|JUNE 2002 - Issue #146||PUBLISHED BY AMERICANS FOR A SAFE ISRAEL|
It has become a truism that the answer to the Arab-Israel conflict is the creation of a state of Palestine to fulfill the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. Even Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who only a few years ago (Jerusalem Post, January 9, 1993) said forthrightly that there was no difference between the PLO and Hamas for "their common goal is to annihilate Israel," now describes a state whose leaders have that joint goal as "inevitable."
But why should this be so?
In a fine article in this issue of Outpost, Hugh Fitzgerald points out that there are no Palestinian people in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, only ethnic Arabs. "Palestinian" is a geographic adjective, not an ethnic identity, and "if some of those Arabs have renamed themselves that does not mean others must be obligingly credulous and participate in the masquerade."
At this very moment, Arafat's official Fatah website is blunt about the purpose of a Palestinian state: "A legitimate Palestinian entity forms the most important weapon that Arabs have against Israel." Why should Israel hand this "most important weapon" to those dedicated to its destruction?
What shred of evidence is there that the Arabs are prepared to live in peace with Israel? Since the Oslo process began, terror, hatred, and incitement have grown immeasurably. The more appeasement Israel has practiced, the greater the appetite for Israel's destruction has grown.
Barak's offer to surrender almost all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza -- even much of Jerusalem -- did not lead to peace and accommodation. On the contrary, it encouraged "non-negotiable" Arab demands for the "right of return" of millions of Arabs to "green line" Israel. And, it produced suicide bombers -- in seemingly unending supply -- to make daily life hell throughout Israel.
For Israel, a Palestinian state leads only to the sea. And what does it achieve for the United States? Incredibly, the Bush administration, in the wake of Sep-tember 11, has for the first time openly endorsed Palestinian statehood. The hideous terrorist act that killed thousands of Americans (and would have destroyed the White House were it not for the valor of Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers on Flight 93), far from producing desperately needed new thinking in Washington, seems merely to have reinforced failed fetishes. Cannot even the State Department recognize that the terror groups are deeply intertwined, Hamas with Hezbollah with Islamic Jihad with al Qaeda, their personnel, their goals, their methods, their philosophies, their specific terror operations?
How can a new terror state possibly serve U.S. interests? And if it can only do devastating harm, why does the U.S. make the creation of such a state a policy goal?
Joseph Farah has pointed out what this administration is unwilling to recognize: "Israel is just a stopping-off point. It's necessary to chase the Jews out of the Middle East first. Next will be the last vestige of Christians. But the big prize is the Great Satan -- the United States of America....If Arafat and the other terrorists Israel battles emerge with even a partial victory, they will be coming after us. There will be no end to the bloodshed and violence. A new phase of terrorism will begin. It will be unlike anything we have seen before. It will be relentless. And we will be fighting alone."
Herbert Zweibon is chairman of Americans For a Safe Israel.
IN THIS ISSUE:
Who Deserves a State? ...3 The Day Arafat Was Offered Power ...9 A Palestinian State? Just Say "No" ...10
Who Deserves a State? ...3
The Day Arafat Was Offered Power ...9
A Palestinian State? Just Say "No" ...10
June 2002 - 1 - Outpost