A Palestinian State Will Solve Nothing

There is a big rush on to establish a Palestinian state. The thinking goes that, once one is established, the Palestinians will be satisfied and end their conflict with Israel. Facts, however, suggest otherwise. This week's Florida Jewish Journal contains my essay explaining why a Palestinian state, at least for now, is an existential threat to Israel's survival.

Palestinian State No Guarantee of Peace

One myth that seems to live on surrounding the Middle East peace process is that as soon as a Palestinian state is finally created, hostilities in the region will end. This argument, of course, serves to bolster the cause for Palestinian statehood -- if peace will result, then let's get about creating that state ASAP.

Take, for example, the following...

The Associated Press, September 16, 2010: "Inconclusive talks between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas left in doubt the prospects for their new effort to end generations of hostilities in the region and create a sovereign Palestine alongside a secure Israel" [emphasis added].

The Washington Post, August 21, 2010: "President Obama will embark on his deepest foray into Middle East peacemaking...when he hosts Israeli and Palestinian leaders in a bid to achieve what his predecessors could not: a deal to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel and end the two sides' bitter conflict" [emphasis added].

The fact of the matter is that creating a Palestinian state prematurely -- before the vast majority of Palestinians come to care more about their economic well-being and livelihood rather than perpetuating their conflict with Israel -- will result not in peace but in continued war, this time with Palestinians in full control of land and international legitimacy. The Arabs know this; they are just smart enough not to acknowledge it publicly. Westerners, who don't understand the Arabs as well as they should, fail to see the danger in Palestinian statehood and, therefore, keep pushing for it, most times even harder than the Palestinians themselves. The day peace talks renewed in Washington in early September 2010, Palestinians were photographed in the West Bank protesting the talks, which are intended to create their state.

The idea that the moment a peace agreement is signed and a Palestinian state created the Palestinians will transform themselves into peaceful neighbors of Israel is naieve and dangerous. Until there is genuine reform among the Palestinians -- and that may easily take 100 years or more -- no Palestinian state will bring this conflict to an end. It will only make it worse.

Parsing Netanyahu's Words

PajamasMedia has published my article on Netanyahu's about-face on reciprocity and demilitarization, two key indicators that his tough stance on Israeli security may be weakening.

The Importance of Alternative Analysis

One of the reasons that the Middle East Contrarian exists is because we believe in the importance of alternative analysis. We recall, from our government service days, seeing the intoxicating effect of "group think" leading to intellectual paralysis and a genuine fear of sharing an opinion different from your colleagues. (Essentially, the U.S. taxpayer is paying the CIA to hire, employ, and train Israel political analysts who all think exactly alike.) That has, and will continue to, lead to disasters in American foreign policy -- most notably, the incessant push to create a Palestinian state while the Palestinians have repeatedly shown their unpreparedness for the responsibilities of statehood.

In an editorial today, the Israeli daily Ma'ariv reminds us of the important lessons drawn by a committee investigating Israel's actions leading up to the Yom Kippur war in 1973, when Israel was caught by surprise by an Arab attack:

'Do not block or prevent different thinking and the presentation of alternative positions,' and 'Encourage pluralism; encourage more than one element to voice assessments and propose policy.'

It's Not the Settlements

In an editorial today, the Washington Post says that newly-appointed Middle East Envoy George Mitchell ought to make stopping Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank his priority.

Even setting aside for now the argument that Israel won the West Bank in a defensive war and "to the victor, go the spoils," we're a far ways away from even considering what should be the final disposition of the West Bank.

The existence of Israeli communities in the West Bank is not what is preventing peace. Rather, the problem rests, as it always has, with Palestinian intransigence and their unwavering commitment to Israel's eventual destruction.

Gaza offers all the proof necessary of this fact. In Gaza, Israel vacated every last settlement and settler, giving the Palestinians a chance to build their state and demonstrate their commitment to living in peace. They blew that chance. Instead, they elected Hamas, despite its history of blowing up busses and other civilian targets in Israel. Hamas thanked Palestinians by turning Gaza into a launching pad for a rocket war on Israel.

Considering that Palestinians squandered the opportunity in Gaza, the last thing that ought to be considered now is allowing them to squander another opportunity in the West Bank.

Until the Palestinians get their act together, throw out their terrorist leaders, and reject violence once and for all, may Israeli settlements and settlers be "fruitful and multiply." Maybe then, once Palestinians see this happening, they will reconsider and begin making the right choices. Until then, let them suffer and learn from their wrong ones.

A Bittersweet Battle in Gaza

Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza, which started today, is a bittersweet moment.

It's relieving to see Hamas, which has been firing rockets into southern Israel for months and still holds IDF soldier Gilat Shalit for over two years, finally feeling some pain. Hopefully, Israel will be relentless in its attacks and force upon Hamas a new reality in which it understands a price will be paid for any future instigation.

However, today's violence is, undeniably, also terribly saddening. Palestinians in Gaza could have been better off had it not been for Hamas. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 offered an opportunity for the Palestinians there to exercise self-rule and establish a nascent state. Hamas failed them, but Palestinians also failed themselves for electing Hamas to power. As a Ha'aretz columnist wrote, "Nothing has been more instrumental in harming the cause of Palestinian independence than Hamas."

Instead of building a state, Hamas began building an army, with dozens of new security installations, thousands of new recruits, and tens of thousands of rockets and anti-aircraft missiles smuggled via Egypt.

Hamas and Palestinian Authority leaders need to be pressured to help Palestinians along a different path toward reconciliation with Israel. Unfortunately, they won't hear that from Israel's closest Arab allies. Egypt reportedly condemned Israel's attacks today, which Jordan's King Abdullah said "targeted innocent women and children." These Arab "allies" should know better. They should put the blame squarely on Hamas, not Israel.

Instead, the relief from Hamas rule which Palestinians deserve will be delayed and will come only once Palestinians, collectively, have tired of war and rise up against their corrupt rulers demanding change. If that time comes only in a hundred or more years, so be it. For only then will a lasting peace be within reach.

AP Misunderstands Bush Palestine Policy

AP reporter Jennifer Loven, reporting from Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt, where President Bush is meeting Arab leaders after visiting Israel, said that, in a speech to the Israeli Knesset the other day marking Israel's 60th birthday, Bush barely mentioned the Palestinians' plight and foresaw a Palestinian state only in 2068. She then quotes several Arab leaders and officials sharply criticizing the speech.

In his speech, Bush said he envisioned that the Palestinians "will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror."

With these remarks, Bush has gone further than any other Arab leader in supporting a Palestinian state. How so? Because of the conditions he's placed on it. A Palestinian state that resembles its Arab neighbors, where the people cannot freely vote for their leaders who stay in office for lifetimes and where violence reigns, like seen most recently in Lebanon, will do the Palestinians, and the rest of us, much harm and little good. Unlike Ms. Loven would have us believe, Bush understands and sympathizes with the Palestinians' plight very well and very much so because he wants to save them from the failure leadership and sad predicament that most of their Arab bretheren must endure.