Why Do Palestinians Need a State?

Arutz Sheva ^ | 02 February 2003 | Bruce S. Ticker

[ladyinred]

Why can't they live in one of the Arab countries that surround little tiny Israel for that matter? Most of them came from one of these countries to begin with. The whole idea is they want Israel not to exist at all. That is the real truth, hidden by the PC crowd.

[Dog Gone]

Well, moving the border outward doesn't change that problem. Whereever the border is, there can be rocket attacks over it. You've just changed the line where it can happen.

Only by giving the Palestinians a country can you begin to defuse the root anger. They won't be happy with whatever the border is, but it's a start. In a generation or two, perhaps it will be sufficient.

[anotherview]

You have more faith in the Palestinians and their leadership than I do. I don't think they will ever be satisfied.

[Dog Gone]

That might be true, although it doesn't change things. Israel must divorce itself from the West Bank and put the onus on them to be responsible.

The other option of annexing the land creates unacceptable risks without really solving anything.

I don't think it will be finally resolved during our lifetimes. It should, but it won't.

[SJackson]

Fine. Annex the West Bank, and soon the Jewish State becomes an arab state… Decide what that is, build a wall to separate it, if necessary for security, and move on. At some point, even the Palestinians will realize that they have most of what they asked for.

At some point that’s what has to happen, since there’s no rational negotiating partner

Palestinian’s living within the annexed area will be voting citizens of the new “Palestinian state”, though if peaceful could be living or working in Israel. Or they could move to their new homeland. Terrorists would be imprisoned or expelled.

. But the borders need to be defensible. Try these on for size.

Center for Security Policy

Thoughtful military experts have for many years recognized the risks for Israel should it no longer be able to control the territories it acquired in the course of the Six-Day War in June 1967. For example, shortly after the end of that conflict, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded that, "From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders."

The Chiefs made the following specific findings:

"The prominent high ground running north-south through the middle of West Jordan [Judea and Samaria] generally...would provide Israel with a militarily defensible border."

"The commanding territory east of the boundary of 4 June 1967 [the Golan Heights]...overlooks the Galilee area. To provide a defense in-depth, Israel would need a strip about 15 miles wide extending from the border of Lebanon to the border of Jordan."

"By occupying the Gaza Strip, Israel would trade approximately 45 miles of hostile border for eight. Configured as it [was prior to 1967], the strip serve[d] as a salient for introduction of Arab subversion and terrorism and its retention would be to Israel's military advantage."

"To defend the Jerusalem area would require that the boundary of Israel be positioned to the east of the city to provide for the organization of an adequate defensive position."

…………………………

These findings are as valid today as they were in 1967. In fact, they have been reaffirmed again and again by knowledgeable military professionals. For example, in October 1988, 100 senior U.S. generals and admirals issued a public call for Israel to "retain the Jordan River line as [her] eastern security border" noting that:

"...If Israel loses this line, it would have virtually no warning of attack, its border would be three times longer than the present one. In the midsection of the country it would be 9 to 18 miles from the Mediterranean. Virtually all the population would be subject to artillery bombardment. The plain north of Tel Aviv could be riven by an armored salient within hours. The quick mobilization of its civilian army -- Israel's main hope for survival -- would be disrupted easily, and perhaps irreversibly."

…………………………

In 1991, Lieutenant General Thomas Kelly, the highly respected chief of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Storm, said, "Israel's control over these areas is the only guarantee, however imperfect, of peace. Their loss is a prescription for war." He added that:

"The West Bank mountains, and especially their approaches, are the critical terrain. If an enemy secures those passes, Jerusalem and all of Israel become uncovered. Without the West Bank, Israel is only eight miles wide at its narrowest point. That makes it indefensible."

…………………………

Importantly, the Israeli Defense Forces are under no illusion about the abiding importance of strategic analyses like that performed by the Joint Chiefs. As the IDF Chief of Staff Ehud Barak said in May 1993:

"The 1967 Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum [is] still applicable. The Arab arms are reaching superiority over Israel with a qualitative as well as quantitative edge....If Israel has to retake the territories proposed to be given up, we cannot do it without tremendous casualties."

…………………………………

The Pentagon Plan - Joint Chiefs of Staff Map (1974)

[SJackson]

Why can't they live in one of the Arab countries that surround little tiny Israel for that matter? Most of them came from one of these countries to begin with. The whole idea is they want Israel not to exist at all. That is the real truth, hidden by the PC crowd.

You're right. Resettling palestinians in the Arab world, or agreeing to final borders, would put an end to the Arab dream of destroying Israel.

[Nix 2]

The only state palestinians, which don't exist, deserve, is a state of everlasting death. Dead is good for them. They long for it, yearn for it, pray for it, and teach their children it is the only reason they are alive. If the only reason they are alive is to realize death, we should deliver it to them quickly, unhesitatingly, and as generously as we possibly can.

[speekinout]

there can be no state under Arafat or his ilk.

Right. Bush has said that they could have a state within 3 years of changing leadership. But Arafat's trips to Camp David are over.
And a Palestinian state could not be allowed to arm itself. Nor could it be allowed to harbor arms from another country. An International plan to defend it would be necessary.

[white trash redneck]

The best argument for a Palestinian state is demographic. The Arabs will soon outnumber Jews in Israel.

[born yesterday]

A new Palestine state may come when the U.S. conquers and controls Iraq. For this new Palestine the US would rearrange the Western boundry of Iraq, the Eastern boundry of Jordan and perhaps chunks of Syria and Arabia. Much bigger tserritory than today. Only water and fuel needed. Climate similar to Phoenix. For this reason and others it becomes important that US invades Iraq.

[SJackson]

new Palestine state may come when the U.S. conquers and controls Iraq. For this new Palestine the US would rearrange the Western boundry of Iraq, the Eastern boundry of Jordan and perhaps chunks of Syria and Arabia.

That's a viable solution, most likely under Jordanian rule, either as a protectorate or annexed to Jordan. It's thinking a bit out of the box, and I doubt it's under serious consideration.

[SJackson]

I can't argue with anything you've said.

[Dan from Michigan]

Why Do Palestinians Need a State?

They have one. Jordan.

[SJackson]

The best argument for a Palestinian state is demographic. The Arabs will soon outnumber Jews in Israel.

Of course that's a different question.

In consideration of the creation of a palistinian state the world accepts as a given the Jews in the region would, of course, be cleansed as a matter of practicality. Deportation of Arabs from Israel to a palistinian state, that would be unacceptable to the world.

[onedoug]

No Arab state in Eretz Yisrael. EVER!

[Nix 2]

And if they so desire Rachel's Tomb and Joseph's Tomb, we should accomadate them with like tombs in which their bodies reside amidst tunnels filled with salt water. The Dead Sea could work. We could paint some beach umbrellas green and call them mosques. Imagine how peaceful their religion would be then.

[Puck from Michigan]

They need their own state. That way, when they start their crap & terrorize Israel in a state sponsored way, Israel can legitimately wipe them off the face of the earth. From one government to another.

[JasonC]

I am way past caring what the murderous bastards feel. When they stop blowing up children, cheering NYers plummeting to their deaths, chanting "Death to the Jews", burning American flags, celebrating suicide bombings, and lynching anyone who so much as talks to the other side, I might, on a good day, after decades of trying on their part, be induced to lift a pinky for the least of them. At the moment, they are my sworn enemies and those of my allies and friends, and they can die and be damned.

[neutrino]

Why do the palies need a state? Well, the answer is obvious! How else can they stay in a State of Confusion all the time?

[freedumb2003]

About a year ago, Either William Safire or George Will (I can't remember which) noted that there were over 50 MILLION displaced persons in Europe after WWII and they were all assimilated in less than 40 years.

Compare that to the few million Palestinians that were displaced (if you even buy that) by the creation of Isreal. By now, the Arab states -- their "brother Arabs" who are so damned concerned about the Palestines' welfare they are willing to die for it, have yet to assimilate anyone (yes, Jordan -- which is where Palestine should be -- comes to foremost to mind).

Quite simply, the Palestinians are there for one reason: to be a festering wound in the side of Isreal in particular and the West in general.

Do not be fooled -- we have no "friends" in the Arab world. On the other hand, neither do the Palestinians.