Behind the Headlines the Danger of a Palestinian State

Faced with increasing international support for the Palestinians demand for “self-determination” the Israeli government has recently published an explanatory document setting out its objections to the idea of an independent Palestinian state.

The publication, issued by the Israel Information Center, states, among other things, that the Camp David accords provide for ensuring the “legitimate rights” of the Palestinians as recognized by the signatories of the accords — Israel and Egypt — and the accords, therefore; limited the conventional connotation of the term “legitimate rights.” They did not accept the Palestinian interpretation of the term, that is a separate, independent state.

The far reaching significance of this position is that Israel considers itself one of the primary parties entitled to participate in deciding what comprises the “legitimate rights” of the Palestinians, regardless of the international community’s views on the subject. What the Israel government believes to be non-legitimate is the idea of “self-determination” in the sense of a separate state. This is not legitimate because it would endanger Israel’s own security.

Israel’s basic approach — which underlies the autonomy proposals — is that in a series of discussions some modicum of understanding could be worked out which would give the Palestinian people a framework for a moderate alternative leadership to the Palestine Liberation Organization which objects to any solution other than full “self-determination.”

ISRAEL’S BASIC OBJECTIONS

The pamphlet anchors Israel’s objections to a Palestinian state in the following arguments.

A Palestinian state would be a PLO state, namely a state which would be administered by a terrorist organization that rejects the idea of coming to terms with the existence of the State of Israel, or limiting Palestine to the confines of Judaea, Samoria and Gaza. The PLO, moreover would continue to serve as a convenient political tool of the rejectionist Arab states and the Soviet Union in their perennial quest to destabilize the region, the pamphlet contends.

A Palestinian state would place Israel’s major centers of population and the country’s industrial infrastructure under the constant threat of the gun. The pamphlet reminds the reader of some basic statistics: most of Israel’s population and much of its industrial infrastructure is situated in the coastal plain which lies between the Mediterranean Sea and the mountains of the West Bank.

The pre-1967 armistice lines converted this coastal plain into a narrow corridor ranging from 9-15 miles wide linking the north and the south of Israel. Tel Aviv, Israel’s largest metropolitan center, was a mere 11 miles from Jordanian army positions. Jerusalem was encircled on three sides by Jordan’s Arab legion. The importance of strategic depth for Israel was dramatically illustrated in the Yom Kippur War when Israel was taken by surprise and both Egypt and Syria made substantial territorial gains.

The threat posed by these gains, the pamphlet stresses, was mitigated to a large extent by the distance of the lines from the heartland of Israel. Had the Arab attack been launched from the pre-1967 armistice lines, Israel would have been sliced in two, Jerusalem cut off from the rest of the country and the major centers of population would have been overrun by enemy forces.

CONTROLLING THE AIR SPACE

Israel’s entire air space could be fully controlled from the areas of a Palestinian state. Ben Gurion Airport would be within easy range of the simplest anti-aircraft missiles, which could be deployed from across the pre-1967 armistice lines. Anti-aircraft missiles would control almost all of Israel’s air space and would thus pose a constant threat to the country’s main communications link with the rest of the world. The effectiveness of Israel’s Air Force would be severely impaired as would be its preemptive capability.

A Palestinian state would serve as a launching-pod for attack upon Israel by radical and uncompromising Arab states, and as a base for assaults by the various terrorist that might well continue operating independently of a centralized, responsible Palestinian government.

The pamphlet claims, moreover, that the range and the destructive capacity of the artillery in Arab arsenals has more than doubled since 1967. The terrorist organizations, too, have acquired substantial quantities of artillery and rockets from the Soviet Union and other sources. Consequently, over 90 percent of Israel’s civilian population and industrial infrastructure would be within comfortable range, and therefore vulnerable, if a Palestinian state were established on the West Bank and Gaza.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INSTABILITY

A Palestinian state would lack political and economic stability and thus would catalyze general regional destabilization. The pamphlet points out that the areas of Judaea, Samoria and Gaza would have no natural resources, extremely limited farmlands and underdeveloped industrial infrastructure. Industry today accounts for only some nine percent of the local gross national product. There is an extremely high population density and a basically unskilled work force.

Consequently, according to the pamphlet, there is little chance of economic independence in the foreseeable future, and a Palestinian state in these regions in the final analysis would become an international welfare case.

Moreover, because of the short working time available to Israeli decision-makers, if military control over the West Bank were to be relinquished, the basic defense posture of the Israel defense forces would have to be based on worst-case assumptions, necessitating a no-risk preemptive policy.

Also given the fear that the West Bank under the PLO would be a base for ongoing irregular terror activity, the danger of a small incident resulting in a general destabilization would always be possible. Israel believes that it would not be in the interest of world peace that Israel be plotted in the strategic and tactical position of not having enough lead time to allow for fail-safe procedures before responding.

Nor would it be in anyone’s interest to place Israel in the position of having to take ongoing military measures in response to unbridled terrorism which could escalate into war.

SEEN AS A SOVIET SATELLITE

A Palestinian state would inevitably become a “Soviet satellite on Israel’s doorstep.” The pamphlet argues that Moscow would have predominant influence in a Palestinian state as the USSR and the PLO share the common arm of sabotaging both Western and Israeli interests in the Middle East. Therefore, a PLO state on Israel’s frontier would provide the Soviet Union with yet another foothold in the Middle East and constitute yet another blow to the Western sphere of influence in the region.

Finally, the pamphlet denies the contention that Israel’s security fears would be eliminated if the proposed Palestinian state were to be demilitarized.

The document claims that with the inherent lock of control which would exist in a state composed of political factions dedicated to armed struggle, demilitarization is not a viable expectation. The threat to Israel, it is stressed, is not necessarily exclusively expressed in a scenario of total war but it is not less real in terms of ongoing harassment by irregular forms aimed at the country’s most sensitive areas.

In the given current political reality, the pamphlet concludes, with the PLO widely accepted as the self-appointed representative of the Palestinian people, Israel cannot accept the dubious security afforded by the promise of West Bank demilitarization.