Solve Palestinian State ’s
Middle-East Problems? America
by Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker
American Thinker, Codex-Politics, International Analyst Network,
April 2010 Global Politician,
American Chronicle, 9
World Security Network, 22 April 2010
Given the current view espoused in much of the media that the Palestinian-Israeli squabble is the root of all or much of America’s poor image in the Arab world, we might want to examine whether creating a Palestinian state—in whichever form of borders—would indeed solve the problems that the United States finds itself confronting in the Middle-East, and whether the creation of a Palestinian state would improve America’s popularity in the region. Will a sovereign Palestinian state solve
problems, or will it create more headaches for Uncle Sam?
Before one can answer these questions it is necessary to address the question of what the term “Palestinian state” means. Currently there are two Palestinian areas—
Gaza and the West Bank. At the present time these two regions are
governed by very different entities: Hamas—the Palestinian chapter of
the Moslem Brotherhood, which categorically denies Israel’s right to existence—controls
Gaza, and the secular nationalist Fatah, which pretends to tolerate a
Jewish state—at least to the extent that it may be willing once again to enter
into negotiations with the State of Israel—controls the West Bank. Currently
the two Palestinian parties are much divided and seem only united in their
disdain of Israel.
That commonality has not been enough to unite them in anything else. As a
result of this division, Israel
has no negotiation partner in Gaza,
and a skittish, very reluctant addressee in the West Bank.
But, despite the situation today on the ground being what it is, we may still ask our original set of questions: would the creation of a Palestinian state solve
problems in the Middle-East? Put succinctly: no, a Palestinian state will not
problems in the area; indeed it may only serve to compound them. The rejectionists—the
radical Islamic front—Syria, Iran, Turkey, Sudan, (at times Libya), Hizballah,
Hamas, al-Jihad al-Islami (PIJ), al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and
the various Salafi and other jihadi groups reject the West; Palestine
is a convenient focal point, but it is not the prime concern of these
anti-Western nations and terror organizations. Even were Israel to cease to
exist, these groups and nations would still be opposed to—as Iran commonly
terms it—the “Global Arrogance”, aka the United States. So, for this group of
is a convenient rallying concern, but in reality its status is irrelevant to
the antagonism that the members of this group feel towards the West in general
and to the U.S.
in particular. Indeed, creating a Palestinian state that doesn’t unequivocally
recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state would only serve to
strengthen the resolve of the radical Islamic front whose identity is
centered in the idea of rejecting any accommodation with the West as its
members slowly develop the power to overcome and dominate the West on the way
to creating a worldwide Islamic empire.
This leaves us now with
and to a certain extent Iraq—assuming
that Ayad Allawi and the Iraqiya party succeed in forming a moderate
government. The first three have peaceful relations with Israel ( Egypt and Jordan have
signed peace treaties with Israel)
and an Allawi-led Iraqi government would probably fit into the Egypt-Jordan
axis. These four nations all reject Islamic fundamentalism as represented by
the Moslem Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since a Palestinian
state that includes Gaza
would include an Iranian-supported Hamas-dominated government, these
four nations would regard such a Palestinian state as
a source of trouble and may not really desire its creation despite all their
public statements to the contrary. Certainly to date Egypt has shown very little
solidarity with Palestinian Gaza under Hamas’ rule, maintaining a
blockade of Gaza
far more stringent than that imposed by Israel.
There is also the sad fact that none of the Arab countries are democracies (with the possible exception of
Iraq if it emerges with a moderate
government). These monarchies and oligarchies (particularly Ba‘athist Syria) have
as a scapegoat in order to divert attention away from their own problems. Real
concern for the “plight of the Palestinian refugees” is lacking throughout the
Arab world; nowhere have the Palestinians received citizenship in their “brotherly
Arab” host countries. Even the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, whose East Bank
population is 60% Palestinian, recently revoked the citizenship of any
Palestinian that did not live within the Kingdom before June 1967.
Creating a Palestinian state would remove the “Palestinian question” from the Arab public agenda, thereby allowing the citizens of each Arab state to focus their attention on the corruption and lack of human rights in their own lands. That is a situation that most Arab leaders do not want to face; therefore, maintaining antagonism against the “Zionist entity”, aka
definite advantages for these Arab rulers.
While this quick survey has not examined all Arab and Moslem states, it has demonstrated that key Arab and Moslem nations are not likely to change their approach to the West and to the
because of the creation of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian issue serves as
a convenient focal point, but it is not the root of the problem and “solving
it” improperly—that is without “de-radicalizing” the Palestinians—will not
solve America’s problems at all; it may make things worse: first by introducing
another radical nation-state, and secondly by giving the radicals the
impression that they are winning, thus emboldening them to a greater degree.
and most of Europe appear to fail to
understand is that the Palestinians and their rejectionist front supporters
refuse to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in
their ancestral homeland. That continued refusal for well over a century is
what serves to fuel Israel’s
reluctance to return to the untenable-1967 borders. Continual terrorist attacks
as well as a non-stop campaign of virulent anti-Semitic incitement from the
Palestinian side (as well as much of the Arab and Moslem media) causes Israelis
and many of Israel’s supporters to maintain a fortress mentality.
The shame here is that the Palestinians have failed to find leaders that are willing to rise above the use of incitement and also are corruption-proof. There is no argument that Palestinians deserve autonomy in their lives and that the occupation (this refers to the
Bank as Gaza
has not been occupied since 2005) is burdensome to the average Palestinian.
However, until the Palestinians reject incitement to violence against Israelis
and/or Jews, reject corruption in their leaders, and agree to respect the right
of a Jewish state to exist, Israel
will find it impossible to agree to Palestinian sovereignty. If America and Europe want to help birth a viable sovereign Palestinian
state, it would behoove them to emphasize that message very clearly to the
Palestinians and other Arab states. If and when the Palestinians and their
friends finally absorb that message and actualize it, they will find that a
peace agreement with Israel
will not be that difficult to forge.
Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker is founder and Chairman of the Board of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching our elected officials and the public of the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism and the need to establish genuine democratic institutions in the Middle-East as an antidote to the venom of fundamentalism. He may be contacted at contact@ADME.ws.