaves, bombings are planned and perpetrators dispatched to their targets. In Lebanon, the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah installed missile bases and launchers, whence they have fired some 4,000 deadly katyusha missiles into Israel and brought devastation to Lebanon. In Gaza, Fatah and Hamas steadily shoot kassam rockets into Israeli towns. When Israel relinquishes control over border zones, it opens the way for massive imports of weapons and explosives, and infiltration by Al-Qaeda. These are consequences of withdrawal, and no measures to prevent or counter them have any effect.
There is no rational reason to suppose that a State of Palestine will deviate from this pattern. It will be a base for terror and jihad, in a location where it can imperil both Israel and Jordan.
 A State of Palestine Will Be Demilitarized and Not a Danger To Israel
On the contrary: A State of Palestine cannot be kept demilitarized. If it signs an agreement or treaty to that affect it will be worthless because promises to infidels are not binding.
The Oslo Accords limited the PA to a police force of no more than 8,000 and no heavy weapons. It acquired a military force of at least 50,000 with heavy weapons. Nothing was done about this because either Israel nor any other nation demands Arab adhere to agreements. It is prudent to anticipate that a State of Palestine will not be subject to any effective restrictions on its doings, and Israel will not be permitted to observe much less intercept the inflow of weapons.
The strategic damage to Israel were analyzed by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, who reported that it must at the very least keep control of the highlands of Judean Hills and the Jordan valley. Without them, Israel at its narrowest point only nine miles wide. "Palestine" holding the adjacent highlands can bombard much of Israel with missiles and rockets and shoot down civilian aircraft. Foreign troops can sweep in across the Jordan Valley without hindrance.
Any U.S. Administration that forces Israel out of these vitally strategic points rejects the counsel of its own highest-ranking military men. As though this were not ill-advised enough, it also demands that a State of Palestine must have "contiguity." That is: Judea-Samaria and Gaza must be linked together. It is geographically impossible to satisfy this demand without splitting Israel in half.
To render Israel so vulnerable is an invitation to massive military attack upon it.
 If a State of Palestine commits aggression against Israel, then Israel can take back the land it gave away.
On the contrary: The perpetrators of the Oslo Accords of 1993 said "If they [the PLO] do not keep their commitment to peace, we will just take the land back." No commitment was kept, and nothing was taken back.
Regaining the forfeited land would require a military campaign, difficult, perhaps long, and costly in casualties. It would be carried out a against a background chorus of denunciations and demands to cease and desist. In the past, when the IDF has gone into PA-held areas even briefly, to close down terrorist bases and weapons factories and depots, there were international howls for Israel to "get out of Palestinian territory immediately." Any such defensive move against a State of Palestine would be branded as aggression against a sovereign state, perhaps even with a threat of sanctions against Israel and/or intervention by foreign troops.
In the event of a full-scale military attack on Israel, it might be granted at most a strictly limited right of self-defense. If Palestine were on the verge of crumbling, the United Nations would be used to save it with an imposed ceasefire. If Israel were to regain any or all of its forfeited land, there would be international pressure for withdrawal, just as there has been since the Six-Day-War. The State of Palestine, even if defeated in battle, would continue to exist to fight again.
 If Israel does not cut away regions with Arab populations, the Arabs will soon become a majority and rule over the Jews.
On the contrary: This argument, sometimes dubbed "The Demographic Time-bomb," is based on faulty statistics and unsound projections.
The calculations are based on a census by the Palestine Authority. A examination of the statistics and the methods of compiling them found that the number of Arabs was over-estimated by one million or more. Estimates of population growth depend on an inflated likely birthrate.
More careful calculations yield both a smaller Arab population and an ongoing drop in the Arab birthrate. Furthermore, there is little if any immigration to PA areas, and indeed a high percentage of the residents say they would like to emigrate if they had the means. In Israel, in contrast, the birthrate is steady or rising, and there is ongoing immigration.
The "demographic time-bomb" is a political argument, not a valid mathematical one.
 It Will Secure the Human Rights of the Palestinian Arabs and Solve the Arab Refugee Problem:
On the contrary: The PA regime in areas of Judea-Samaria and with full sway in Gaza has nothing to its credit in human rights.
Wherever Fatah and/or Hamas rules, there are no human or civil rights or rule of law. Those under their rule are subject to oppression, extortion, and brutality. Those accused of offenses have no right of fair trial, and at times are lynched without trial.
Christians and other non-Muslim religious communities are especially vulnerable to harassment and abuse. Those communities, that long predate the Muslim incursion into the region, are shrinking and dwindling away.
Jews would not be affected, because there would not be a live Jew anywhere in a State of Palestine.
To the Arab refugees, whose plight the United Nations has deliberately perpetuated for almost 60 years, a State of Palestine would bring no relief. The chieftains of Fatah and Hamas, along with the rulers of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, insist on a Right of Return. That is: Israel itself must take in the massive population of the UNWRA camps, bred and taught to loathe it and destroy it. This impossible demand is designed to evade solving a problem useful for propaganda.
 It Will Encourage Civic And Economic Development, Raise the Standard of Living and Bring Contentment to the People
On the contrary: In areas under PA control, the standard of living drops and hardship increases.
When the disputed territories were entirely under Israeli administration, there was economic growth, a rise in the standard of living, improved health care, and the establishment of university. Since administration was turned over the PA, there has been a slide backwards. Economic development is strangled by graft and corruption, and revenues are squandered. The development of an economy and a civic infrastructure are not a priority.
The United States and the European Union have subsidized the PA-Fatah regime so lavishly that the Palestine-Arabs have received per capita more donations than any other group in the world. The bulk of the money melted away, ended up in private foreign bank accounts, or was spent on buying weapons and training terrorists. Some individuals have gotten very rich, but little benefit has seeped down to the working-class or the unemployed.
In civil society, schools are for the indoctrination of martyrs-to-be; radio and television stations are for propaganda, recruitment of terrorists, and curses upon Israel and America;. streets are for gang-warfare. There is water and electricity only because Israel still provides it.
As the standard of living sinks, international agencies cry "Humanitarian Crisis!" and blame it on Israel -- especially in Gaza, where there has been no Israeli presence or control since August 2005.
 Israel Must Comply with United Nations Resolutions:
On the contrary: The United Nations is a world epicenter of corruption engaged in active hostility against Israel. It has made itself a foe and should be treated as such.
Israel has always been refused the rights and protections due to a member state. For 58 years, the Arab member states have carried on every form of aggression against Israel, without interference or even rebuke. There is a built-in anti-Israel majority that churns out anti-Israel resolutions, while no resolution with even a shade of balance can pass.
The secretariat celebrates an annual Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, and a Secretary-General poses in front of a map of Palestine from which Israel has been obliterated. Peacekeeping troops aid and abet Arab terrorists in the kidnapping and murder of Israelis.
Demands for Israeli compliance focus on the obsolete Security Council Resolution 242, passed in the wake of the Six-Day War of 1967. The Council, having done nothing to hinder the Arabs in launching the war, presumed to dictate the terms of a future peace settlement: Israel should withdraw from unspecified "territories" to "agreed and secure borders."
The United States and Great Britain, who wrote the resolution, gave official and unequivocal assurances that it did not mean Israel's return to the pre-war frontiers, that were merely the ceasefire lines of the War of Independence. This Resolution is widely misquoted, so it is made to require Israel's full and unconditional withdrawal from all of the land the Arabs lost in 1967, and the establishment of a Palestinian state. These are lies.
The United States and Great Britain, the authors of Resolution 242, have since reneged on the words of their own past governments and call for Israel's full or near-full surrender of the disputed territories to a Palestine-Arab state-to-be. This flip-flop demonstrates that if Israel makes any sacrifice in deference to the United Nations there will be more demands for more severe sacrifices.
 It Will Win the Respect of World Opinion for Israel:
On the contrary: Honest and informed opinion does not need to be bought. Dishonest, malicious, or ignorant opinion is not worth buying.
Some holders and makers of opinion are fair-minded or even friendly toward Israel. Their views can include reasonable disagreements and criticisms made without malice.
Some are automatically hostile to Israel because of Judeophobia, or ideology, or financial interests in the Arab world, or a desire to curry favor with Israel's foes, or simply because it is a fad. They do not make their judgments according to anything Israel does or does not do, and Israel cannot affect them.
Some judge only by what they hear from teachers -- many of whom fit into the "automatically hostile" category -- and the popular news media, whose practitioners have slipped from slanting news against Israel to complicity in lies and hoaxes. Here Israel can and should do more to bring accurate facts and explanations to public attention.
It should never compromise its own best interests and jeopardize its own security to oblige distant opinion-makers.
Giving up Judea-Samaria would cut the Jewish People off from the heart of the land to which they have been bound for almost 4,000 years. Arabs would destroy ancient Jewish sites and relics, as they have already done in Jerusalem. There would be no chance for scholars and archeologists to make new discoveries, and much knowledge of the past would be lost. And all this loss would be on behalf of an ill-advised political experiment.
Too often it may be said "It is useless to oppose a State of Palestine -- it is inevitable." Such passive submission is moral indolence, a limp and thoughtless acceptance of a plan regardless of its flaws and the harm it will cause.
For 2000 years, the Jewish people did not despair of restoration to their Land. When the restoration has at last come, those who toss it away betray both their ancestors and their descendants.
Note: This article also appears in the book Taking Sides: Political Science, published by McGraw-Hill.