Dov Weisglass-10/08/1007

Dov Weisglass, (Ynetnews)

"For several years the international community widely maintained that Palestinian terror would cease with the establishment of a Palestinian state: This notion, premised on the West's historic experience - which generally holds true - maintained that terror is implemented to achieve national objectives, and that a national group whose demands are met would cease to be involved in terror.

As a result, Israel was required to make diplomatic progress, under the assumption that a Palestinian state would naturally put an end to terror. Ariel Sharon's cabinet did not believe this would be the outcome: The obvious was not at all obvious and Israel demanded a different type of progress. Firstly, the cessation of terror and its demise, and only later diplomatic progress. And this is the exact diplomatic essence embodied in the slogan "no (diplomatic) talks under fire (terror)."  There is no dispute over the considerable risk inherent in the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state premised on the current state of Palestinian society - a society tainted by terror, crime, corruption and sectarianism.

Such a "state" would be a "notable" member of the organized international community, but terror against Israel would continue from within its ranks, while the IDF's ability to operate inside the Palestinian "state" would be significantly curbed due to constraints imposed by diplomatic, legal and international public opinion. Today, in order to prevent terror, Israeli security forces are in control and legally patrol the territories, held by Israel for the time being as a result of war. When a Palestinian state is established, in order to prevent terror our security forces would be required to invade the territory of a neighboring, sovereign and independent state recognized internationally by many states (more than those that recognize Israel,) and the difference between these two situations speaks for itself.

In his address on June 24th, 2002 President Bush assumed that the basis for diplomatic progress was different, reverse. His position, which was integrated into a document prepared by the International Quartet (and adopted in a United Nations General Assembly resolution was termed "The Road Map" - a plan for managing a reconciliation process between the State of Israel, the Palestinian people, and the Arab world."

Back to top