A bad idea is being spread throughout the world: the State of Palestine. Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, recently said that there is a Palestinian state on the West’s agenda, regardless of whether the Palestinians are fulfilling their obligations under the road map or the Oslo Agreements from the 1990s. His conclusion is based on the Quartet’s (America, Russia, E.U., and U.N.) redefinition of the Roadmap peace plan, which excludes the principle of reciprocity.

“In August, [unelected] Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad announced a unilateral plan to establish a de facto Palestinian state in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem following a two-year statebuilding process. Fayad’s 54- page plan to build Palestinian infrastructure and establish Western-style public institutions is the first of its kind since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords. His state-building vision has already elicited Western enthusiasm and financial and political support from the Obama administration and European countries.

(www.americantaskforce.org.)

So what’s the problem with Fayad’s reasonable-sounding proposal? After all, even Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, of the center-right Likud Party, is in favor of a Palestinian state. The problem is that Fayad’s plan and the Quartet’s acceptance of it, ignore U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967), which deals with establishing permanent borders for Israel. It explicitly states that the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. The omission of the word “all” before “territories” is crucial to a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. It was precisely written to articulate that Israel need not withdraw entirely from territory siezed in its defense.

Prime Minister Fayad’s plan states: “If occupation has not ended by then [2011] and the nations of the world from China to Chile to Africa and to Australia are looking at us, they will say that the Palestinian people have a ready state on the ground. The only problem is the Israeli occupation [the Israeli communities and security presence] that should end.”

Israeli occupation of “Palestine” is the crux of the matter. Resolution 242 also mentions the right of all “States” in the region (there is no mention of a future Palestinian state!) to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. The Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria, commonly known as the West Bank after 1946, are vital to Israel and are indisputable facts on the ground.

Fayad’s plan calls for massive Palestinian development in areas controlled by Israeli troops, known as Area C, including Jewish communities with hundreds of thousands of Israeli residents. Included in the Fayad plan are an airport in the Jordan Valley, Palestinian control of Jerusalem’s Atarot airport, and water installation projects near Tulkarm and Kalkilya, two Palestinian cities adjacent to the Green Line (the 1949 Israeli-Arab Armistice line). These would constitute Palestinian facts on the ground.

Without the mass transfer of hundreds of thousands of Israelis from the West Bank, including neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Fayad’s “facts” are out of the question. Even if it were only the small Jewish communities far from large settlements that were dismantled, approximately 80,000 Israelis would need to be transferred. Meanwhile, Israel is still reeling from its 2005 evacuation of 8,000 Israelis from Gaza, most of whom are still not permanently housed.

Many would say that the transfer of Jews from the State of Palestine is just too bad and that Israel should never have built communities there. But that begs the question: What was the purpose of Resolution 242, which didn’t even envision a Palestinian state? Historical context is necessary to understand why Israeli settlements are permanent, except perhaps for a very few that would be abandoned at the time of a final peace treaty with defensible borders for Israel and the new Palestinian state.

Capsule history: In 1922 the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine was given to Britain to establish a home for the Jews, without prejudicing the rights of the small Arab population. Within weeks of receiving the Mandate, Britain reduced the size of the Mandate dramatically, giving all of the land east of the Jordan River (78 percent of the Mandate) to Emir Abdullah, which today constitutes the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Britain also prohibited Jewish settlement in many areas west of the Jordan while putting out the welcome mat for Arab immigrants.

In all of history there has never been a State of Palestine. The name “Palestine” refers to the Philistines, an ancient sea people from Asia Minor who inhabited the southern coast of Israel. “Philistine Syria” Greek) and “Provincia Syria Palaestina” (Roman) were names used to suppress the Jewish influence there. (www.palestinefacts.org.) After Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, the West Bank and Gazan Arabs failed to declare their own state or even agitate for one. Instead, Jordan occupied and then annexed the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. Israelis began to settle in both areas after winning the defensive Six Day War in 1967. Therefore, Jews have usurped no “Palestinian” state when settling anywhere in Mandate territory. The U.N. dealt with a solution to Israel’s permanent borders by passing Resolution 242 after the Six Day War of 1967. The recent and unwelcome neglect of 242 by the Quartet only complicates the resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Prime Minister Fayad’s plan isn’t all bad. The establishment of workable institutions by a Palestinian government intent on establishing permanent borders with Israel would be welcomed. But the unelected and independent Fayad has no political clout with Arabs, though he is praised by Western leaders. The Fatah Party, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, lost control of Gaza in 2006 to the avowedly terroristic Hamas organization, and has its hands full retaining power in the West Bank. Nor has Fatah turned over a new leaf by relinquishing its anti-Semitic agenda, which it transmits to the Palestinians from cradle to grave.

In addition, a State of Palestine that doesn’t include Gaza is problematic. For that matter, a Palestine that includes Gaza may be even more problematic, given its Hamas overlords and the fact that Gaza is separated from the West Bank by Israeli territory.

President Obama has blundered by his disregard of Resolution 242. His indifference to Israel’s security was evident immediately preceding the latest Roadmap peace plan. The Quartet’s leaders must face this issue: the Palestinians have never swerved from their goal of a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel, which would effectively destroy Israel.

The Palestinians won’t even consider the idea of Jewish residents living in their hoped-for state, while Arabs constitute one-fifth of Israel’s population and enjoy living standards that are among the highest in the Muslim world. And Israel is called an apartheid state! Do Quartet leaders really want to help establish a 23rd Arab state that doesn’t accept its Jewish neighbor and is by definition racist? If not, they should discard the bad idea of a unilateral Palestinian state. There will be room in the Middle East for “Palestine” when the Palestinians are ready for a just and lasting peace with Israel.

Stephen Kramer resided and worked in the Atlantic City area until 1991, when he moved to Israel with his wife, Michal Langweiler, and two sons. He can be reached at Sjk1@jhu.edu.