By Joseph Farah - From: WND.com April 18, 2002
On April 9, 13 Israeli soldiers were killed in an ambush in the Arab town of Jenin.
While the operation was "sophisticated," according to Israel Defense Forces, and included a building loaded with explosives in strategic locations, flanking rifle fire used to pin down the Israelis and a suicide bomber to trigger the key blast, there is something about this incident that illustrates why a Palestinian state is not in the best interests of the world, nor even those who would live in such a state.
Scott Stantis, Alabama, The Birmingham News April 13, 2002
The most "clever" part of the operation was dispatching toward the pinned down soldiers the suicide bomber - a boy about the age of 10. Why was this clever? Because the Arab leadership who sent him understood that Israeli soldiers, even those under the stress of battle, would not shoot a 10-year-old child.
Thus, the boy exploded and killed the soldiers, too.
It's this kind of immorality - repeated a thousand times a day in Yasser Arafat's territories - that makes Palestinian statehood a bloody awful idea.
It's not only a threat to Israeli security - the argument we hear repeatedly from media pundits - it would also ensure that future generations of Palestinian children will be victimized in this manner. More will be indoctrinated from birth to be martyrs. More will be taught that Jews are evil. More will be taught the virtues of hatred.
And Israeli Arabs, who ironically today know more freedom than any of their brethren in Arab countries, will become slaves of a new state under the totalitarian control of Arafat and his unelected successors.
In an interview I conducted with Pat Buchanan this week, I explained to the columnist, who strongly favors the creation of a Palestinian state, that no such state has ever existed in the history of the world. He conceded that point, but replied that Arab states such as Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia never existed before they were created by the colonial powers in the last century.
True enough. But why would the world want to repeat that mistake? What did the creation of those states do for the world? And, just as importantly, what did the creation of those states do for the people who live within their borders?
This is the question that is never discussed by the pundits. I've been called a racist for opposing the creation of a Palestinian state under the leadership of Arafat. In fact, I believe many of those calling for the creation of such a state are themselves racist. They do not have the best interests of the Arabic people at heart. They do not believe Arabs are capable of self-government. They apparently think that Arabs are only worthy of living under tyranny.
On the other hand, I say the only chance for peace in the Middle East will come when there is an expansion of freedom - a defeat of tyranny.
Is this a pipedream?
Not really. I remember when the Lebanese people governed themselves freely.
Because of that recent experience with self-governance, Lebanon could be a free nation again if given the chance. But it suffers instead under the yoke of domination by neighboring Syria - one of only a handful of countries in the world occupied by a foreign military power.
Why does the Arab world need another police state? Will the so-called "Palestinian people" really be better off under an Arab dictator than under Israeli domination? As an Arab-American journalist, who has spent a good deal of time in the region, I tell you the answer is no.
It's time for the dictators in the Arab world to be overthrown. It's time for an expansion of freedom. It's time to aid insurgency movements in the Islamic world that will bring freedom to the people. It's not time to create more slave states.
Yes, a Palestinian state headed by Arafat or an Arafat-like successor sworn to the destruction of Israel will be a constant threat to the Jewish state. But, what most observers miss, is the fact that it will also be an oppressive obstacle to freedom for the Arab people.