BIRTH OF A NATION? ARAFAT’S AMBITIONS TO ‘LIBERATE PALESTINE’ MAKE VIOLENCE INEVITABLE; BETTER NOW THAN LATER

(Washington, D.C.): As ever, it is
fashionable to blame the policies of the
Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu
for the eruption of Palestinian Arab
violence this week. The truth is
that this violence is not the result of
an Israeli-induced “breakdown of the
peace process.” Instead, this
violence is the absolutely predictable
result of its “success”
to date.

Forewarned…

Indeed, on 13 October 1993, the day
the Declaration of Principles was signed
at the White House, the Center for
Security Policy warned:

“Is it Realistic to
Expect the Palestinians To Settle
Only for What They Get Under This
Accord? As recently as 1
September [1993], Yasser Arafat told
Palestinian critics of the [new]
agreement that ‘This is the
Phased Plan we all adopted
in 1974. Why should you oppose it
now?’ Since the Phased Plan was a
devious two-step strategy for
destroying Israel — first, through
the creation of a
Palestinian state on any territory
vacated by the Israelis and second,
through the use of that state to
mount a final campaign against a
diminished Israel —
such a statement gives lie to
Arafat’s ostensible conversion to a
man of peace.

“At the very least, it seems
reasonable to expect new demographic
pressures will create intense
pressure for additional Israeli
territorial concessions.
Quite apart from the contribution
made to such pressures by the
Palestinians’ high birth rate, a
further population surge in the ‘de-occupied
territories’ will come if
Palestinians exercise their
long-declared ‘Right of Return.’ This
may involve upwards of 800,000 Arabs
who will insist on establishing new
residences and associated communities
and infrastructure throughout the
West Bank with financial assistance
from the European Community, the
United States and elsewhere. A
further factor may be the likely
desire of concentrations of Arabs in
Israel-proper to join the new
Palestinian entity.

“Jerusalem is a case in
point. While Israel formally
maintains that the city will remain
united and under Israeli control, the
Palestinians have made no bones about
their intention to establish
Jerusalem as the capital of their new
state. As Arafat put it on 2
September [1993], ‘The Palestinian
state is within our grasp. Soon the
Palestinian flag will fly on the
walls, the minarets and the
cathedrals of Jerusalem.'”

Arafat’s Latest Incitements

Unfortunately, three years of
Israeli concessions that have passed for
a “peace process” have not
weaned Yasser Arafat from his
hate-mongering against Israel.
According to reports broadcast on Israel
Television on 24 September 1996, as
mayhem broke out in Jerusalem and Gaza,
the “President of Palestine”
told hundreds of cheering
“Palestinian policemen” that
“Palestine is our land and Jerusalem
is our capital.”

The same day, Israel Radio broadcast
news bulletins recounting that the
Palestinian Authority’s Religious Affairs
Minister Hasan Tahboub had declared that
“the Palestinians must prepare an
orderly plan to liberate the Temple Mount
and the other holy sites in
Palestine.” And on 26 September, the
New York Times reported that the
Palestinian Authority urged Arabs
“to express their anger before the
continuing aggression on the Al Aqsa
Mosque and the desecration of the holy
places.”

An Army By Any Other Name

It has only just begun to dawn on many
observers that the critical
difference between the violence of the
Intifada (that induced the previous
Israeli government to try to
coopt/appease Arafat in the Declaration
of Principles and subsequent accords) and
the upheavals of the past few days is the
fact that — thanks to the “peace
process” — there are now at least
30,000 “Palestinian policemen”
armed with automatic weapons,
and probably even greater firepower.

The damage the Palestinian Arabs are
able to inflict on Israeli Defense Forces
and civilians is, consequently,
vastly greater than it would otherwise
have been. What is more, Israel will have
to escalate the lethal force it brings to
bear to try to suppress what amounts to a
Palestinian army. Bear in mind that this
proto-army is almost entirely comprised
of guerrillas who were, until recently,
fighting the IDF under the banners of PLO
factions like Fatah and PFLP, Hamas,
Hezbollah, or others. Still, the Israeli
military will likely once again be
assailed for using disproportionate power
against the hardened combat veterans
operating among the stone-wielding mobs.

Better Now Than Later

This unhappy day of reckoning
was bound to come later, if not sooner.
While further Israeli concessions might
have postponed its arrival somewhat, they
would not have prevented a violent
upheaval. In fact, the
longer that upheaval was postponed by
diplomatic temporizing, the greater the
violence would likely be. After all, such
temporizing would only mean that the
Palestinian proto-army was that much
stronger, its freedom of action in
territory surrendered by the Israelis
that much greater and the recognition of de
facto (if not de jure) Palestinian
statehood that much more universal. These
factors would inevitably complicate
Israel’s efforts to contain — let alone
eliminate — the source of the violence.

In short, as unpleasant as the present
crisis is, Israel is far better
off dealing with the unacceptable nature
of Palestinian Arab ambitions for
statehood now than it would be
several more months or years down the
road. This is particularly true
if that additional interval were to be
marked by the sorts of additional Israeli
accommodations (e.g., disengagement from
Hebron, tolerating official PLO
encroachment in Jerusalem, etc.) being
insistently demanded by the Clinton
Administration and its counterparts in
other capitals.

What the U.S. Must Do Now

Those who genuinely are
committed to Israel’s security have, as a
practical matter, no choice but to
support the Netanyahu government in
taking the steps necessary to suppress
the emerging, ominous threat posed by
Palestinian Arab nationalism.

Toward this end, the United States
government should act immediately to:

• veto any UN Security
  Council resolutions that
  would condemn Israel or even
  assign equal blame between the
  Palestinian Arabs and the Israeli
  government;
• cut off U.S. aid to the
  PLO unless and until
  Arafat suspends his incitement of
  violent actions against Israel
  and otherwise complies fully with
  the obligations he has assumed to
  date; and
• adopt a congressional
  resolution of support for the
  government of Israel in
  its moment of need.

The Bottom Line

It is, after all, only in
times of crisis that the true quality of
friendship is tested. Within the
past few weeks, the Clinton
Administration’s failure to resist Saddam
Hussein’s aggressive actions in northern
Iraq may have encouraged others in the
Arab world to believe that the United
States will not stand by its ally,
Israel, either. The need to ensure that
there is absolutely no confusion on this
score is all the greater in light of
ominous troop movements undertaken by
Syria and Egypt and a higher-than-normal
level of anti-Israeli propaganda issuing
forth from the state-controlled Egyptian
media.

No less clear should be the fact that
those demanding of Israel new concessions
in the face of the present crisis —
concessions that would have the effect of
appeasing the nationalist ambitions of
Palestinian Arabs in the name of
“reinvigorating the peace
process” — simply do not grasp the
harsh strategic realities confronting
Israel today, and in the near future. The
Jewish State can ill afford to rely upon
their flawed judgment as it struggles to
deal with those realities; it should be
spared such unhelpful advice from its
true friends in the United States.

– 30 –