The Jerusalem Post, November 29, 2002 30 December 2002
"Since the time of Dr. Goebbels [head of the Nazi propaganda machine]
there
has never been a case in which continual repetition of a lie has borne
such
great fruits... Of all the Palestinian lies there is no greater or
more
crushing lie than that which calls for the establishment of a separate
Palestinian state in the West Bank..." (Excerpt from Palestinian Lies
by
former Meretz minister of education, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, printed
in
Ha?aretz, July 1976)
A Palestinian state would be a deadly threat to Israel. This is not
an
empty political slogan, but a well-founded strategic truth. Accordingly,
any sign of support for - or even reluctant resignation to - the eventual
establishment of such a state is inconsistent with the preservation
of
Israel?s vital national interests. Any ambivalence on this issue -
any
policy other than resolute rejection of the very notion of an Arab
state on
the fringes
of the greater Tel Aviv area, having total topographical control over
the
urban sprawl in the coastal plain, and full hydrological control over
a
third of the country?s water resources - is a grave strategic error.
The approach that Israel should refrain from repudiating the idea too
sharply - lest it be branded "extremist" by world opinion - is badly
misguided. For this means sacrificing long-term strategic values for
short-term tactical expediency. It means subordinating vital security
considerations to diplomatic convenience. It means transferring the
burden
and the responsibility for safeguarding the national interest from
diplomatic representatives in well-pressed suits in foreign capitals,
to
the combat soldiers in sweaty battle fatigues on the front line. This
is a
total inversion - indeed perversion - of the proper order of things.
After
all, diplomacy is supposed to be a tool to serve and promote national
policy, not a constraint that dictates this policy.
In this regard, there is ample reason for severe reprimand of those
who
have administered Israel?s foreign policy in recent years. The grave
dangers involved in the transfer of Judea and Samaria to sovereign
Arab
rule are so stark, so tangible and so blatant that it seems inconceivable
that any foreign service worth its salt (and taxpayers money) could
not be
capable of conveying to the world that the establishment of a Palestinian
state would constitute an unreasonable, and hence unacceptable, risk
for
Israel. No country that wishes to survive can be expected to acquiesce
to
such a measure; no leader who cannot repel pressures for its implementation
should be allowed to continue to govern. The fact that the idea of
a
Palestinian state has gathered widespread international support does
not
testify to the merits of the idea or the inevitability of its eventual
implementation. Rather it testifies to the quality - or the lack thereof
-
of the performance of those charged with promoting Israel?s interests
abroad and the necessity for their rapid replacement.
The deadly threats that would confront Israel in the event of the
establishment of a Palestinian state manifest themselves along every
conceivable dimension: width, length, height and depth. Width - because
Israel will be left with less than the minimum territorial depth required
for the deployment of a modern military defense system to protect the
coastal plain, in which 80 percent of the country?s population and
80% of
its economic activity are located; length - because Israel will have
to
contend with the creation of a permanent border hundreds of kilometers
long
on the very approaches of the Dan region and adjacent to the nation?s
major
urban centers; height - because from the highlands of Judea and Samaria,
the Palestinians will have total topographical control over all the
infrastructure (civilian and military) in the low-lying coastal strip,
including airfields, seaports and power plants; depth - because the
Palestinians will have hydro-strategic control over crucial groundwater
sources, creating a situation in which Israel?s water problem could
be
transformed from a grave but manageable crisis, to an insoluble
catastrophe.
Detailed explication of these dangers goes beyond the above points.
However, it was none other than Shimon Peres, who encapsulated their
essence in the following apt, articulate and accurate warning (in his
book,
Tomorrow is Now): "If a Palestinian state is established, it will be
armed
to the teeth. Within it there will be bases of the most extreme terrorist
forces, who will be equipped with anti-tank and anti-aircraft
shoulder-launched rockets, which will endanger not only random passersby,
but also every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel
and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the coastal
plain." (my translation - M.S.)
Is it possible the present leadership of the Likud has forgotten what
the
past leadership of the Left once knew?
Indeed, in this regard, the "national camp" would do well to adopt the
proud, assertive position expounded in the past by a prominent member
of
the left wing, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein. In a 1976 Ha?aretz article,
Rubinstein, a foremost expert on constitutional law, said: "The claim
that
the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael have the right to determine for themselves
how
to organize their political life must be rejected. Israel has a right
and a
duty to state its own position - and to take measures to have this
position
adopted."
His words were valid then. They are still valid today.
Martin Sherman is a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary
Center,
Herzliya.
Russian versia