“It is hard to believe any other factor in which foreign media has been exploited so effectively, from the Arab attitude, as the Palestinian factor. Since the time of Dr. Goebbels [head of the Nazi propaganda machine] there has never been a case in which the continuous repetition of a lie has borne such wonderful fruit. . . “- Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, in Palestine Lies”, Haaretz, July 30, 1976.
Support for a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is motivated by malice or: or malice that reflects a preference for seriously undermining Israel’s national security and/or the private security of its citizens; or reflecting a blatant lack of wisdom and/or appreciation of the consequences such a state would have for Israel.
Sadly, the specter of a Palestinian state has resurfaced to occupy the forefront of public discourse, only with the installation of Biden’s management in the White House, but also with the recent misguided speech at the UN through Israel’s acting prime minister. Minister Yair Lapid.
Ironically, the dangers of a Palestinian state were articulated with chilling precision by none other than the archarchitect of the Oslo Accords, Shimon Peres, who nearly a century ago warned: “The status quo of such a [Palestinian] state means the entry of combat-ready Palestinian forces (more than 25,000 in arms) into Judea and Samaria; This force, in combination with the local youth, will double in a short time. It will not lack weapons or other [military] equipment and, in a short time, an infrastructure will be established to wage war in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel will have disorders to maintain day-to-day security, which can lead the country to war or undermine the morale of its citizens. In times of war, the borders of the Palestinian state will be a fair starting point for cellular forces that will launch opposing attacks on infrastructure important to Israel’s way of life, to obstruct the freedom of action of the Israeli air force in the skies. of Israel and causing bloodshed among the population. . . in the spaces adjacent to the border line.
Indeed, little analytical information is needed to perceive that a Palestinian state will pose a risk of various sizes to Israel. Whatever the size (height, width, duration and even intensity), such a state would entail existential risks for Israel.
Height: topographic elevation
Perhaps the ultimate dramatic representation of the puzzling vulnerability to which a Palestinian state would subject the Jewish state is through a brief examination of topographical elevation.
The domain designated for a long-term Palestinian state, in each and every configuration, dominates the densely populated coastal plain, which extends beneath the limestone highlands that constitute much of that putative state. From those highlands, it is imaginable to control and monitor any activity, in terms of observation, firepower and electronic surveillance in Israel’s coastal core, including:
All of these elements will be desperately vulnerable to attacks with weapons used against Israel and Israelis through hostile elements deployed in territories transferred beyond to Arab control.
Length — Extension of boundaries
The allocation of territory in Judea and Samaria (also known as the “West Bank”) for a Palestinian state would involve at least a quadruple construction in the duration of Israel’s eastern border, and perhaps much more, depending on the parameters of the agreement reached. Indeed, the status quo of a Palestinian state would dictate dramatic adjustments to the contours of the border. Instead of some 75 km of a relatively direct border in the Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea, Israel would have to contend with a tortuous and twisted border, lots of kilometers long, meandering dangerously close to many population centers and transport routes; see “Width” below.
Some proposals, which come with autonomous enclaves, would largely build the interface between sovereign Israel and the Palestinian territories, up to 1000 km, perhaps even more, making the ability to demarcate and secure spaces under Israel’s sovereign virtually impossible.
Wide—Resurrecting the Waist of Israel
Clearly, the creation of a Palestinian state will result in Israel returning more or less to its pre-1967 borders, adding a narrow strip of a hundred kilometers long, in stretches barely 15 kilometers wide, which includes the maximum populated domain of the country.
As noted by Yigal Allon of the Labor Party, former leader of the Palmach and then acting prime minister and foreign minister of Israel, the pre-1967 lines “run along the foothills of the Judea and Samaria mountains and along the Mediterranean coastal plain, that is, flat territory without topographical barriers. This leaves central Israel with a narrow stranglehold that includes the Achilles’ heel of the lines before June 4, 1967. On the importance of this, he warned: “[T]he inventions and sophistication of armaments. . . that have taken place, therefore, not only do not weaken the price of strategic intensity and herbal barriers, but in fact their importance. This is all the more true given Israel’s complicated geographical position.
In the same vein, it was none other than Shimon Peres who, in the harshest terms, warned against restoring the country’s minuscule geographical breadth that prevailed before 1967. According to Peres, “the lack of a minimum territorial scope puts a country in a position of absolute deterrence, which in itself constitutes a compulsive temptation to attack Israel from all sides. . . “He stated that in fashionable times, “with the progression of the immediate mobility of armies, the defensive importance of territorial extension has increased. ” Underscoring Israel’s dramatic vulnerability before 1967, Peres warned that Israel’s “thin waist,” which constitutes Israel’s most densely populated area, would be indefensible in the face of reach, the firepower and mobility of fashionable weaponry. Ominously, he observed: “Without a border that guarantees security, a country is doomed to destruction in case of war.
Similarly, Allon warned that Israel’s “narrow size” would serve as “a constant temptation for a hostile army owned by the Judea and Samaria hills to attempt to inflict a fatal blow on Israel by cutting it off in part at once. “, this weakness would allow. . . to an [Arab] army not only to attack Israel’s densest commercial and population centers, but also to paralyze almost all of Israel’s airspace. . . »
Depth—Water: Dry Data
The western slopes of the hills, designated for a long-term Palestinian state, cover vital groundwater resources, known as the Yarkon-Taninim aquifer to the west and the Nablus-Gilboa aquifer to the north, which for decades have been a component of Israel’s water. fuente. fuente. La over-extraction and contaminants from these aquifers may in fact seriously degrade irreversibly the water source of Israeli consumers.
The gravity of this danger, adding up through left-wing elements, is obviously expressed in a past report by Reuven Pedazur, army correspondent for the far-left daily Haaretz (April 24, 1989): “Whatever the source of the West Bank, the water can simply dry up Israel’s coastal plain. The destruction of the two main aquifers, the drilling of deep wells and the consequent extensive pumping in western Samaria and the Jenin and Tubas region threaten to leave Sharon’s Jewish farmers without irrigation water and the Jezreel Valley fields devastated. “
Indeed, more than a decade (November 7, 1999) later, Aluf Benn, now editor-in-chief of Haaretz, wrote an article titled: “A Recommendation to Prime Minister Barak to Maintain Israeli Control Over Water in the West Bank. “expressing skepticism about the viability of any water deal with the Palestinians. He warned: “The greatest danger lies in the weak ability of the Palestinians to enforce an agreement [on the exploitation of shared water sources], hence the proliferation of ‘wild drilling and over-extraction’ that will decrease the quality and quantity of water in aquifers.
Of course, today, with the integration of large-scale desalination services into Israel’s national water supply system, the country’s dependence on herbal water resources has been particularly reduced. However, this has not eliminated the hydrostrategic importance of Judea and Samaria. Aquifers. In fact, extensive research, commissioned through the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies (now INSS), through two senior hydrologists from TAHAL (then the Israel Water Planning Authority), warned that for hydrological and ecological reasons “Even when desalination becomes a vital source of source, the importance of the Yarkon-Taninim aquifer will not diminish as a seasonal and long-term reservoir. (p. 105)
Indeed, even today, over-extraction, unsealed (or poorly sealed) municipal landfills, and flows of untreated urban wastewater or commercial effluent into Palestinian state-designated spaces can seriously jeopardize Israeli water sources, adding underground garage spaces into the aquifer. Without the Israeli presence and authority on the western slopes of Judea and Samaria, Israelis would be powerless to deal with those imminent threats.
“With the two-state solution . . . Israel will collapse. “
In view of the above analysis, it is attractive to find out what senior Palestinian officials think about what is really behind the two-state principle. In a 2009 article, titled “Palestinian Official Says Two-State Solution Will Destroy Israel,” Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon and Fatah Central Committee member Zaki Abbas bluntly stated, “With two-state solution. . . Israel will collapse. . . It will become part of all the sacrifices they have made, only to be told to leave?. . . Jews Judea and Samaria, his ancient dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist concept will begin to collapse. It will recede on its own. Then we will move forward. “
Things can hardly be clearer!
Printed from: https://www. jewishpress. com/indepth/columns/into-the-fray-martin-sherman/into-the-fray-the-perils-of-palestine-a-multi-dimensional-multifarious-menace -a-israel/2022/10/24/