PERSPECTIVE ON THE MIDDLE EAST : Israel Can’t Give Up the Gaza Strip : Renewed terrorism demonstrates the folly of arguments that a prototype Palestinian state will ensure peace.

The recent numerous terrorist acts based in the Gaza district have raised the cry of “Gaza first,” the proposal for Israel’s retreat to the 1949 borders, starting with Gaza. This plan would, however, best serve the interests of the Arab terror organizations. Their leaders have a simple understanding of the slogan “Gaza first”: that the Jews will first yield to Arab terror in Gaza, which will frighten the Jews out of Judea, which will terrorize the Jews away from Samaria and force them, through further terror, to compromise over Jerusalem. Terrorism will then continue under the Arab banner of “the right to return” to Israel proper, within its 1949 borders.

The danger of a slogan such as “Gaza first” lies in the fact that it expresses abandonment with intolerable ease. It seems simple to retreat from Gaza. “Who needs Gaza anyway?” people ask. It is difficult to see through the slogans, the smoke and the blood, but the answer remains: The state of Israel needs Gaza.

Only six years ago, as minister of defense, Yitzhak Rabin visited the Jewish villages of the Katif area, within the Gaza district, telling the inhabitants: “I believed in the past, and I continue to believe today, that this area must remain an inseparable part of the state of Israel. . . . This area is of great socioeconomic importance, in addition to its strategic value.”

In those days, there were hundreds of thousands of Arabs in that area, and there were terrorist cells and there was terror. Rabin’s calculated words attest to his long-term position that the Gaza district, with all of its problems, is of major strategic importance to Israel. This opinion is based on the plan that Yigal Allon submitted to the Israeli government in July of 1967, stating that “the Gaza Strip will be an integral part of the state of Israel, including its permanent inhabitants.” This plan was supported by the leftist-dovish wing in Israel.

People and parties can, of course, change their minds over the years. However, I refer to these documents in order to demonstrate that basic, strategic, long-term considerations require Israeli control of the Gaza district. If one reaches the conclusion that the harm in controlling Gaza is greater than the gain, one must be responsible and address the grave importance of controlling this portion of Eretz Yisrael (Greater Israel), its long finger extending from the Sinai desert, under Egyptian sovereignty, toward the heart of Israel.

What would happen if, God forbid, Israel succumbs to the temptations and relinquishes the Gaza district, with or without a signed agreement? It was Foreign Minister Shimon Peres who stated recently that abandoning Gaza would lead to immediate control by the terrorist groups there. He added that such a situation would force Israel to conquer the area again. Implicit is the expectation of unavoidable acts of terrorism emerging from the (“demilitarized”) Gaza district toward the Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Beersheba.

Peres’ forecast is realistic, but it lacks an important political element. Following Israel’s abandoning of the Gaza district, an independent terrorist Arab state will be declared there, controlled by either the Palestine Liberation Organization or Hamas. This state will receive immediate international recognition, with diplomatic representatives positioned there, and Israel’s recapture of Gaza, as envisioned by Peres, will be no picnic, militarily or diplomatically.

Gaza is an Achilles heel in Israel’s ability to defend itself against a PLO-Hamas state west of the Jordan River, because it is not only the Arabs who wish to get a foot in Gaza’s door, as the first stage of their long-term plan; Gaza’s abandonment is embraced by those who believe in the rosy vision that the establishment of a PLO state in Samaria, Judea and Gaza would bring peace to Israel. It is crucial that these hallucinating pundits pay attention to what the “moderate” Faisal Husseini said recently in Amman, as quoted in the Jordanian newspaper Al Rai:

“We must realize that the slogan in the present stage is not ‘from the (Mediterranean) Sea to the (Jordan) River.’ . . . We have not relinquished and we will never relinquish one of the commitments which have existed for over 70 years. . . . Sooner or later, we will force the Israeli society to cooperate with the larger society--that is, our Arab society--and ultimately lead to the dissolution of the ‘Zionist entity,’ gradually.”

The Zionist entity has not dissolved; rather, the Jewish state has grown stronger, for the very reason that it has not succumbed to the illusions offered by quick solutions. Had we given in to occasional difficult weariness, we would have long ago vanished.

Israel does not have the luxury of making a major mistake. Three years ago, when the Iron Curtain fell, many observers promised a new, tranquil Europe. We now know better, witness the violence in Yugoslavia and in the former Soviet Union. One must remember that the Middle East is a far more violent and dangerous place. “Things will be OK” is not solid advice on which Israel can securely build its future. “Gaza first” is a plan that would serve those who contemplate forcing the “gradual dissolution of the Zionist entity.” Therefore, we Israelis must face reality with no illusions: It may be difficult in Gaza, but it would be far more dangerous for Israel without Gaza.