(Moshe Phillips is a past board member of the American Zionist Movement and served as a delegate to the 38th World Zionist Congress.)
Israel last week carried out a rare airstrike on Arab terrorists in a Palestinian Authority city. It was logical and effective. But it was also a prime example of the kind of anti-terrorist action the Israelis will never be able to undertake if a Palestinian state is created.
In the past, Israel typically has sent ground troops into PA cities in pursuit of terrorists. But again and again, mobs of Palestinian Arab civilians have interfered by hurling rocks and firebombs at the soldiers as they try to advance.
Israeli soldiers also face additional danger when they surround the house where the terrorists are hiding. The terrorists inevitably fire on the soldiers, creating a standoff that buys time for other terrorists in the area to converge on the site and join the attack. Sometimes the sieges have continued all night long.
So a targeted airstrike, like this week’s strike in Tulkarm, makes sense. Yes, air strikes involve a greater risk of casualties to civilians in the area. But that’s an inevitable part of every war. Concern about civilian casualties never stopped the American air force from bombing Nazis in World War II, or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
The Tulkarm airstrike was a success. It killed nine Palestinian terrorists, including the leader of the Hamas branch in Tulkarm.
You may wonder how it is that there’s a branch of Hamas operating in a Palestinian Authority city such as Tulkarm. After all, when the PA signed the Oslo Accords back in 1993-1995, it explicitly accepted the obligation to root out terrorists.
The text of Oslo II requires the PA security forces to “apprehend, investigate and prosecute perpetrators and all other persons directly or indirectly involved in acts of terrorism, violence and incitement.” (Annex I, Article II, 3-c).
There’s no doubt the PA has enough manpower to do the job. In fact, more than enough. The original 12,000-man police force that the Oslo Accords authorized have illegally ballooned into a 60,000-man de-facto army. That makes it the sixth-largest per-capita security force in the world—1,250 “police officers” per 100,000 people.
Yet here we are, more than thirty years later, and the PA still refuses to use its security forces against terrorists. It treats Hamas like its brothers, not its enemies. That’s why Hamas openly flourishes in a PA city such as Tulkarm. Hamas terrorists are not arrested. They are not disarmed. Their weapons depots are not seized. Israel’s extradition requests are ignored. The PA won’t even outlaw Hamas.
Now, let’s assume for the sake of argument that a Palestinian state is established in Judea-Samaria, as the State Department,
J Street, and the United Nations are always demanding. Tulkarm would certainly be part of it, since it’s the sixth-largest PA city. There’s no way the PA is going to turn Tulkarm over to Israel.
There are two important consequences to Tulkarm being part of a “State of Palestine.” First, Tulkarm sits adjacent to the armistice lines of 1967, at Israel’s most narrow point along the Mediterranean coast. Meaning that Israel would be less than 9.5 miles wide again, as it was between 1949 and 1967. That’s less than 36% of the length of the New York City Marathon and five miles less than Hamas terrorists invaded into Israel on October 7th.
The second consequence is that Israel would never be able to use its air power against terrorists in Tulkarm. “Palestine” would employ its anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down the Israeli aircraft. And, of course, the international community would side with the Palestinians.
Sending planes or drones into the air space of another country is a violation of that country’s sovereignty—and therefore it has every right to respond. Israel would face not only worldwide condemnations, but probably international sanctions as well.
All of which is yet another reminder that the creation of a Palestinian state would pose mortal danger to Israel—and that no matter how many times the phrase “two-state solution” is repeated, it’s still a wolf in sheep’s clothing.