Many in the West today are convinced that sweeping changes are necessary in Palestine, as they were once convinced about Iran under the shah. The intifada and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat's apparent new moderation have spawned a cottage industry devoted to the proposition that PLO-Israeli dialogue and the existence of a Palestinian state will rid us of our Mideast dilemmas once and for all, will bring peace and justice in their wake, and will liberate Jews worldwide from the image of inflicting oppressive acts on Palestinians.
Those who regularly glorify Arafat these days accept without question the idea that the peace process will lead to a Palestinian ministate on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They dismiss or ignore traditional objections. Even though many of these objections have become so old they are now boring and uninteresting, they need to be reviewed because the stakes are too high for decisions to be made on the basis of faith and hope.
We should remember that a Palestinian state would be a geopolitical nightmare. Two sovereign politics in a tiny territory the size of New Jersey would be locked in a deadly embrace. The ever-present threat of a terrorist incident, a volatile speech by one leader or another, or the machinations of an outside power could result at any time in the possibility of war. Of course, in its first few years such a state would be carefully demilitarized and patrolled by some kind of international force; but how would Palestinian government stop terrorism without an indigenous and armed police force? What if evidence of peace treaty violations occurs? Who decides if they merit Israeli reentry? If, as is likely, a Palestinian state and Israel regard each other with suspicion, if not outright hostility, the possibility of the peace settlement breaking down would be increased.
Most advocates of a Palestinian state seem to envision a Palestinian Israel, or perhaps an Egypt or a Jordan. In other words, a state that is democratic or only moderately authoritarian and at least minimally stable. Yet even a well-intentioned Palestinian leadership would confront citizens of varied interests, ideologies, experiences, and backgrounds: a bewildering mélange of nationalists, traditionalists, fundamentalists, irredentists, and radicals. It would be a gargantuan task to mold this potpourri of diverse, contending factions into a viable polity without civil strife and even war. As always, the need to control internal tensions would require a military force, likely to be limited in any settlement.
Effects Of Alliances
Those who advocate a Palestinian state also usually fail to discuss its alliances. A peace settlement would not be able to restrain dealings with foreign countries even if it tried to neutralize the state formally. Here there are three sets of questions: First, what would its relations be with the great powers, especially the United Stated and the USSR? Second, what of its relations with the other Arab countries and Iran? Would it be closer to radical countries like Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Iran, or to conservatives like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Egypt? Finally, what would its relations be with its two critical neighbors--Israel and Jordan? Even if arrangements that appeared satisfactory had been made originally, how could anyone prevent assassinations, coups, or internal political conflicts from producing a future radical or fundamentalist
...
Read Full Article
|
