Five  Basic Arguments Against A Palestinian State


 

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Contrary to the Governments of the United States and Israel, various experts in 
both countries reject the “two-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict.  I shall mention their views while developing five decisive arguments 
against a Palestinian state:  Economic, Demographic, Political, Strategic, and 
Democratic.  

1. Economic Arguments

a. A RAND study indicates that a Palestinian state would not be economically 
viable.  It would require $33 billion for the first ten years of its 
existence—and this study was made before the economic crisis now confronting 
the United States and entire world.

 

b. Besides, to confine more than two million Arabs to the 2,323 square miles of 
the so-called West Bank, and to squeeze another million into the 141 square 
miles of Gaza, is to doom these Arabs to economic stagnation and discontent. 
The projected state would be a cauldron of envious hatred of Israel fueled by 
the leaders of one or another group of Arab clans or thugs parading under the 
banner of Allah.

 

c. Moreover, to compensate perhaps 200,000 Jews expelled from the “West 
Bank”—or even half that number—would bankrupt Israel’s government, to say 
nothing of the resulting trauma and civil discord.

 

2.  Demographic Arguments

 

a. “Two-state” solution advocates warn that the Arabs between the Jordan River 
and the Mediterranean will soon outnumber the Jews, and that this necessitates 
a Palestinian state.  The Sharon government, without public argumentation, used 
this demographic contention to justify its perfidious implementation of Labor’s 
policy of unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005. 

 

b. However, a groundbreaking study by the American-Israel Demographic Research 
Group (www.aidrg.com <http://www.aidrg.com/> ) revealed in 2005 that Israel 
does not need to retreat from Judea and Samaria to secure Jewish demography. 
The study shows that the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics exaggerated 
the Arab population in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza by nearly 50%. Rather than 3.8 
million Palestinians, it was no more than 2.4 million. Since those registered 
as Jews in Israel comprise almost 80% of Israel’s population, they make up a 
59% majority with Gaza and Judea and Samaria, and a solid 67% majority with 
Judea and Samaria without Gaza!

 

c. The American and Israeli researchers also found that Jewish fertility rates 
are steadily increasing while Arab fertility rates are steadily decreasing. Not 
only is there no demographic time bomb necessitating the surrender of Judea and 
Samaria to Palestinian terrorists, but Israel’s demographic position should 
encourage its government to develop a strategy for annexing Judea and Samaria. 

 

3.  Political Arguments

 

a. According to Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National 
Security Council, “the Palestinians do not truly desire the conventional 
two-state solution. The Arab world—especially Jordan and Egypt—does not truly 
support it either …” (Jerusalem Post, September 23, 2008).

 

b. Dr. Yuval Steinitz, former Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee 
chairman, said that the idea of a two-state solution should be dead.  “A 
Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria,” he said, “would bring about Israel’s 
demise.… Such a Palestinian state would immediately become an outpost for Iran” 
(Jerusalem Post, September 14, 2008).


       c. Advocates of a Palestinian state live in a fantasy world or lack the 
intellectual courage to acknowledge the obvious: the Palestinians are committed 
to Israel’s annihilation.  A generation of Arab children has been educated to 
hate Jews and emulate suicide bombers.  Daniel Pipes said it would take at 
least two generations to undo such indoctrination.  (This would require, among 
other things, basic changes in the Quran.  Muslims would have to renounce the 
ethos of Jihad.  No American or Israeli official has the guts to speak of this 
religious-cultural issue.) 

 

4. Strategic Arguments

 

a. On December 29, 2002, the freighter Karin-A set sail from Iran en route to 
the Suez Canal.  It was boarded by Israeli commandos without opposition from 
the four crewmen, who were members of the Palestinian naval force.  When the 
commandoes examined the ship’s cargo, they discovered launchers and rockets, 
mortars, anti-tank weapons, mines, 2 tons of explosives, assault rifles, 
machine guns, sniper rifles with telescope lenses, hand grenades, and hundreds 
of thousands of rounds of ammunition—enough weaponry to tilt the balance of 
terror against Israel.  The destination of the Karin-A was Gaza. Consistent 
with Dr. Steinitz’s warning, this Iranian arms shipment arms signifies that 
Iran views the Palestinians as a battle field in its 30-year war with Israel. 
(See Ronen Bergman, The Secret War with Iran, 2008, p. 270.)

 

b.  Even if it were agreed that a Palestinian state would have to be 
demilitarized, only fools would believe that the Arabs would abide by such an 
agreement—no more than they adhered to the arms limitations in the Oslo 
Agreement. 

 

c. Some 80% of Israel’s population is concentrated on the coastal plain.  Arab 
control of the Judean and Samarian hills would expose those people to constant 
missile attack.  Preoccupied with such attacks, Israel could no longer serve 
effectively as America’s strategic ally in the Middle East.  No longer could it 
provide the U.S. with priceless intelligence and technological assistance whose 
value far exceeds the value of U.S. military aid. And I have not mentioned the 
multibillion dollar economic market Israel provides the fifty states of the 
American Union.

 

d. Ponder also the fact that rewarding the Palestinians with statehood would 
promote irredentist movements or civil war and terrorism throughout the world.

 

e. President Obama called for a contiguous new "Palestinian" state. This would 
require a land corridor between Gaza and the "West Bank."  This, in effect, 
bifurcates Israel. If Israel is split, defense efforts will generate more 
casualties.

 

5. Democratic Arguments

 a. Doctrinaire adherence to the democratic principle of self-determination 
would encourage any ethnic group to seek independent statehood.  It would endow 
any ethnic group with the right to elect a tyrannical form of government, 
whether fascist, communist, or Islamic.

 

b. Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group dedicated to Israel’s destruction, was 
victorious in the 2006 democratic elections.  Lincoln echoed Jefferson when he 
said, “No people have a right to do what is wrong.”  Ponder the American 
Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of 
Happiness.”

 

c. Underlying these words is the Biblical conception of man’s creation in the 
image of God.  The Declaration portrays man as a rational being possessing free 
will and capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Without such a conception 
of human nature, the signers of the Declaration would have had no rational or 
moral grounds for rebelling against Britain, whose colonial governments 
violated the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

 

d. This “Higher Law” doctrine of the Declaration provides a set of standards by 
which to determine whether granting national self-determination to any ethnic 
group can be justified. It cannot be justified among people steeped in 
ignorance or habituated to violence and servitude. In his classic, 
Representative Government, John Stuart Mill said that a people may lack the 
moderation that representative government requires of them: “Their passions may 
be too violent, or their personal pride too exacting, to forego private 
conflict, and leave to the laws the avenging of their real or supposed wrongs.”

 

e. The “Palestinians” have not only bungled their every chance of 
self-government by making Fatah and Hamas terrorists their leaders. Having 
educated their children to emulate suicide bombers, the goal of these thugs is 
not statehood but Israel’s annihilation.  The democratic principle of 
self-determination is not an absolute; it is limited by rational and ethical 
considerations. It would be irrational—indeed, criminal—to establish a 
Palestinian state on Israel’s doorstep.

 

Conclusion

 

● Since it would be insane and destructive to establish a Palestinian state in 
Judea and Samaria, some superficial observers have said that the proper venue 
of such a state is Jordan whose population is 60% Palestinian. This is a 
non-starter. It would be asking Jordan to accede to its own subversion 
precisely because its Palestinian population would be irredentist.

● Here I ask: What has prevented the U.S. and Israel from developing a strategy 
to overcome the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians?  Can it be, more 
than anything else, a lack of intellectual integrity and moral 
courage—preconditions of statesmanship?  America’s decision-makers and 
opinion-makers have been stunted by the university-bred doctrine moral 
equivalence. Having abandoned the principles of Jefferson and Lincoln, they 
drift without steadfast conviction and purpose. Meanwhile, Israel’s ruling 
elites, having abandoned the Book that inspired Western civilization, behave 
like grasshoppers.  Mired in a Lilliputian politics, they permit barbarians to 
encroach on Jerusalem and endanger mankind with a new dark age.

●Both Israel and America need a very large dose of truth and courage.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to