|
|
March 9, 2001/Adar 14, 5761, Vol. 53, No.23
Prospect for Palestinian statehood dims
CARL ALPERT
Special to Jewish News
On paper and in theory, the proposal to establish an independent state of Palestine sounds logical - despite the fact that there had never been a Palestinian national entity, nor a history or tradition of Palestinian nationalism until very recent times.
Nevertheless, the existence of a large population speaking the same language and possessed of a common faith would appear to justify self-government, especially when the alternative could be political domination by the state of Israel, which has no desire to absorb a large and potentially hostile people.
And so the negotiations of what was called a peace process sought to define the nature of the proposed new state, its borders and its relations with its Jewish neighbor.
Even as the politicians and statesmen argued over details, forward-looking Israeli businessmen and industrialists began to plan for the economic development of the infant state and its relationship with Israel. Specific plans were drawn for creation of a joint high-tech industrial park on the Gaza-Israel border, at which the miracles of Israel's achievements in this field would be shared with its neighbors, and employment opportunities offered.
In the meantime, the peace talks dragged on. Palestinian Authority leader Arafat made demands. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered concessions, whereupon Arafat made further demands. Barak yielded. Arafat sensed weakness in the Israeli position and insisted on more, introducing violence to enforce his demands.
There is reason to believe that if Arafat had signed at that point, guaranteeing a peaceful relationship, the Israeli public would have endorsed Barak's deal, despite its concessions. A true peace would have been considered worth the sacrifices entailed. But Arafat wanted more. The negotiations collapsed, and the public swept Ariel Sharon into the office of prime minister.
Today the Palestine Authority, supposed to be the predecessor of the new state, is on the verge of bankruptcy. It is unable to cover its own administrative and operational costs. It is also unable to assure economic stability for its population.
As a result of the continuing violence, Israel keeps the borders closed to prevent infiltration of terrorists, and there is little likelihood that large numbers of Palestinians will be able to find jobs in Israel, as in the past. Unemployment has gone way up. There is no domestic industrial growth to speak of. Income, which had been expected from Israel by agreement, is being held up because of the continued rioting and terrorism. The Palestinians' dependence on Israel has never been more effectively demonstrated.
To complicate matters further, Israeli merchants who had previously done business with the Palestinians now claim that the latter have reneged on paying some $48 million in debts, and the Israelis are demanding that their government deduct this sum from the amounts Israel had offered to pay the Palestinian Authority.
Half a year ago, the neighboring oil-rich Arab states had offered to contribute a billion dollars to meet the human needs of the Palestinian population. Very little of that money has been sent, because Arafat refuses to reveal details of the expenditures. Allegations of graft and corruption and outright theft of public funds are made by people on the inside. His own people are impatient with his greedy corruption.
Where this will end it is difficult to say. Will Arafat be ousted by more moderate elements seeking a reasonable peace? More likely, will he be forced out by more extreme elements, who will plunge the area into war.
One thing is becoming increasingly clear: There is no economic justification for the creation of an independent state. It can never become self-sufficient. Other Arab states are not interested in becoming its financiers.
Where would the starving population get food? How long would foreign states and the United Nations continue to pour humanitarian funds into a bottomless pit?
The fate of the Palestinian people is tragic, but the Arabs brought it upon themselves. In 1947 they could have had a state as proposed for them by the United Nations, with international support. They refused, and preferred to declare war on Israel. They could have had a peace treaty with Barak, with assurances of cooperation from a friendly, neighboring Israel, but they turned their backs on that.
Realizing that an independent state of Palestine is simply nonviable, Arafat has again and again postponed its formal establishment. And if, as a result of Arab stubbornness, it does come into existence, it will be a constant source of trouble, both locally and on the international scene.
It is now clear that establishment of an independent state would solve no problems - but only create more.
Carl Alpert writes from Haifa, Israel.
|
