WHAT THE WORLD CAN EXPECT FROM AN ISLAMIC PALESTINIAN STATE - How the West is willing to accept the resulting Mideast chaos for the sake of seeing Israel's destroyed

The Palestinian ultimate aim for the destruction of Israel has been expressed loud and clear.  So one could ask, what part is it that Western advocates of a Palestinian state don't understand? 

 

But they do understand.  And that's exactly why they support it. 

 

A country nine miles wide at its narrowest point, with a Palestinian land corridor cutting it in two, and with terrorists digging tunnels and launching rockets from across the border.

That's only for starters.  The new state would ally itself with ISIS or a nuclear Iran.

What could go wrong?  But the West loves the idea. 
 

And although all Arab countries are severely dysfunctional and with oppressive regimes, the West wants to use ancient Jewish land for the creation of another Arab state and the resulting destruction of the only Mideast country with democracy and human rights.

One thing that Professor Beres does NOT mention on his column "What the World should expect" is that it is precisely the prospect of Israel being destroyed by terror from an independent Palestinian state that has western governments salivating. 

 

That is why European countries have begun to recognize the state of Palestine already, and why the White House has used every possible means to pressure Israel to partition its land for the creation of a terror Palestinian state.

 

Prof. Beres outlines how an independent Palestinian state would unleash a major upheaval in the Middle East. 

 

But Western governments are willing to live with those consequences, if the result from all that chaos and violence is the destruction of Israel. 

 

That is what the West has been working on since before Israel's independence.  Step by step, Western leaders have been undermining Israel's viability. 

 

Their hope, originally, was that Arab countries themselves would do the job and vanquish the tiny state of Israel.  

 

The Arabs tried several times, with large armies, well armed by the West, and motivated by the prospect of massacring the Jews and destroying their country.

 

But Israelis have had the uncanny habit of winning wars against incredible odds. 

 

Facing this,  Western countries realized that they had to change tactics, and so they resorted to heavy-handed diplomacy and the funding of subversive "humanitarian" organizations operating in Israel to undermine the country while empowering the Arabs.

 

In the past decades Western governments have been hiding their operations under slogans such as "land for peace," while pouncing on Israel for every real or imaginary humanitarian concern. 

 

It's nothing less than a psychological war - bullying taken to the highest level.

 

The West hasn't changed at all.

 

Let's remember that while Europe persecuted and slaughtered Jews during the Nazi years, the US and other western countries slammed the door in their faces.  No entry visas for them, no rescue, and eventually no bombing of the death camp facilities because - as some Western leaders were quoted as saying - they did not want to deal with too many survivors after the war ended.

 

The following column and many others start from the premise that Western leaders are simply uninformed, or misguided in their support for Israel's partition, and that they haven't though about the consequences of what they're asking for. 

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.  THEY KNOW what they want, and what they want is Israel's destruction, and eventually the destruction of all Jews.  

 

Only a few decades after the Holocaust, Jews are being attacked and killed in Europe and in the United States.  Once Jews don't have a state of their own to run to, they will once again be fair game for both neo-Nazis and Muslims who will do the killing, while the rest of the people passively watch - once again.  

 

There are huge humanitarian crises going on at the present moment, but both Europe and the US have largely avoided any intervention or rescue.  It's the Palestinians that absorb all their time and much of their foreign aid.

 

The only reason why the US is fighting ISIS, according to the Chairman of US Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, is that ISIS threatens oil installations in the Kurdish areas.  The US government could not care less for all the people being massacred by ISIS.

 

This following chart says it all.
 

The obsession with the Palestinians is not out of a humanitarian concern, but out of a desire to use the Palestinians to destroy Israel.

 

 

International aid PER CAPITA for Palestinians and for truly needy countries

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Palestinian State -
What the World Should Expect

By Prof. Louis Rene Beres
The writer (Ph.D, Princeton, 1971) is is professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. He is the author of many books, monographs, and articles dealing with Israeli security matters, nuclear strategy and nuclear war.

• The world has not stopped to contemplate the snowballing results of creating a "Palestinian" state.
• First effects would be felt by Israel, but then those effects would expand to other countries.
• Their ideology would be jihadist.
• And all factions, including 'moderate' ones, express their goal of eventually obliterating Israel.
• Evidence:  Gaza turned into a  Hamas terror entity after Israel's withdrawal.
• The state of Palestine would use existing Arab Israeli population as a tool for terror.
• The largest threat would be a Palestine allied with regional Jihadi groups and/or Muslim superpowers.
• This would result in the eruption of a major ME war with Israel confronting multiple enemies.
• With Iran inching closer to becoming a nuclear power, all these factors point to a perfect apocalyptic storm. 

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea. We must not cede this narrative. From the River to the Sea....Palestine belongs to the Palestinians; and the heart of the matter is the right of return, our cause is the right of return.   (Palestinian PA Parliament Member, Khalida Jarrar, April 16, 2014)

 At a moment when supremely civilized countries all over the world seem eager to support Palestinian statehood - Germany is the latest -  few have taken the trouble to examine precisely what this support could actually mean.

 

To be sure, the expected impact of a 23rd Arab sovereignty would be most immediately injurious to Israel, although, over time, even enthusiastic European advocates of "Palestine" would likely suffer their own consequent harms. This is because a Palestinian state - any Palestinian state - would quickly become yet another dedicated launching site for Jihadist terrorism.

 

Oddly enough, nothing could be more obvious.

 

"Hamas is ISIS, and ISIS is Hamas," correctly explained Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu before the U.N. General Assembly last September: "They all have the same ideology; they all seek to establish a global militant Islam, where there is no freedom."

 

Also in September, Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, now working together with his "brothers" in Hamas, asked the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for a full Israeli withdrawal from Judea/Samaria (West Bank), including East Jerusalem.

 

His draft resolution vaguely accepts a "Two State Solution" for the disputed areas, but all major Palestinian media continue to speak, officially, of Israel itself as "Occupied Palestine."

 

The "moderate" PA "solution," therefore, exactly like the "radical" Hamas "solution," calls for a single Arab state, in all of the land now defined as Israel, West Bank, and Gaza.

 

"From the River to the Sea." These are the unambiguously endorsed borders of "Palestine," exterminatory boundaries that are expressed not only in words, videos, and documents, but also cartographically, in oft-published PA maps.

 

Since 2005, when Israel "disengaged" from Gaza in the naive hope of receiving a suitable quid pro quo from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority - that is, peace and cooperation from the Arab side - the only recognizable use to which this land has been put is as a Palestinian staging ground for endless war and ghastly terror.

 

Plainly, the only intended Palestinian solution for Israel remains a determinedly "final" one.

 

A good way to better understand what is actually being planned here by certain advocates of Palestinian statehood is to fashion an appropriate scenario.

 

As a useful approach to social science and international law enforcement, this suggests a speculative but informed narrative of pertinent future events. With this plan in mind, we may consider the following set of thoroughly plausible expectations.

 

Within just a few hours of any formal Palestinian "declaration of independence," Arab citizens of Israel - there are now 1.8 million - would quickly begin to transform their initially benign and celebratory local celebrations into malignantly full-scale and chaotic riots.

 

Among other purposes, such "spontaneous" violence would serve to display this Arab population's openly overriding loyalties to Palestine.

 

Of course, these Israeli Arabs won't feel any corresponding need to physically move themselves to the new Palestinian state. After all, they will already understand that, in a matter of months, all of what is still "Occupied Palestine" (Israel) would be forcibly absorbed into the new state.

 

Then, although these almost two million Arabs had themselves been citizens of the formerly-Jewish State, Palestine would frenetically be rendered Judenrein, or "free of Jews."

 

"From the River to the Sea." This would represent the anticipated start of Arab "democracy" in Palestine. This would be the exemplary justice-based state made possible by conspicuous diplomatic largesse, in various glittering European capitals, and, among other places, also in Washington.

 

For Israel, which would have to fight for its life yet again - and more arduously, perhaps, than at any time before in its starkly beleaguered history - the resultant security costs of staving off aggression and "absorption" would be difficult to bear.

 

More than likely, the core enemy now, after a legally problematic bestowal of Palestinian sovereignty, would not be Palestine per se, but rather an enlarged or conglomerate Arab/Islamist adversary, one involving a discernibly broad alliance of both state and sub-state opponents.

 

It is even possible, in these entirely predictable circumstances, that some mobilized IDF elements would be placed in direct confrontations with ISIS, or ISIS-related foes.

 

"Hamas is ISIS, and ISIS is Hamas."

 

In the short run, after formalization of Palestine, security dangers to Israel would center upon very bitter internal unrest, and also on those corollary perils originating from domestic terror attacks, expanded border incursions from Palestine, and external (Palestine-based) rocket launches.

 

In the longer term, bereft of needed strategic depth, Israel would face a steadily deteriorating "correlation of forces," that is, an overall weakening of Israeli military capacity. This weakening, in turn, would substantially enlarge the probability of conventional war with other Arab states, and also of conventional terror attacks.

 

If such attenuations of Israeli power were to take place simultaneously with Iranian nuclearization, a genuinely plausible expectation, the single most catastrophic consequence of Palestine could ultimately include nuclear war fighting.

 

This dire assessment is offered not because a Palestinian state would itself have any direct nuclear capabilities, but rather because that state's creation would contribute, prima facie, to an increasingly corrosive, for Israel, balance of power.

 

From a more broadly geo-strategic perspective, the precise hazards, to Israel, of a nuclear Iran, could be affected by what happens throughout the region along the most primary Sunni-Shia axes of conflict, especially if ISIS were to make any further progress in its ongoing territorial takeovers within sectors of Iraq and Syria.

 

Another still widely-ignored factor in all of this prospective regional transformation is the growing probability of a new Cold War between Russia and the United States. Such hardening bipolarity, too, could impact the nature and function of other core Middle Eastern alignments.

 

A still under-examined result of Palestinian independence would be a meaningfully enlarged threat to Israel (a country smaller than America's Lake Michigan) of nuclear war and nuclear terror.

 

Understanding this, Palestine's emergence could spawn tangibly enlarged efforts in Jerusalem/Tel Aviv to properly strengthen Israel's traditionally "ambiguous" nuclear deterrent.

 

Quickly, such indispensable measures could embrace a more-or-less dramatic shift to an openly declared nuclear strategy, one including even unhidden statements about nuclear basing, nuclear targeting doctrine, and intentions for maintaining "escalation dominance."

 

From a more narrowly legal or jurisprudential perspective, there is one additional point to underscore in this scenario. Under governing international law, the binding requirements of statehood are expressed at the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States ("Montevideo Convention"), which entered into force in 1934.

 

Among other things, this authoritative treaty clarifies that statehood is always independent of recognition.

 

What this really means, for the urgent matter before us, is that Palestine would not become a proper sovereign state in automatic consequence of assorted national approvals, either within the United Nations as an institution, or anywhere else on earth.

 

No matter how many states might choose to support Palestinian statehood, and no matter how venerated or powerful these discrete states might be, such support would be trumped by the specific, codified, and then still unmet expectations of "Montevideo."

 

Period!

 

In the final analysis, as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated before the U.N. General Assembly last September, "The people of Israel are not the occupiers in the land of Israel."

 

Significantly, the Mandate for Palestine (1922) reaffirmed the longstanding Jewish legal right to settle anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an authorization further codified and protected at Article 80 of the U.N. Charter.

 

For those governments across the world that now seem comfortably supportive of granting Palestinian statehood, the above scenario should suggest a gravely logical warning:

Be careful what you wish for.

  

Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is the author of many books and articles dealing with international relations and international law.

 

His most recent publications on these topics can be found at the Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; The Brown Journal of World Affairs; Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs; Parameters: Journal of the U.S. Army War College; and Oxford University Press.

 

Professor Beres also writes for U.S.  News & World Report; The Atlantic; The Jerusalem Post; Israel National News; and The Washington Times. He was born in Zürich, Switzerland, at the end of World War II.

Source
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15992#.VGlDzZstCM9 
 
More articles by Prof Louis Rene Beres
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Author.aspx/74

Palestinians envision a state of Palestine over all the land of Israel.
Read news archive on Palestinian Media Watch -  In the Palestinians' own words
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=466

June 2014 - ISIS threat to oil
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/11/iraqs_insurgency_and_the_threat_to_oil

November 2014 - US may send troops to protect that oil
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/martin-dempsey-top-u-s-general-visits-iraq-amid-isis-airstrike-campaign-1.2836481

The White House denounces terror everywhere,

except when it's perpetrated by Palestinians
Hamas and the much denounced ISIS and Al Qaeda
White House makes a distinction without a difference

RELATED

U.S. GOVERNMENT PURSUING THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL BY WEAKENING AND SHRINKING THE COUNTRY - With links to background information
Read more
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2013/12/us-government-pursuing-destruction-of_27.html


WHITE HOUSE CONTRADICTORY POLICY RE. JIHADISTS - FIGHT THEM EVERYWHERE, BUT GIVE THEM A STATE IN PALESTINE - The idea of partitioning Israel for the creation of a jihadist state is not only illegal, but potentially disastrous.
Read more
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/white-house-contradictory-policy-re.html

ARAB DIPLOMAT: PALESTINIAN CAUSE IS ABOUT DESTROYING ISRAEL - NOT A HUMANITARIAN CONCERN
Read more
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/arab-diplomat-palestinian-cause-is.html


THE LONG HISTORY OF US COLLABORATION WITH GERMAN AND MUSLIM NAZIS - Expelled German Nazi criminals have been collecting US Social Security - Documents show US and allies using Muslim Nazis for the destruction of the State of Israel.
Read more
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/the-long-history-of-us-collaboration.html


US GOV'T PROTECTION OF NAZI CRIMINALS AND MUSLIM TERRORISTS IN THE US - Today's news stories point to policies separated by time, but reflecting the same government tolerance for barbarity - The US gov't also pays the Palestinians who terrorize and kill Jews.
Read more
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/us-govt-protection-of-nazi-criminals.html

 

TEN REASONS WHY A PALESTINIAN STATE

WOULD BE BAD FOR THE WORLD

 

1. There is no serious evidence that the Palestinian leadership both “secular” (Fatah) and religious (Hamas) want a state of their own that will live in peace with an Israeli state. There is, on the contrary, ample evidence that they will treat anything they get as a staging ground for further attacks.
2. The Palestinians have, for all their opportunities, never been able to set up the infrastructure of a responsible state. The miserable career of Fayyad illustrates how far from a transparent governance, a fair juridical system, a competent administration they are. Why create a sure failure?
3. This likelihood is all the greater if they get their concessions by means that involve going around the backs of the Israelis and having things forced on the Israelis. In honor-shame cultures, any time a foe is forced to make concessions it’s a sign of weakness, and an occasion to make further (violent) claims.
4. As the withdrawal from Gaza showed, Hamas will eat Fatah within months of any power vacuum. Thus it is a near certainty that a Palestinian state will become a militant Jihadi state. Indeed, Daesh (ISIS) would probably eat Hamas as quickly as Hamas eats Fatah.
5. With 51 Muslim majority states in the world, 22 Arab states, all of them either failures or worse, none of them solid democracies, most of them consistently belligerent to neighbors whether Arab or Muslim or not, why on earth would the world community want yet another guaranteed failed, bellicose, fascist, Jihadi state? Giving the current Palestinian leadership a state is like giving a crack-addicted teenager the keys to a fully-armed tank.
6. There are people with a much greater claim on the world community’s values to have a state, peoples with their own language, in some cases their own religion, their own (real) history: Kurds, Berbers, Tibetans, Tamils, Chechens, etc. To give a state to a group with the same language, religion, and (until a generation ago) the same identity, as 22 other Arab ones sets a terrible precedent.
7. The West faces an implacable enemy in global Jihad. It would be nothing short of reckless to create another major opening for Jihadi forces to take root and use state privileges to expand operations (e.g. diplomatic immunity).
8. Israel represents the only civilizational ally the West has in the Middle East (pace Obama’s delusions about Turkey and his BFF Erdogan). To undermine her in a battle for her existence by empowering a genocidal movement with state power would be little short of insanely self-destructive. Without Israel, no Jordan, no Lebanon (however dysfunctional). No intelligence, no counter-weight to Jihadi impetus.
9. To give in to the tyranny of a democracy of tyrannies in the UN is to undermine the very principles of international democracy.
10. At this time, with an incompetent if not malevolent Palestinian leadership, with global Jihad the “strong horse,” and a Western world falling ill to the disease of anti-Semitism and the outbreak of an aggressive Muslim “street,” it would be suicidal to press so foolish a policy.

Source
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2014/10/15/peace-when-ten-reasons-why-a-palestinian-state-now-is-bad-for-the-world/
*****************************************************************************