Jerualem Post

Palestine will not be pareve 
 
By Efraim Inbar

(The writer is director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at
Bar-Ilan University.)
 
(December 14) - President Bill Clinton's visit to Gaza is an important step
in making the Palestinian state a fait accompli. This inevitable outcome,
however, is not necessarily a desirable one.

The embryonic Palestinian state has great potential for becoming a source
of regional instability, a fact which most of the world, including,
unfortunately, the US, seems unaware of.

It is a fallacy to believe that a Palestinian state will automatically
become a responsible member of the international community. We know that
many states, such as Iraq, Libya or Serbia, are aggressive and constitute a
source of regional troubles.

Indeed, the chances that the Palestinians would create an aggressive,
revisionist state are very high. There are already clear indications that
Palestinian appetites will not be satisfied with the concessions Israel is
willing to make.

For example, 80 percent of the Palestinians have rejected even the extreme
dovish Beilin-Abu Mazen Plan, while they continue to insist on having
Jerusalem as their capital, which goes against the backbone of Israeli
consensus. The lack of territorial contiguity between Gaza and the West
Bank will similarly be a constant source of friction between Israel and
Palestine, as well as a pretext for territorial demands.

There are serious doubts as to the ripeness of Palestinian society for
reconciliation with Israel. It is not at all clear whether the present
Palestinian leadership is willing or able to convince its society that a
"historical compromise with the Zionists" which allots them maximum 20% of
the land they initially coveted is an acceptable solution.

According to a 1995 Palestinian poll, almost two-thirds of the Arab
inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza refuse to accept Israel's right to
exist. Arafat has clearly demonstrated his reluctance to combat Hamas and
other rejectionists in the territories, precisely because he realizes the
considerable support these groups draw (20-30% according to various
estimates).

Unquestionably, there has been a trend of moderation in Palestinian public
opinion in recent years, but it has a long way to go before reaching the
point of convergence with what Israelis think is fair and acceptable in
terms of security. Therefore, any political settlement in the near future
will leave the Palestinians dissatisfied, hoping to get more in the future.
Dissatisfied political entities are a source for trouble.

A newborn Palestinian state will inevitably conform to the rules of
behavior characteristic of this region. This means it will resort to
violence to achieve political objectives, a regional pattern reinforced by
past Palestinian behavior and present predilection.

In a recent book, the Palestinian intellectual Yezid Sayigh argues that
violence has been the defining experience of the Palestinian national
movement and the organizing concept around which its nationalism evolved.

We know that Arafat has not refrained from eulogizing perpetrators of
terrorist acts against Israel in the post-Oslo period. He allowed his
soldiers to shoot at the IDF in September 1996 and continuously threatens
that unless he gets what he wants, violence will erupt.

In contrast to the populations of Western countries, Palestinians, like
other Middle Eastern populations, support violence. According to a
Palestinian poll conducted two weeks after the Wye Memorandum was signed,
41% of the Palestinians still supported use of force against Israeli
targets (only about a 10% reduction from a pre-Wye poll). There is no
reason to believe that a Palestinian state will be more pareve than any
other Mideastern political entity.

The security risks of Palestinian statehood are considerable. Palestinians
can easily disconnect, by small amounts of lightly equipped infantry,
Israel's main transport arteries and most of its airfields. In a time of
war this could be devastating.

Also of concern is that the PLO threatened Jordan's Hashemite regime in the
past and could do so again in the future. Most estimates agree that over
60% of the kingdom's population is of Palestinian origin. A Palestinian
state would definitely galvanize nationalistic feelings among the
Palestinians in Jordan, who could be radicalized by the establishment of a
Palestinian state so close to their homes.

Jordan's strategic location is pivotal to regional stability, serving as a
buffer between Israel and Iraq, and between Saudi Arabia and Syria. The
elimination of a pro-Western Jordan would leave Israel, as well as Saudi
Arabia, without a buffer vis-a-vis the radicals and is inimical to Western
interests.

The Americans and Europeans fool themselves in believing that a Palestinian
state will be their friend. Demonstrations in support of Iraq take place
frequently in Palestinian towns and very often American flags are burned.
If Russia returns to the Middle East, Arafat will be among the first to
welcome the Yevgeny Primakovs, just as he supported the communist coup
against Gorbachev.

The Palestinian state could well become a base for anti-Western
international terrorism, serving precisely the same function as their
mini-state in Lebanon (1975-82).

The establishment of a Palestinian state is imminent. Believing it will
contribute to peace and regional stability demonstrates plain ignorance of
Middle Eastern realities. What responsible leaders like Clinton should do
is to think how to minimize its potential dangers and act accordingly.