In its
session in Gaza on Tuesday, April 29, l999, the Palestinian National
Council (PNC) discussed the postponement of the declaration of
Palestinian statehood, scheduled for May 4. The debate centered
primarily on the demand to establish a Palestinian state which will
include all territories designated as Arab land in UN Resolution 181.
For about a half a year now, the Palestinian Authority has vigorously
pushed forward a political initiative calling for the implementation of
UN Resolutions 181 (November 1947) and 194 (December 1948). In other
words, fulfilling those resolutions which call for the State of Israel
to return to the partition borders and for millions of Arabs to overrun
the emasculated stump which will remain of the Jewish state.
After a
series of meetings with personalities in Europe in which this matter was
raised, Arafat met with Kofi Anan, the Secretary-General of the UN, on
March 21, 1999 and received his blessing. Anan claimed that Arafat's
demand was firmly anchored in the General Assembly's resolutions.
After
receiving the green light from the UN Secretary-General on March 25, the
PLO, now operating in its role as the Palestine Liberation Organization,
submitted an official request for a General Assembly session in which
Israel be called upon to explain its violations of the UN Resolutions.
The PLO demand is supported by all of the Arab states - led by Egypt.
Europe, at
the insistent urging of Germany, the dominant force on the continent and
the nation currently presiding over the European Union, supports the
Arab demand. It was Germany which raised the demand for the
internationalization of Jerusalem by transforming it into a separate
entity (corpus seperatum) based on the partition borders.
The UN
Human Rights Commission (a body which enjoys great prestige and
influence), in its annual meeting in Geneva on April 28, l999, adopted a
resolution calling for self-determination for the Palestinian nation on
the basis of Resolution 181 from November 1947, and demanding that
Israel fulfill Resolution 194 from December 1948. Of the committee's 53
member nations (Israel's candidacy was rejected due to the claim that
Israel violates human rights), 44 voted in favor of the resolution,
including all the European nations, and 8 abstained. Though the United
States voted against, it adamantly refused to accede to the Israeli
request to expend efforts to prevent the resolution's adoption. As a
result, within a short time, the residents of Jerusalem, Nahariya, Lod,
Ramle, Jaffa and Beersheba, to name but a few, can anticipate their
cities being labeled "illegal settlements and obstacles to peace" by the
international community.
The
precedent for the new Arab demand is a direct result of the strategic
abuse to which Israel has been subjected since 1990 (better known by its
sarcastic euphemism: "peace process"). From the moment that Israel
waived its basic right as an attacked nation to maintain territories
which served the aggressor as a springboard for war, the return to the
partition borders and the liquidation of Israel have become merely a
function of time.
Now that
all pretenses have been eliminated and the malicious Arab intentions to
annihilate the Jewish state have been exposed, the critical mass which
demands courageous action required of any sane nation standing on the
verge of a national catastrophe has crystallized. The minimal response
required to upset the Arab strategy would be to immediately announce
suspension of the "peace process", annexation of those parts of Judea
and Samaria which have not yet been relinquished to the Palestinian
Authority, expulsion of the PLO from Jerusalem and disarming the
"Palestinian police force". This step will almost certainly lead to the
severing of diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan, riots in Judea
and Samaria and possibly economic sanctions by the European Union.
Taking all factors into account, it is a reasonable price to pay. The
probability of a comprehensive war is low, as the Arabs are unprepared
at this point. On the other hand, if the Arabs decide to wage a war,
there is a reasonable chance that they would be routed, as Israel has
not yet squandered its strategic holdings in Judea and Samaria and the
Golan Heights. If Israel does not take the above actions and chooses
"disgrace instead of war", ultimately, to paraphrase Churchill ("You
chose disgrace in fear of war, you got disgrace and war as well."),
Israel will get both "disgrace and war". However, one major distinction
exists: Disgrace was the worst that Churchill feared as he never
considered the possibility that Britain might be destroyed. The Jewish
state does not have that sort of British luxury at its disposal.
