An independent Palestinian state can't survive

An independent Palestinian state can't survive

© David Burton 2005

Israel-Palestine Map

As a Palestinian State appears to be coming into existence, under the aegis of President George W. Bush’s “roadmap to peace”, the question remains as to what will happen to this Palestinian state after its creation. Looking at the question objectively, one is forced to the conclusion that an independent Palestinian state is not viable. Many of the reasons for this conclusion are provided in an article written by Carl Alpert (Ref. 1).

In this article, Alpert made the following points.

“There has never a Palestinian state. It never existed, was never destroyed. There is no history, no tradition, no literature, no past.” The Palestinians have lived under the rule of a number of occupiers that include the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. Over the past decade, the Palestinians have been led around by the nose by Yasser Arafat and his PLO thugs.

“There is no native population, The great majority of the present population in the area are descended from Arabs who immigrated form surrounding countries. . .”

It should be pointed out that a Palestinian state has existed for the past ¾ of a century in three-quarters of the territory that the British mandate undertook to develop as a Jewish homeland under the Balfour declaration. This Palestinian state is known as Jordan. Jordan is inhabited by Arabs, speaks the Arab language and is predominantly Muslim.

When a Palestinian state is created from the West Bank and Gaza areas, this state will always be a divided unit, part in Gaza and part in the West Bank, separated by Israel. The two units cannot be connected because to do so would bisect Israel, separating the Negev from the rest of the country.

Alpert further notes that, “. . . there is absolutely no economic justification for its (the Palestinian state) existence. There is no industry to speak of.” The largest Palestinian industry is a meat processing plant employing only 88 people. “Agriculture is marginal economically, exports minimal, natural resources none. No one with a head on his shoulders is going to invest any money in developing this hopeless area.” It should be noted that in the more than 50 years since the creation of the State of Israel, none of the Palestinians’ Arab brethren have invested any significant money in their economy. What monies the Arab countries have provided has largely gone to fund terrorist organizations and their operations. “Before the Intifada, the income from employment in Israel constituted more than 40 percent of the Palestinian population’s earnings. By declaring war on Israel and practicing terrorism, the Palestinian Authority cut off most of this income and practiced economic suicide.
    “Thus far the Palestinian Authority has been able to maintain the appearances of existence thanks to the liberal financial support from European countries and the United States. The rest of the Arab world is not the least bit interested, and has reneged on pledges of support. Thus, the several million inhabitants, including perhaps an equal number of Arab refugees who the other Arab states will quickly dump into the new ‘homeland’, will be constantly on the verge of starvation. They will become a perpetual international burden. . .
    “Conditions in such a state will lead to perpetual instability, hostility and continued terrorism and wars.”

As we can see in the following example from reference 2, the Arab mindset is one of self-destruction and self-pity.

“When James Wolfensohn and Mort Zuckerman raised $14 million to buy the Gush Katif hothouses from Israeli farmers to give to the Palestinians, many people were surprised. ‘We thought it was a chance to show the Palestinians that there were more benefits from cooperation than confrontation,’ Zuckerman explained.
    “Zuckerman’s New York Daily News reported on September 22 that ‘a week after they [Palestinians] descended like locusts on the greenhouses. . .looters continue to pillage what should be a prize asset for a fledgling Palestinian state.’
    “Later in the same article, 29-year-old Samir Al-Najar explained why he and eight of his men destroyed a half-acre greenhouse at the Neveh Dekalim settlement. He would probably rebuild the greenhouses he said, ‘but I want the greenhouses to be our own, not Jewish ones.’
    “Al-Najar’s rejection of the Jewish hothouses reflected the same sentiment expressed to Ben-Gurion by a leading Arab intellectual in the 1960’s. The Arab leader acknowledged the achievements of the Jews in Israel, but they were irrelevant to him. He wanted the land to remain desolate until the Arabs themselves were capable of achieving these same feats. Even if this would take a hundred years, he was prepared to wait.
    “The destruction of the hothouses and of the synagogues in Gush Katif raises fundamental questions about the nature of Israel’s ‘peace partners.’ What type of people delights in destroying synagogues, continues to live in squalor out of a sense of pride, yet takes handouts from the UN, and when given a thriving business opportunity levels the site because they want to build their own someday?
    “The British, the U.S., the European Union and Israel have enabled Arab leaders to engage in this self-destructive behavior for decades by giving in to their endless and unjustified demands, providing them with money that is rarely used for the welfare of their people, and refusing to hold them accountable to agreements they make.
    “As long as the West and Israel continue this pathological response, the Arabs will wallow in their own self-pity, glory in their victimhood, and focus their energy on ways to destroy Israel and the West."

What is the solution to this dilemma? Two possibilities present themselves. One possibility is for Israel to permanently annex the territories and expel those Arab residents that are unwilling to live under Israeli sovereignty. The second possibility is to incorporate the West Bank into Jordan and Gaza into Egypt. This option has certain obvious benefits. First the problem of a geographically divided Palestinian ‘homeland’ is avoided. Second, the economic future for the residents of Gaza and the West Bank is somewhat brighter than that which will result from the formation of a Palestinian state.

  1. Palestinian state not viable, Carl Alpert, The Jewish Advocate, March 7-13, 2003.
  2. Can’t Buy Me Love, Dr. Alex Grobman, The Jewish Press, Pg 6, October 21, 2005.

  18 October 2005 {Article 4; Israel_02}    
Go back to the top of the page