A Palestinian State and Regional Nuclear War
Louis Rene Beres
08 November 2001
President George Bush, along with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres,
has given his blessings to a Palestinian State. Pressed to this destabilizing
position by America´s new Islamic "partners" in the coalition fight against
terrorism, the US President misses one rather important consequence:
This new Arab state, heavy with the hatreds of other enemy states, will
inevitably give rise to new and more deadly terrorism. Most ominously of
all will be "Palestine´s" causal effect upon nuclear warfare in the Middle
East.
A Palestinian state should not be foolishly supported by the United States
for immediate and short-term needs. Because the creation of a state of
Palestine alongside the state of Israel will heighten the risk of regional
nuclear war considerably, this newest enemy state should be viewed with
real apprehension. Indeed, it´s creation could likely be a final step to bring
an Islamic "Final Solution" to the region.
Architects of the Oslo Agreements suggested all along that a "two-state
solution" to the Palestinian problem would substantially reduce the risk of
another major war in the Middle East. After all, we have always been told,
the problem of stateless Palestinians is the source of all other problems
between Israel and the Arabs. Once we have "justice" for Palestinians, the
argument proceeds, Arab governments and Iran will begin to create
area-wide stability and comprehensive peace settlements. Harmony shall
then reign, more or less triumphantly, from the Mediterranean and Red
Seas to the Persian Gulf. However, as we should have learned by now,
especially after recurring Arab violations of the "peace process"
agreements, the conventional Oslo wisdom was always unwise. For the
most part, Iranian and Arab state inclinations to war against Israel have
had absolutely nothing to do with the Palestinians. Even if Israel continued
to make all unilateral Oslo-based concessions and continued to adhere to
unreciprocated agreements, these belligerent inclinations would continue,
especially from Syria, Iraq and Libya as well as from Iran and Egypt.
If Israel soon faces a new state of Palestine, the Jewish state´s
vulnerability to armed attack by hostile neighbors will increase markedly.
If this diminished safety is accompanied by the spread of unconventional
weapons to hostile states, which now seems certain, Israel could find
itself confronting not only war, but genocide. Why? Most importantly, the
new state of Palestine will preoccupy Israeli military forces to a much
greater extent - much, much greater - than does the intifada. Even if it
were able to resist takeover by one of the other Islamic states in the
region, a takeover accomplished either directly or by insurgent surrogates,
Palestine will surely become a favored launching-point for renewed
(possibly even unconventional) terrorism against Israel. Various promises
notwithstanding, Islamic insurgents would continue to celebrate violence
against Israel as the essence of "national liberation."
Recognizing an "improved" configuration of forces vis-a-vis Israel, a
larger number of Islamic enemy states will calculate that they now
confront a smaller, more beleaguered adversary. Further, they will
understand that a coordinated effort by certain countries that possess or
are in the process of acquiring pertinent ballistic missiles could possibly
endanger Israel´s very survival. Taken together with the fact that global
support for Israel is always fickle, especially in perilous times like these,
and that individual or combined chemical/biological/nuclear warfare
capabilities could bring enormous harm to Israel, the creation of Palestine
will tip the balance of power in the Middle East decisively. The full
strategic implications for Israel of an independent Palestine should be
carefully appraised. If, in the end, such independence becomes the cause
of a nuclear war in the region, everyone, Palestinians as well as Jews, will
lose.
How, exactly, would a nuclear war begin in the reconfigured Middle East?
One possibility would be by Arab or Iranian first strikes against Israel.
These strikes could be nuclear (although this would likely be several years
away) or non-nuclear. In either scenario, Israel - especially if it feels
dangerously close to defeat - might resort to nuclear retaliation.
Alternatively, Israel, believing that substantial enemy attack -chemical,
biological, conventional, or nuclear - is imminent, could decide to
preempt. If, as we might expect, this preemption were entirely
non-nuclear, it could still fail to prevent the anticipated attack against
Israel. Here, Israeli nuclear weapons, having failed in their mission to
support conventional preemption by deterring enemy retaliation, might
also have to be used for purposes of nuclear warfare.
Israel has much to fear, more, perhaps, than any other state on the face of
the earth. Threatened by a growing number of adversaries with ballistic
missiles and with a corollary interest in nuclear warheads, Jerusalem
should know that full and codified transformation of Judea/Samaria and
Gaza into Palestine will provide its enemies with the means and the
incentives to destroy the Jewish State once and for all. Deprived of
essential "strategic depth" and beset internally with hostile Arab citizens
loyal only to "Palestine," Israel will become seriously vulnerable to total
defeat. Anguished by a possible end to the Third Temple Commonwealth,
the nation´s leaders will begin to think seriously about nuclear weapons as
a last resort (the so-called "Samson Option").
It follows that President Bush´s October 2nd endorsement of a Palestinian
state should be viewed with the most grave concern. Otherwise, Palestine,
looking first very much like Lebanon, will wind up as Armageddon.
---------------------
Louis Rene Beres is the author of Security or Armageddon: Israel’s
Nuclear Strategy and many other books and articles on the topic of
nuclear conflict. |
