Stop Putting Words Into Hamas's Mouth--They Cannot Afford A Two-State Solution

Earlier, in a post Ever Stop To Think How Creating A Palestinian State Could Make Matters Worse In The Middle East?, I wrote about the analysis of the dynamics of a Palestinian state as outlined by Stratfor--specifically the tension that exists between Palestinian Arabs and the rest of the Arab world.

Strafor examines another problem.


The fact of the matter is that economically and financially, Gaza is nowhere near the West Bank. If a Palestinian state were created, the 2 territories would be incompatible with each other:

Therefore, one of :the immediate consequences of independence would be a massive outflow of Gazans to the West Bank. The economic conditions of the West Bank are better, but a massive inflow of hundreds of thousands of Gazans, for whom anything is better than what they had in Gaza, would buckle the West Bank economy. Tensions currently visible between the West Bank under Fatah and Gaza under Hamas would intensify. The West Bank could not absorb the population flow from Gaza, but the Gazans could not remain in Gaza except in virtually total dependence on foreign aid.

The only conceivable solution to the economic issue would be for Palestinians to seek work en masse in more dynamic economies. This would mean either emigration or entering the work force in Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Israel. Egypt has its own serious economic troubles, and Syria and Jordan are both too small to solve this problem — and that is completely apart from the political issues that would arise after such immigration. Therefore, the only economy that could employ surplus Palestinian labor is Israel’s.

On the one hand, the fact that the Palestinians need Israel for their state to work might seem to be a good reason for Fatah and Hamas to work out some kind of peace with Israel.

The problem is, that this is where the existence of the state of Israel is actually a threat to a proposed Palestinian state:

Security concerns apart, while the Israeli economy might be able to metabolize this labor, it would turn an independent Palestinian state into an Israeli economic dependency. The ability of the Israelis to control labor flows has always been one means for controlling Palestinian behavior. To move even more deeply into this relationship would mean an effective annulment of Palestinian independence. The degree to which Palestine would depend on Israeli labor markets would turn Palestine into an extension of the Israeli economy. And the driver of this will not be the West Bank, which might be able to create a viable economy over time, but Gaza, which cannot.

From this economic analysis flows the logic of Gaza’s Hamas. Accepting a Palestinian state along lines even approximating the 1948 partition, regardless of the status of Jerusalem, would not result in an independent Palestinian state in anything but name. Particularly for Gaza, it would solve nothing. Thus, the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel flows not only from ideology and/or religion, but from a rational analysis of what independence within the current geographical architecture would mean: a divided nation with profoundly different interests, one part utterly incapable of self-sufficiency, the other part potentially capable of it — but only if it jettisons responsibility for Gaza.

Therein lies the problem: to survive as an independent state, the Palestinian Arabs would need to eliminate Israel--but they do not have the independent means to do that. And the surrounding Arab countries, who are hostile to the Palestinians, are not about to help.

What an independent Palestinian state would need in order to survive is:

• The recreation of the state of hostilities that existed prior to Camp David between Egypt and Israel. Until Egypt is strong and hostile to Israel, there is no hope for the Palestinians.
• The overthrow of the Hashemite government of Jordan, and the movement of troops hostile to Israel to the Jordan River line.
• A major global power prepared to underwrite the military capabilities of Egypt and those of whatever eastern power moves into Jordan (Iraq, Iran, Turkey or a coalition of the foregoing).
• A shift in the correlation of forces between Israel and its immediate neighbors, which ultimately would result in the collapse of the Israeli state.

So once again we arrive at the point that the interests of the Palestinian Arabs in the creation of a state are in opposition to the interests of the Arab states. Add to that the Palestinians reaching out for help from the likes of Iran, and the hostility between the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world only gets worse. Going a step further, the survival of the Palestinian state would require weapons--something the US is unlikely to provide, meaning that they will have to look elsewhere, looking for a global power that would challenge the US.

Viewed from this perspective, the survival of a Palestinian state would require the other Arab states taking risks on their behalf.

The resulting conclusion is that:

Paradoxically, while the ultimate enemy of Palestine is Israel, the immediate enemy is always other Arab countries. For there to be a Palestine, there must be a sea change not only in the region, but in the global power configuration and in Israel’s strategic strength. The Palestinians can neither live with a two-state solution, nor achieve the destruction of Israel. Nor do they have room to retreat. They can’t go forward and they can’t go back. They are trapped, as Palestinians seemingly destined not to have a Palestine.

Now Stratfor's conclusions are not necessarily the only legitimate ones--but has the Obama administration, and its defenders, ever offered a analysis that goes beyond the oft-repeated, and increasingly contested, claim that creating a Palestinian state will by its very nature lead to greater stability and peace in the Middle East?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East and Gaza and West Bank.