A Palestinian State Serves Interests of Israelis, Too

When the United Nations voted to partition Palestine, the United States supported the two-state solution. Israel came into existence, but the Palestinian state never emerged. Arab opponents of partition viewed the creation of a Palestinian state as acceptance of Israel’s existence.

Today the situation is reversed. The Arab nations and the Palestinians call for an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is opposed, citing the threat to its security, and the U.S. position is both vague and unsatisfactory to both sides.

Ironically, of all the alternatives a Palestinian state is the one solution that best serves Israeli security. Consider how it measures up against the three criteria that are essential for a permanent peace:

Is it possible to reach a negotiated settlement based on this option?

The central dynamic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict revolves around two nationalisms. The Palestine Liberation Organization and virtually all Palestinians are calling for a settlement based on the two-state solution. It may be possible to negotiate something less than this with Jordan’s King Hussein, but it is not likely.

If such an agreement is reached, will it be the basis of a lasting peace?

With respect to stability, a Palestinian state has a variety of advantages.

It would be the fullest possible satisfaction of the demands of Palestinian nationalism. As such, it would win more widespread support among Palestinians than any other option.

It would win the support of the PLO, and is the only likely basis on which the PLO would formally abandon the right to return to the land and villages lost in 1948. As the recognized embodiment of the Palestinian cause, only the PLO can compromise in the name of the Palestinians. Only the PLO can commit the Palestinians to an agreement. Because of the basic symmetry of the two-state solution, it is responsive to the Palestinian sense of injustice. A world in which the Jewish people have a state but the Palestinians do not is an open temptation for future generations of Palestinians to renew the struggle.

A solution that transfers control for some or all of the occupied territories to Jordan would not be stable. It would simply extend the issue to Jordan itself. Even today Hussein’s rule over a population that is 60% Palestinian raises stability questions. Jordanian control over the occupied territories would lead to an open-ended contest for the control of Jordan. Hussein and his supporters would be in the weak position of opposing democracy and majority rule.

More than any other alternative, a Palestinian state would solidify the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. Continued Palestinian unrest will ultimately threaten Egyptian political stability. It will create ever-mounting pressures on Egypt to move away from the Camp David accords. A Palestinian state would prove that the Egyptian-Israeli treaty was not an abandonment of the Palestinians.

A Palestinian state would give the Palestinians something to lose. It would be a demilitarized mini-state. It would be completely enclosed by Israel on one side and Jordan on the other. No military supplies or forces could reach it without passing through Israel or Jordan.

The foreign policy of such a mini-state would be dominated by its links to the Israeli economy and by its national-security realities. In the event of a war its very existence would be in jeopardy. Moreover, in such a war Israel would not be willing to return to occupation. It would expel the Palestinians and annex an empty territory. Only war conditions would make Meir Kahane’s dream possible. These sober facts would be controlling influences.

If the peace agreement broke down, how would Israel’s military situation be affected?

Israel would not be seriously threatened if hostilities broke out. Its vast military strength and nuclear capacity would continue to be in place, and it could quickly overrun the mini-state. Probably it would launch a preemptive strike if war seemed imminent.

Given the pattern of the Camp David accords, it seems clear that the United States would further bolster Israeli military power to calm any Israeli anxieties on this score. Indeed, Israel could have a defense pact with the United States if it asked for it.

No national-security policy is free from risks; that includes the policy of doing nothing. For Israel, a Palestinian state is not a charming prospect. It is simply better than the alternatives.