Much is being made in the public prints about the two conditions set out by Netanyahu for Palestinian statehood in his recent speech at Bar Ilan University. One is a demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the other is that the future Palestinian state be demilitarized. I’ll leave the former for another day and say something about the question of what a demilitarized state might actually mean in practice.
First, let’s look at exactly what Netanyahu said:
The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel. Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza. We don’t want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.
In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hizbullah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel. It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized. On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.
1.
One of the minimum requirements for an entity to be regarded as a state is that it have a monopoly on the means of violence within its borders and, even more importantly, on the exercise of violence against foreign states. Therefore, in order to prevent the scenarios mentioned by Netanyahu in the first paragraph above - as well the one referring to the importing of rockets in the second - from becoming reality the new Palestinian state will have to have considerable armed resources at its disposal. Should those resources themselves become involved in the aforementioned activities then that will rapidly spell the end of the Palestinian state.
2.
No Palestinian state that lacks the ability to fight terrorism directed at itself, within its own borders, is going to last five minutes.
3.
Two of the conditions mentioned in Netanyahu’s second paragraph are strictly for the gallery. I refer to the idea of a Palestinian state fielding an army and closing its airspace to Israel. No Arab nation has dared try the former against Israel for decades and none of its current enemies can be sure of their ability to exclude the IAF from its skies.
4.
Netanyahu is right about the danger of the new Palestinian state allying itself with nations and organizations devoted to its destruction. The new state will have to give guarantees not to do this and face the consequences if it does. This though, is a fundamentally political question and only indirectly connected with the question of demilitarization.
5.
In view of the all of the foregoing it will be obvious that the new Palestinian state will require substantial security forces if it is to survive and if it is to prevent non-state actors within its borders from using violence against its neighbors, including Israel. It won’t need F-35s or modern heavy armor to do this but it will need infantry, light armor, helicopters and if Gaza is ever wrested from Hamas, some kind of coast guard too. Some nice cuddly name that avoids words like “army” can be thought up for these forces but the future state must have them. Netanyahu knows this. So either the talk about demilitarization is to protect his political rear, in which case there is no problem, or it reflects a desire to “negotiate” indefinitely.
Eamonn, I think you misunderstand Netanyahu. Palestinian security/police forces are being trained and equipped (and armed) already for more than a year by the US (with some European assistance); so that’s not the point. De-militarized has a clear meaning: no army, i.e. no military with offensive capabilities, like e.g. Costa Rica…
There is a whole lot of commentary out there claiming that a demilitarized state is no state, but that’s BS, because otherwise all talk about a demilitarized state would anyway be an oxymoron.
Last but not least, the outcry about this issue now is completely fake, because this was already part of the Camp David/Taba negotiations and the Geneva initiative, and I think also the One Voice initiative. There are actually now bloggers who supported this initiative and now cry foul — because it’s apparently one thing if Netanyahu demands a demilitarized Palestinian state, and a completely different one if Yossi Beilin demands it…
Anyway, should be an amusing spectacle to see veteran peace activists standing up for the Palestinian “right” to have military forces and weapons.
Petra, tx. for the comment. I was aware of all this and stand by what I said in the post.
Just thought this is relevant:
“When asked by CBS how he expects Palestinians to rein in their extremist elements without a military, Netanyahu said: ‘Well, there is a long-standing agreement on a strong security force, on a strong police force, which is sufficient to deal with terrorists.’”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093343.html
As to helicopters and basic APC’s - the PA already had some before the second intifada. These were destroyed by Israel immediatly after it was clear that PA security forces are deeply involved in the fighting.
So, I would suggest, the Prime minister is referring to three main offensive weapons. 1. Missles or Rockets of any kind. 2. Jets . 3. heavy armor.
“but it will need infantry, light armor, helicopters and if Gaza is ever wrested from Hamas, some kind of coast guard too.”
Apart from helicopters, they still have them - supplied through General Dayton’s training and equipping. I believe they even have some semblance of a coast guard (the “naval police” or something like that).
So: Netanyahu is willing to give the Palestinians full self-determination to do everything they want except pose a direct threat to Israel’s security. If you think that granting the Palestinians the right to be able to threaten Israel is a necessary ingredient of the “two state solution” - so much the worse for the “two state solution”! Why should worries about some technical definition of statehood stand in the way of solving the Arab-Israeli conflict? Isn’t it time for a little bit of creativity?
As for the issue of a Palestinian state being able to protect itself from internal enemies - that has already been addressed by previous commentators. Notice, however, how academic this whole discussion is. Antisemitic Hamas controls Gaza. “Moderate” Fatah, which refused to make a deal with Olmert, even as his negotiating position slipped off to the far left extreme of Israeli Jewish electoral politics - manages to keeps its control over the West Bank thanks to the IDF’s constant interference. No Arab voice recognizes that the “right of return” for the grandchildren of the refugees of 1948 is a conversation stopper, which at the very least turns the “two state solution” into a “one (Palestinian) nation state and one (post-Israel) binational state” solution. And we are arguing among ourselves over whether we are giving the Palestinians a sufficiently generous offer of statehood!