Dean Acheson, the American
statesman and President Truman’s Secretary of State, was quoted as saying: “No
people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their
freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” Since the Oslo Accords of 1993, Israeli
leaders have sought to appease the Arab-Palestinians with various
concessions. The current Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert has gone a step further and is determined to create a Palestinian
In order to be “inoffensive,” Olmert released an additional
200 Palestinian terrorists this week from Israeli prisons, some with Israeli
blood on their hand. The recipient of
these good will gestures, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority President
and Fatah leader, is committed to Israel’s disappearance as a Jewish State.
President George W. Bush, like his predecessor Bill Clinton,
has become a victim of the “legacy seeking mania” – trying to be a peacemaker
in the intractable Middle East conflict.
Except that in America’s case,
being “inoffensive” to the Palestinians who seek to expel America’s interests
from the region places Israel’s freedom on the line.
Since Oslo neither the Israeli governments nor the U.S.
administrations have understood the simple truth that the Palestinian struggle
against Israel is not about land, it is an armed struggle that aims to replace
Israel with an Arab Islamic terrorist state that would undermine American and
European interests in the region.
The 1937 Peel Commission offered the Palestinian leadership
a significant portion of Palestine for a state, and they rejected it. Through the years, other offers have been
made, and the Palestinian leadership has opted for war and violence
instead. Under the Peel Commission, the
Arab-Palestinian share of Western Palestine would have been larger than the
landmass proposed in 1947 by the U.N. Partition Plan, and the Partition Plan
would have given the Palestinians more land than they would have had under the
Armistice Lines of 1949, following Israel’s War of Independence. Subsequent agreements including the Oslo
Accords, Camp David II Summit (with Arafat, Barak and Clinton) and current
negotiations between Olmert/Livni and Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) and Abu Ala,
have involved gradually shrinking landmasses.
The reasonable assumption is therefore simple: if the
Palestinians refused settlement when they could have had 82% of the land under
the Peel Commission, why would they now settle for a tiny portion of land that
is seemingly ungovernable and without any natural resources? The answer is, of
course, that they did not settle for the favorable Peel Commission
recommendations of 1937 because they rejected the idea of a sovereign Jewish
homeland, however small and untenable, and continue to refuse to accept the
idea of a permanent sovereign Jewish State today.
At the June 1974 Palestinian National Council (PNC) in
Cairo, the PNC inaugurated the “Phased Plan,” a strategy that called for the
liberation of all of Palestine (in effect the land of Israel) through both
armed struggle and diplomatic double-talk.
A Palestinian state would therefore be a base of operation to dismantle
the Jewish State. Such a state would be
a haven for assorted jihadist terror groups, including al-Qaeda and would work
closely with Hezbollah operatives. In
Hamas-governed Gaza, this is not merely a possible scenario, but a living
Any future Palestinian state would be unstable and violent
at best. The Fatah controlled gangs
would clash with Hamas armed gangs not over ideology as much as over turf and
profits. Again, this is not a guesstimate
but a present reality. Egypt, Jordan,
Saudi and Arabia would each seek to control such a state, while Shiite Iran
would try to create a second Hezbollah in Gaza if not in the West Bank – all of
which would eventually lead to regional wars, increased terrorism and possibly
nuclear war. Iran, moreover, would use
jihadist elements in Gaza and the West Bank to destabilize the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan, and replace it with a jihadist regime.
Under the 1933 Montevideo Treaty, a state must satisfy four specific
requirements: It must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a
government, and the capacity to enter into peaceful relations with other
states. The Palestinian Authority under
Abbas does not satisfy any one of these requisites. While it has “permanent residents,” it has
also a large portion of unsettled refugees.
And it certainly does not have “a defined territory” as evidenced by its
official maps. Its display of all of Western Palestine is indicative of
its intentions to undermine the Jewish State.
As to a “government,” Abbas is running a gang rather than an acceptable
government; it lacks legitimacy, as large portions of the Palestinians do not
accept him as the leader. The fourth
criterion is absolutely clear- it lacks the capacity to live in peace with its
neighbor - Israel.
As we approach our elections in the U.S., it is imperative
that we hear the presidential candidates reject the current futile negotiations
for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The only reasonable solution to the Palestinian’s plight is to have
Jordan negotiate with Israel over borders, and absorb the Palestinian
territories and people in a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation. American interests and Israel’s freedom are
at stake, and to paraphrase Dean Acheson’s words: being “inoffensive” towards a
Palestinian terrorist state would destroy the oldest, most vibrant democracy in
the Middle East.